# VIS-HAPT: A Methodology Proposal to Develop Visuo-Haptic Environments in Education 4.0
## 5 VIS-HAPT Methodology, Results and Discussion
### Comparative Study of the Times Used for Each Phase with and without VIS-HAPT Methodology
#### 5.3.3 Student Perception Surveys  
In addition to recording times for the design, development, calibration and testing, as well as application and field studies, usability studies for the visuo-haptic environments were also performed based on students' perception questionnaires after experimenting with the visuo-haptic simulators. Figure 13 shows some images of students working with the visuo-haptic simulators of electrical forces in the laboratory.  
The questions of the instrument used to study students' perceptions are presented in Table 4. A three-step Likert-scale was used, where 1 = disagreement or total disagreement; 2 = neutral; and 3 = agreement or total agreement.  
From Table 4, students' perceptions of the use of the electric force visuo-haptic simulators were very positive for all questions and for the two approaches, without methodology or with methodology. Furthermore, a closer look at the values reveals that the students' perceptions were even better for the case with the proposed methodology. In this latter case, no student rated any question with a score of \"1\", and more than 90% of them assigned \"3\" to all items.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**ID** & **Perception Question** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Without Methodology**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**With VIS-HAPT Methodology**} \\ \hline  & 1 & 2 & 3 & 1 & 2 & 3 \\ \hline PQ1 & Comprehension of force behavior & 5\% & 3\% & 92\% & 0\% & 3\% & 97\% \\ \hline PQ2 & Simple and intuitive manipulation & 5\% & 9\% & 86\% & 0\% & 8\% & 92\% \\ \hline PQ3 & Appropriate and attractive visualization & 8\% & 20\% & 72\% & 0\% & 7\% & 93\% \\ \hline PQ4 & Helped to understand electric forces & 6\% & 0\% & 94\% & 0\% & 3\% & 97\% \\ \hline PQ5 & Recommend using visuo-haptic simulators & 5\% & 0 & 95\% & 0\% & 2\% & 98\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Questions on the exit perception survey for electric force simulators, adapted from [28] without methodology and [6] with the proposed methodology.  
Figure 13: Students interacting with the visuo-haptic environments of electrical forces.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Phase** & **Average Time (h)** & **Difference in Times (h)** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Hypotheses Test** \\ **of Paired Samples** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline  &
\begin{tabular}{c} Without \\ Methodology \\ \end{tabular} & With Methodology & \(p\)-value \\ \hline Learning & & & & \\ experience design & 36.5 & 21.0 & 15.5 & 0.0000 \\ time & & & & \\ (technological model) & 27.8 & 8.5 & 19.3 & 0.0000 \\ \hline Calibration and testing & 18.2 & 13.5 & 4.7 & 0.0296 \\ \hline Application and field studies & 15.5 & 11.2 & 4.3 & 0.1040 \\ \hline Total & 98.0 & 54.2 & 43.8 & 0.0005 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Hypotheses test of the paired samples of reported times with and without VIS-HAPT methodology.  
A hypothesis test of the comparison of percentages, using [PERSON]'s exact method, was carried out with Minitab for the results of Table 4. It is presented in Table 5, with \(H_{0}:\mu_{with}=\mu_{without}\) and \(H_{1}:\mu_{with}<\mu_{without}\). In all cases, a higher proportion of agreement and total agreement students using the environments with methodology than without was obtained. However, the difference was only significant at the level of \(\alpha=0.05\) in item PQ3 (appropriate and attractive visualization).