## 4 Experimental Results
### Subjective Measures
#### 4.3.3 Result and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c l} \hline \hline
**No.** & **Question Description** \\ \hline Q1 & I felt like I learned in this environment. \\ \hline Q2 & This environment provided the appropriate tools necessary for me to learn. \\ \hline Q3 & I forgot about my surroundings while experiencing this environment. \\ \hline Q4 & I felt confident expressing ideas in this environment. \\ \hline Q5 & I felt engaged in this environment. \\ \hline Q6 & I found that the technology was easy to use. \\ \hline Q7 & I found this to be a comfortable learning environment. \\ \hline Q8 & This was a fun experience. \\ \hline Q9 & I would take a lesson in this format if it was offered. \\ \hline Q10 & The tools provided by the learning environment were useful during the discussion. \\ \hline Q11 & The learning in this environment was realistic. \\ \hline Q12 & The explanations of an expert in this environment were helpful. \\ \hline Q13 & I felt that the HMD was comfortable enough that it did not interfere with learning. \\ \hline Q14 & Given a choice, I would choose this environment over the current dedicated viewer. \\ \hline Q15 & The learning in this environment was more helpful than the viewer-based learning. \\ \hline Q16 & The learning in this environment was more interesting than the viewer-based learning. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Subjective questionnaire. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**No. ** & \(Z\) & \(p\) & **No. ** & \(Z\) & \(p\) & **No. ** & \(Z\) & \(p\) \\ \hline Q1 & \(-3.934\) & \(<\)0.001 & Q5 & \(-4.053\) & \(<\)0.001 & Q9 & \(  
For the questions comparing the preferences between the IVR-SDO education system and Helioiviewer, the following results were obtained: nearly 70% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that, given the option, they would choose the proposed environment over the current dedicated viewer (Q14, mean \(\pm\) SD = 4.20 \(\pm\) 1.02). Most participants agreed or strongly agreed that learning in the proposed environment was more helpful (Q15, mean \(\pm\) SD = 4.40 \(\pm\) 0.75) and interesting (Q16, mean \(\pm\) SD = 4.70 \(\pm\) 057) than viewer-based learning. The participants were asked to freely share their opinions after using the IVR-SDO education system. Positive answers include: \"It was nice to be able to see more diverse images simultaneously and more realistically.\"; \"The education method was interesting, and the virtual environment was impressive.\"; \"The great advantage is that it provides a greater sense of immersion than a dedicated viewer, and that we can see various environments at once.\"; \"Above all, the greatest advantage is that it enables communication with experts and among class participants.\"; \"My concentration was definitely higher than when using the dedicated viewer, and I felt that it was more realistic.\"; \"It is more intuitive than a normal screen and makes learning interesting. I think it will be possible to experience realistic learning.\" Participants provided a mixture of positive and constructive comments, including \"If I could select things using the controller, I would have used it like a viewer.\" and \"It was a fresh experience. It would have been more interesting if 3D modeling of the sun was possible.\" Comments expressing hope for improvement included \"The HMD equipment was heavy\" and \"It was good in terms of immersion, but the dedicated viewer seems to be better for intuitive explanation (operation).\"