## 3 Results
Items with the lowest ratings were negatively formulated items, i.e., item 6 \"I felt frustrated while playing planning poker in a team\" (M = 1.89), item 13 \"Planning poker in a team was unnecessarily complex\" (M = 1.91), and item 4 \"I felt bored while playing planning poker in a team\" (M = 1.93). These results indicate that the social learning experience of planning poker in a group was interesting, enjoyable, and valuable for attaining learning outcomes, especially understanding agile estimation and attaining willingness to apply what was learned in the future. However, some results also indicated that the design of planning poker as a collaborative learning activity could be further improved, especially when it comes to stimulating curiosity (item 18, M = 3.28) and enhancing motivation to learn (item 17, M = 3.39). Both items were only slightly above the neutral score (3), indicating a possible direction for further research and development. RQ2: What Was the Quality of the Interaction with the Social Robot NAO during the Game of Planning Poker? In order to answer the second research question, descriptive statistics were computed for all eight items related to the quality of interaction with the NAO robot during the play of planning poker. In the second step, the two negatively formulated items were recoded and the internal consistency of the scale computed using reliability statistics. The measured consistency of the new scale was acceptable with \(\alpha\) = 0.796 ([PERSON]'s Alpha) and \(\alpha\) = 0.784 ([PERSON]'s Alpha on Standardised Items). The total score of the scale was M = 3.973 (Min. 3.326; Max. 4.283). The item statistics are summarised in Table 4 below. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline \hline
**Item** & **Mean** & **Std. Deviation** \\ \hline
21. The interaction with NAO was helpful to understand & 4.07 & 0.975 \\ planning poker. & 22. The interaction with NAO during planning poker was interesting. & 4.28 & 0.655 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Item statistics related to the quality of interaction with the robot NAO, n = 46. Rating on a five-point scale: “Strongly Agree” (5), “Agree” (4); “Neutral” (3); “Disagree” (2); “Strongly Disagree” (1). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline \hline
**Item** & **Mean** & **Std. Deviation** \\ \hline
13. Planning poker in a team was unnecessarily complex. * & 1.91 & 1.071 \\ \hline
14. I felt competent when playing planning poker in my team. & 3.41 & 1.066 \\ \hline
15. I felt successful when playing planning poker in my team. & 3.65 & 1.016 \\ \hline
16. I felt a sense of control when playing planning poker in my team. & 3.46 & 0.959 \\ \hline
17. Playing planning poker in a team motivated me to learn. & 3.39 & 1.085 \\ \hline
18. Playing planning poker in a team stimulated my curiosity. & 3.28 & 1.129 \\ \hline
19. Planning poker was relevant to my interests. & 3.37 & 1.040 \\ \hline
20. Planning poker was not relevant to me because I already knew & 2.83 & 1.371 \\ most of it. * & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._The results show that the study participants rated the quality of the interaction experience with NAO in a positive way. All values of positively formulated items were above the neutral score (3). The highest values were reached for item 22 \"The interaction with [PERSON] during planning poker was interesting\" (M = 4.28), item 27 \"I feel confident in agile estimation after playing planning poker with [PERSON]\" (M = 4.13), item 21 \"The interaction with [PERSON] was helpful to understand planning poker\" (M = 4.07), and item 23 \"The interaction with [PERSON] during planning poker was exciting\" (M = 4.03). The items with the lowest ratings were negatively formulated items, i.e., item 25 \"The interaction with [PERSON] during planning poker was frustrating\" (M = 1.87), and item 26 \"The interaction with [PERSON] was disappointing\" (M = 1.83).