# Developing an Institutional AI Digital Assistant in an Age of Industry 5.0
## 4 Results
### RQ2 Design Features of i-AIDA That Encourage Engagement
#### 4.2.1 AIDA Features and TAM  
The introductory video, which served as the first task, was generally perceived as informative and engaging. However, some participants raised concerns about the avatars, noting their unnatural appearance and robotic tone. One participant remarked that \"they speak way too fast\", adding that a particular avatar was \"too distracting...I was looking at her instead of listening to what she was saying\" (ID19). The fast pace of the narration also made it difficult for some to follow the content. Figure 5: Student perceptions about i-AIDA before and after engagement (n positive = 10, n not so positive = 7). Despite these issues, the video sparked curiosity and a strong interest in testing the tool, particularly the dynamic text feature. As one participant explained, \"It was quite encouraging for engagement...I liked how it said it would be thought-provoking.\" (ID4). For some, the video reinforced a positive first impression of i-AIDA as a course-specific assistant, clearly distinct from general AI tools like ChatGPT. Participants generally had a positive experience interacting with the chat function. They described the responses as clear, detailed, well-structured, and supportive. Many valued its structured responses, friendly tone, and course-specific guidance, with one noting, \"it really fell like talking to an instructor [...] it's quite useful\" (ID6). Features such as personalized study schedules and source referencing were particularly appreciated. However, some criticized the tool for being overly wordy or slow and suggested improvements in design and response speed. As one participant remarked, \"I'd rather it just did what ChatGPT did and just bang [...] it's a little bit slow\" (ID10). Despite this, the tool's relevance to students' study contexts and ability to offer practical suggestions were seen as clear strengths. The quiz feature was described as intuitive, accessible, and visually clear. One participant noted, \"It was simple, it was easy to use, it's user-friendly [...] it was really interesting\" (ID4). Gamified elements such as leaderboards and progress tracking were seen as motivating by some, particularly competitive learners. However, others called for feedback or incorrect answers and clear feedback for improvement. The use of closed questions was questioned, especially for disciplines like arts and social sciences, where open-ended formats may better support critical thinking. As one participant observed, \"I don't know the purpose of the quiz, but it looks too naive to me [...] I am expecting more sophisticated guidance from AIDA\" (ID3). Several participants described using the flashcards as a smooth and engaging experience, praising their simplicity, responsiveness, and ease of use. One participant noted, \"It's simple, it's easy to use, it's given you a quick response\" (ID4). The interactive \"flip\" design was seen as appealing, and the option to download flashcards was viewed as a positive possibility. Some appreciated the clear link between flashcard content and the course, suggesting potential for deeper engagement if expanded. However, not all found the tool useful as one participant remarked: \"These flashcards are very, very basic.\" (ID5). Suggestions included making the content more advanced and offering reverse or student-generated formats to enhance flexibility and relevance.