# Analyzing the Impact of a Structured LLM Workshop in Different Education Levels
## 3 Results
### Surveys and Interviews
#### 3.2.2 Data Analysis Methods  
Questions Q24, Q26, Q28, Q29, Q31, and Q32 were analyzed to verify both the overall validity of the gathered data and the group distribution dependent on participant type. All of them are a part of the previously defined Results category, with the exception of Q29 and Q28, which are members of the General category. The answer type of the questions is best suited for our analysis.  
The normalization of each chosen question was checked using the SPSS version 25 software [29]. A zero hypothesis H0 was formed; it states that the data from the sample is normalized. Using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the data was analyzed and H0 was proven wrong--the asymptotic sigma values are below 0.05. The exact analysis result values for the category \"RESULTS\" can be seen in Table 4.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Education Type**} & **Age** & **Group** & **Number** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Study Level**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Gender**} \\  & **(in Years)** & **Name** & & & **Percentage** & **M** & **F** \\ \hline High School of & \multirow{2}{*}{18–19} & \multirow{2}{*}{12 Math} & \multirow{2}{*}{21} & High school & \multirow{2}{*}{45\%} & \multirow{2}{*}{55\%} \\ Mathematics & & & & & grade 12 & \\ \hline English Language & \multirow{2}{*}{17–18} & \multirow{2}{*}{11 ELS} & \multirow{2}{*}{60} & High school & \multirow{2}{*}{42\%} & \multirow{2}{*}{58\%} \\ School & & & & grade 11 & \\ \hline English Language & \multirow{2}{*}{18–19} & \multirow{2}{*}{12 ELS} & \multirow{2}{*}{34} & High school & \multirow{2}{*}{46\%} & \multirow{2}{*}{54\%} \\ School & & & grade 12 & & grade 12 & \\ \hline Ruse & \multirow{2}{*}{21–22} & \multirow{2}{*}{3 SE} & \multirow{2}{*}{15} & University & \multirow{2}{*}{92\%} & \multirow{2}{*}{8\%} \\ University—Software & & & & & 3 rd year & \\ engineering, 3 rd year & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Survey participant property distribution.  
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality shows that \(p\)-value = 0.000 is less than 0.05. Therefore, we must reject the null hypothesis; in other words, the data are not normally distributed. Therefore, we must use nonparametric tests.  
The descriptive statistics for five variables indicate that the average is bigger than 3: Q24 reveals a mean of 3.33 (SD = 0.989) which shows a tendency toward answers showing less deviation in ChatGPT results from participants' expectations; Q26 reveals a mean of 3.73 (SD = 0.900) which shows a tendency toward answers that show increased prompt effectiveness; Q28 reveals a mean of 3.46 (SD = 1.019) which shows a tendency toward positive answers for the future use of LLM tools for code and content generation by participants; Q29 reveals a mean of 3.48 (SD = 0.955) which shows a tendency toward answers that show increased interest in the subject related to the workshop; Q31 reveals a mean of 3.88 (SD = 0.896) which indicates a tendency toward answers that imply successful general task completion while working in tandem with LLMs. The descriptive statistics for Q32 reveal a mean of 2.81 (SD = 0.929), indicating the average is lesser than 3, which shows a tendency toward negative answers. It can be concluded that most participants did not find it difficult to work with LLM tools.