## 3 Results  
The analysis of the data was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 29. The methods included both descriptive and inferential statistics. The results are summarised below in relation to the three key research questions of the study. RQ1: What Was the Quality of the Social Learning Experience in a Group of Students Playing Planning Poker? In order to answer the first research question, descriptive statistics were computed for all 20 items of the shortened learning experience scale. In the second step, the four negatively formulated items were recoded and the internal consistency of the scale computed using reliability statistics. The measured consistency of the new scale was high with \(\alpha\) = 0.897 ([PERSON]'s Alpha) and \(\alpha\) = 0.904 (Cronbach's Alpha on Standardised Items). The total score of the scale was M = 3.325 (Min. 1.891; Max. 4.152). The item statistics are summarised in Table 3 below. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline
**Item (No.)** & **Item (Statement)** \\ \hline
21 & The interaction with [PERSON] was helpful to understand how to play planning poker. \\
22 & The interaction with [PERSON] during planning poker was interesting. \\
23 & The interaction with [PERSON] during planning poker was exciting. \\
24 & The interaction with [PERSON] during planning poker was motivating. \\
25 & The interaction with [PERSON] during planning poker was frustrating. \\
26 & The interaction with [PERSON] was disappointing. \\
27 & I feel confident in agile estimation after playing planning poker with [PERSON]. \\
28 & I would like to play planning poker with [PERSON] again. \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Survey items related to the robot-supported learning experience applied in the evaluation study. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Item** & **Mean** & **Std. Deviation** \\ \hline
1. I was deeply concentrated while playing planning poker in my team. & 3.57 & 0.981 \\ \hline
2. I forgot about time passing while playing planning poker in & 3.43 & 1.186 \\ my team. & & 3.78 & 1.024 \\ \hline
3. Playing planning poker in a team was fun. & 3.87 & 1.024 \\ \hline
4. I felt bored while playing planning poker in a team. * & 1.93 & 1.063 \\ \hline
5. I really enjoyed playing planning poker in a team. & 3.48 & 0.960 \\ \hline
6. I felt frustrated while playing planning poker in a team. * & 1.89 & 1.159 \\ \hline
7. Planning poker in a team is an easier way to learn than & 3.78 & 0.964 \\ usual teaching. & & 3.78 & 0.964 \\ \hline
8. Planning poker in a team makes learning more interesting. & 4.02 & 0.774 \\ \hline
9. I feel that the game planning poker in a team increased & 3.46 & 0.936 \\ my knowledge. & & 3.91 & 1.092 \\ \hline
10. I understood agile estimation by playing planning poker in a team. & 3.91 & 1.092 \\ \hline
11. I will definitely try to apply what I learned by playing & 3.70 & 1.072 \\ planning poker. & & 4.15 & 1.095 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Item statistics of the shortened Learning Experience Scale, n = 46. Rating on a five-point scale: “Strongly Agree” (5), “Agree” (4); “Neutral” (3); “Disagree” (2); “Strongly Disagree” (1). The results show that the study participants rated their social learning experience during planning poker in the small group in a positive way. All values of positively formulated items were above the \"neutral\" score (3). The highest values were reached for item 12 \"Planning poker in a team was easy to learn\" (M = 4.15) and item 8 \"Planning poker in a team makes learning more interesting\" (M = 4.02). Next items with high ratings were item 10 \"I understood agile estimation by playing planning poker in a team\" (M = 3.91), item 3 \"Playing planning poker in a team was fun\" (M = 3.87), item 8 \"Planning poker in a team is an easier way to learn than usual teaching\" (M = 3.78), and item 11 \"I will definitely try to apply what I learned by playing planning poker\" (M = 3.70).