# Topic Recommendation to Expand Knowledge and Interest in Question-and-Answer Agents
## 5 Result  
### Questionnaire Analysis  
The TAM evaluates a user's acceptance based on three sections: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and intention to use [30]. The questionnaire and its results are shown in Table 2. For all participants, there was no significant difference between giving depth-oriented options and giving options from various subjects. We rotated mean value with M and standard deviation with SD. Against the random strategy (M = 3.56, SD = 1.265), specifically, both the depth-oriented strategy (M = 3.96, SD = 0.879; \(p<0.05\)) and strategy of various subjects (M = 4.02, SD = 1.059; \(p<0.05\)) resulted in participants wanting to visit the museum, and to explore the information introduced by the agents in general (Q12). Participants recognized that the depth-oriented strategy was better than that of the random one for three reasons (Q1, Q5, Q9). Moreover, all three of these reasons were related to the participants' self-regulated choosing of questions from given selections. In the case of selections given from various subjects, participants replied that it was better than the random strategy for two reasons (Q3, Q4). Q3's result is related to the will to explore more information. Q4's results signified that participants' exploration of diverse subjects (M = 3.86, SD = 0.947) made them feel more knowledgeable about the subject compared to the random strategy (M = 3.28, SD = 1.143; \(p<0.01\)).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|l|c|c|c|c} \hline
**TAM** & **No.** & **Questionnaires** & **All Participants (n = 50)** & **Keep Going (n = 25)** & **What Else (n = 31)** & **Whatever (n = 23)** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Perceived Usefulness} & 1 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Selections help the \\ subsequential information \\ exploration with themes I \\ focused on \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **\(\stackrel{{\makebox[0.0 pt]{\makebox[0.  
In addition, we divided all the participants into three groups according to model preference. We scored the preference of each participant by the sum of their \"willingness to use\" (Q10, Q11, Q12). We named them: 'Keep going' (a group of 25 participants who preferred the depth-oriented model), 'What else' (a group of 31 participants who preferred the various subjects model), and 'Whatever' (a group of 23 participants who preferred the random model) for each group. There were tied scores between models for individual participants (15 tied scores between the depth-oriented and various subjects models, 13 between the depth-oriented and random models, and 11 between the various subjects and random models), and we excluded ties from the analysis on each preference group. 'Keep going' had a strong preference for depth-oriented exploration over the others (Q3) and they felt that agents with other strategies do not reflect well what they wanted to ask (Q8). Moreover, 'Keep going' felt easy about selecting next turns from depth-oriented (M = 4.1, SD = 0.737) rather than various subjects (M = 3.1, SD = 0.875; \(p<0.01\)) models (Q9). For 'What else,' significant differences between various subjects and others were related to helping the information exploration with focused subjects (Q1) and the ease of selecting the next turns (Q9). Moreover, they responded that the various-subjects model (M = 3.777, SD = 0.666) helped them get to know subjects on a deeper level than the depth-oriented model (M = 3.222, SD = 0.441; \(p<0.05\)) (Q4). Aside from the differences between context-based strategies, 'Whatever' show significant differences between random and others in the perceived ease of use section. They responded that others suggested more difficult questions than they expected (Q6) and that randomly given suggestions reflected well what they wanted to know (Q5) and that it was easy to select questions for the next turns (Q9).