# Analyzing the Impact of a Structured LLM Workshop in Different Education Levels
## 3 Results
### Surveys and Interviews
#### 3.2.3 Group Comparison Analysis  
The four distinct groups that were analyzed were 11 ELS, 12 ELS, 12 Math, and 3 SE, as described in Table 3.  
The Q24 result analysis (seen in Table 5 and Figure 5) shows that groups 12 ELS and 3 SE met fewer difficulties in tone or style change while creating their story. An interesting conclusion can be made that due to their level of language skills, their way of expression can be defined as better than the other participants. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Descriptive Statistics**} \\ \hline  & **N** & **Mean** & **Std. Deviation** & **Minimum** & **Maximum** \\ \hline Q24 & 128 & 3.33 & 0.989 & 1 & 5 \\ Q26 & 128 & 3.73 & 0.900 & 1 & 5 \\ Q28 & 128 & 3.46 & 1.019 & 1 & 5 \\ Q29 & 128 & 3.48 & 0.955 & 1 & 5 \\ Q31 & 128 & 3.88 & 0.896 & 1 & 5 \\ Q32 & 128 & 2.81 & 0.929 & 1 & 5 \\ \hline  & & & Q32. & Q31. & Q29. & Q28. & Q26. & Q24. \\ \hline N & & & 128 & 128 & 128 & 128 & 128 & 128 \\  & Mean & 2.81 & 3.88 & 3.48 & 3.46 & 3.73 & 3.33 \\ Normal Parameters a,b & Std. & 0.929 & 0.896 & 0.955 & 1.019 & 0.900 & 0.989 \\  & Deviation & 0.236 & 0.212 & 0.254 & 0.221 & 0.249 & 0.216 \\  & Absolute & 0.225 & 0.179 & 0.254 & 0.221 & 0.189 & 0.216 \\ Most Extreme Differences & Positive & \(-\)0.236 & \(-\)0.212 & \(-\)0.200 & \(-\)0.193 & \(-\)0.249 & \(-\)0.198 \\ Test Statistic & & 0.236 & 0.212 & 0.254 & 0.221 & 0.249 & 0.216 \\ Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) & & 0.000 c & 0.000 c & 0.000 c & 0.000 c & 0.000 c & 0.000 c \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Test distribution is normal. b Calculated from data. c Lilliefors significance correction.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: One-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for the questions that were chosen for analysis: descriptive, statistic, and analytic data. Results for Q26 (seen in Table 6 and Figure 6) show that the visual descriptive skills of group 12 Math were a bit lower overall, but in general, the distribution of results is similar for every group. The gap is too small to be of statistical significance. It can be concluded that all groups have similar skill levels. Question Q28 (seen in Table 7 and Figure 7) evaluates the desire of the students to continue using LLMs in the future. The answer distribution shows that the more technical and tech-oriented participants (groups 12 Math and 3 SE) were most influenced by the usage of such tools and are more likely to continue using them in the future. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Q26. How Close Was the Image Generated to What You Wanted to Create? How Effective Were Your Prompts?**} \\  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**(Not at All 1—Perfectly Alike 5)**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**1—Not at All**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**2—Rather Not**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**3—Almost**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**4—Alike**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**5—Perfectly Alike**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Blank**} \\ \hline
**Group** & \(n\) & **Friq** & **Friq \%** & **Friq \%** & **Friq \%** & **Friq \%** & **Friq \%** & **Friq \%** & **Friq \%** & **Friq \%** & **Friq \%** \\ \hline
11 ELS & 60 & 1 & 1.67\% & 4 & 6.67\% & 15 & 25.00\% & 29 & 48.33\% & 11 & 18.33\% & 0.00\% \\ \hline
12 ELS & 34 & 0 & 0.00\% & 2 & 5.88\% & 11 & 32.35\% & 15 & 44.12\% & 5 & 14.71\% & 2.94\% \\ \hline
12 Math & 21 & 0 & 0.00\% & 2 & 9.52\% & 8 & 38.10\% & 4 & 19.05\% & 6 & 28.57\% & 0.00\% \\ \hline
3 SE & 15 & 0 & 0.00\% & 0 & 0.00\% & 3 & 20.00\% & 8 & 53.33\% & 3 & 20.00\% & 6.67\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Q26 result analysis result percentage distribution. Figure 5: Q24 result analysis result result distribution.