## 4 Experimental Evaluations
### Methods and Results
The majority of them enjoyed more their interaction with the educational environment and also had a better opinion about the training activities. The analyses show that GroupB considered the learning activities with the companion of the embodied pedagogical agents more attractive, which in turn, enhanced their interest and motivation in studying, and thus their engagement with the activities and the course (84.72% vs. 80.56%). What is more, GroupB also stated that they felt to be more confident during the training activities (84.72 % vs. 76.39%). The SUS questionnaires point out that all students had a good experience of the environment's usability and the pedagogical agents as learning companions. The GroupA score was 72, while the score of GroupB was 79, which shows that GroupB had a better learning experience in terms of interaction with the 3D virtual world environment and the pedagogical agents. Another analysis concerns the examination of students' behavior in the virtual environment. We examined and compared the actions and the behavior of the two groups, and learning metrics were calculated as presented and explained in Table 4.  
The results were very interesting and encouraging and revealed that the embodied pedagogical agents in the second scenario provided students with greater and more intense support during their study. An interesting metric was the time that students spent studying in the system. In the second scenario, the embodied pedagogical agents assisted students in getting higher levels of engagement, as seen from the longer study hours. Another interesting aspect concerns the students from the second scenario who had a better learning experience and got better scores at the exercises. These scores concern the self-evaluation exercises that were multiple choice questions in the virtual environment. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Metric** & **GroupA** & **GroupB** \\ \hline Time spent studying in the AVARES 3D virtual world environment & 33.33 (hours) & 39.25 (hours) \\ Mean value of students performance in the system’s training activities and exercises & 5.1/10 & 6.2/10 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Analysis of the students’ actions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Question**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**GroupA**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**GroupB**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Disagree/Strongly** & **Neutral** & **Agree/Strongly** & **Disagree/Strongly** & **Neutral** & **Agree/Strongly** \\  & **Disagree** & & **Agree** & **Disagree** & **Disagree** & **Agree** \\ \hline I enjoyed using the 3D & & & & & & \\ virtual reality environment & 2.78\% & 34.72\% & 62.50\% & 2.78\% & 20.83\% & 76.39\% \\ The assistance during the & & & & & & \\ learning activities was & 5.56\% & 20.83\% & 73.61\% & 4.17\% & 15.28\% & 80.56\% \\ helpful and assisted me. & & & & & & \\ I feel comfortable and & & & & & & \\ confident during the & 4.17\% & 19.44\% & 76.39\% & 2.78\% & 12.50\% & 84.72\% \\ learning activities. & & & & & & \\ The learning activities & & & & & & \\ increase my motivation. & 4.17\% & 13.89\% & 81.94\% & 4.17\% & 15.28\% & 80.56\% \\ The learning activities & & & & & & \\ enhance my engagement. & & & & & & \\ The learning activities & & & & & & \\ enhance my learning & 5.56\% & 13.89\% & 80.56\% & 4.17\% & 11.11\% & 84.72\% \\ interest. & & & & & & \\ The learning activities & & & & & & \\ enhance my cooperation & 5.56\% & 11.11\% & 83.33\% & 4.17\% & 11.11\% & 84.72\% \\ with my peers & & & & & & \\ I recommend the 3D virtual & & & & & & \\ reality environment to & & & & & & \\ other classmates and to be & & & & & \\ integrated into the course & & & & & \\ curriculum. & & & & & \\ Please rate you overall & & & & & \\ learning experience & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Likert scale questionnaire results.