## 5 Performance Evaluation
### Performance in Terms of Learner Engagement  
To check the productivity of the current framework in the institution, the Government Girls Secondary School in Trag, Punjab, Pakistan, was selected to carry out a case study with the learners. We assessed the framework to determine whether it enhances the quality of learning. In the initial stage, we registered teachers and parents with the system to enable automatic communication. Every month, automatic reports were sent to the parents, and the system's performance was evaluated every month in parent-teacher meetings.  
As we can observe in Figure 5, students connected to the smart system experienced a significant increase in the number completing their homework, rising from 100 to 499 students. Similarly, student complaints have also decreased, possibly because the system informs their parents about each complaint.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Type of Test** & **Updating of Data on the Fog Servers** \\ \hline Source Device & Smartphone \\ Target Device & Fog Server \\ Expected results & Success in full data updating \\ Status & Success \\ Response time & 0.01 ms \\ Avg execution time & 3 ms \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Updating of data on the fog servers.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Type of Test** & **Updating of Data on the Cloud Servers** \\ \hline Source Device & Smartphone \\ Target Device & Fog Server \\ Expected results & Success in full data updating \\ Status & Success \\ Response time & 0.01 ms \\ Avg execution time & 500 ms \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Updating of data on the cloud servers.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Devices** & **Protocols Used in the Simulation** \\ \hline Camera & ICMP \\ Laptop & ICMP, ARP \\ Server & IoT, ICMP, STP \\ Smart-board & IoT, ICMP, STP \\ Cellular Network & IoT, ICMP, STP \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: Protocols used in the simulation.  
Additionally (as shown in Figure 6), the pass rates for the academic years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 are as follows: For the academic year 2018-2019, the monthly progress reports of learners with more than 40% marks were 28%, 30%, 28%, 35%, 43%, 55%, 66%, 72%, and 72%, respectively. For the academic year 2019-2020, the rates were 18%, 23%, 20%, 30%, 35%, 47%, 50%, 60%, and 63%, respectively. The academic year 2019-2020, which involved active communication between parents and children through the system, demonstrated great success.  
The productivity of students whose parents received system notifications about their attendance and homework was higher than that of those whose parents did not receive such notifications, as shown in Figure 7. The parents who were notified by the system about their children saw attendance increase to 50%, 58%, 50%, 60%, 60%, 64%, 67%, 70%, and 70%, respectively, while the learners whose parents were not connected to the system were at 22%, 25%, 20%, 30%, 30%, 26%, 29%, 28%, and 28%, respectively. Furthermore, the homework progress of students whose parents were connected to the system is 25%, 40%, 33%, 45%, 58%, 66%, 69%, 69%, and 69%, respectively, and similarly, those who were not connected to the system are at 15%, 18%, 11%, 15%, 20%, 21%, 21%, 21%, and 22%, respectively.  
At the end of the year, 90% of the complaints were registered in the complaint register (as shown in Figure 7); this belonged to the learners whose parents were not connected to the system or who did not cooperate in parent-teacher meetings.  
Figure 5: Student engagement for the academic year 2019–2020.  
Figure 6: Comparison of learner outcomes for the academic year 2019–2020 between (i) those who were connected to the system and (ii) those who were not connected to the system.