## 3 Results
### Percentage Distributions of the Likert-Scale Items
#### 3.3.2 Classroom, Methodology, and Resources  
This subsection summarises the percentage results for the seven items (Table 3) concerning the physical and pedagogical learning environment. The evaluated aspects include the adequacy of the classroom and furniture, the availability of technical resources, the relevance and effectiveness of the teaching methodology, the balance between theoretical \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Items** & **Grade** & **Group A** & **Group B** & **Group C** & **Total** \\  & **of Satisfaction** & **(_n = 28_)** & **(_n = 28_)** & **(_n = 21_)** & **(_N = 77_)** \\ \hline Q1 & Unsatisfactory 1 & 0.0 & 3.6 & 4.8 & 2.6 \\  & Neutral & 7.1 & 3.6 & 4.8 & 5.2 \\  & Satisfactory 2 & 92.9 & 92.9 & 90.5 & 92.2 \\ Q2 & Unsatisfactory 1 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 4.8 & 1.3 \\  & Neutral & 17.9 & 3.6 & 4.8 & 9.1 \\  & Satisfactory 2 & 82.1 & 96.4 & 90.5 & 89.6 \\ Q3 & Unsatisfactory 1 & 3.6 & 0.0 & 4.8 & 2.6 \\  & Neutral & 7.1 & 0.0 & 4.8 & 3.9 \\  & Satisfactory 2 & 89.3 & 100.0 & 90.5 & 93.5 \\ Q4 * & Unsatisfactory 1 & 28.6 & 14.3 & 0.0 & 15.6 \\  & Neutral & 25.0 & 21.4 & 14.3 & 20.8 \\  & Satisfactory 2 & 46.4 & 64.3 & 85.7 & 63.6 \\ Q5 & Unsatisfactory 1 & 3.6 & 0.0 & 14.3 & 5.2 \\  & Neutral & 7.1 & 21.4 & 0.0 & 10.4 \\  & Satisfactory 2 & 89.3 & 78.6 & 85.7 & 84.4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Note: Q4 was excluded from the internal consistency analysis due to a squared multiple correlation below 0.2. It is included here for completeness and transparency. 1 Unsatisfactory or very unsatisfactory. 2 Satisfaction or very satisfactory.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Percentages (%) of pre-service teachers’ ratings on course organisation. and practical components, the perceived interest of the course content, the suitability of the proposed learning activities, and the quality of the documentation provided. For this case, the percentage of participants selecting \"Satisfactory\" or \"Very satisfactory\" (responses 4 and 5) ranged from 67.5% to 96.1%, with Q7--regarding the availability of technical resources (e.g., projector, Wi-Fi)--having a notably lower satisfaction rate of 67.5%. All other items in this dimension achieved satisfaction rates above 85%. Neutral responses (score 3) ranged from 1.3% to 16.9%, with question Q7 again recording the highest neutral percentage at 16.9%. Dissatisfaction (responses 1 and 2) was generally low, between 1.3% and 15.6%, with item Q7 reaching the upper limit at 15.6%. This lower satisfaction aligns with known issues in some classrooms, particularly for Group B, where the university Wi-Fi connection was reported to be unreliable. This result aligns with the statistical analysis described in Section 3.2. When examined by group, the following observations were made:  
Group A reported satisfaction levels between 75.0% and 96.4%, neutral responses from 0% to 21.4%, and dissatisfaction ranging from 0% to 7.1%. Group B showed a wider range of satisfaction from 46.4% to 96.4%, with neutral responses between 3.6% and 21.4%, and dissatisfaction ranging up to 32.1%. Regarding question 7, satisfaction stood at 46.4%, neutral responses at 21.4%, and dissatisfaction at 32.1%, highlighting significant concerns about technical resources for this group. Group C demonstrated satisfaction rates from 85.7% to 95.2%, neutral responses between 0% and 9.5%, and dissatisfaction rates from 4.8% to 9.5%. Overall, while satisfaction was generally high across this dimension, issues with technical resources (item Q7) notably impacted participant perceptions, especially in Group B, confirming the importance of addressing these infrastructure challenges to support effective course delivery.