# Impact of VR Application in an Academic Context
## 3 Results
### Student Feedback: Analysis of the Surveys and Quiz Results
#### 3.2.2 EduAssistant VR Instrument
The participants reported encountering some difficulties while using the whiteboard and suggested that improvements should be made to make the drawing experience smoother, as it is currently difficult to have precise control of the pen. The video conference had good sound and video quality and made the interaction with other participants more collaborative. During the interaction in VR mode, we did not observe any significant impairments in regard to the students experience due to latency. Additionally, the majority of the participants considered look and feel really important for fostering immersion and interaction and they believed that simulating a real classroom is a good addition. Furthermore, the students were requested to provide a response in their own words to reflect their comprehensive thoughts. The comments were very positive, and the students showed their gratitude to the professor's contribution to this instrument. In total, 12 out of 20 students (60%) provided comments, while the rest left the space empty. The top 5 comments are listed below:  
\"The experience was amazing and all my appreciation to the professor for their involvement and efforts\";  
\"I felt really connected with my colleagues\";  
\"The level of detail for multimedia elements used was amazing. There was even a soda can and a bottle of water in the space\";  
\"I liked the search by voice recognition. Definitely, we should try this more often at university and even at home. The only setback is the dizziness I felt after long time using it\";  
\"I was more engaged in the learning process using this tool than with traditional methods\". To measure the level of knowledge dissemination, after finishing playing with the VR tool, students were asked to voluntarily participate in an assessment to provide their level of knowledge about the Workflow Management materials presented during VR experience (see Figure 24). In total, 50% of the participants agreed to be part of this action. We  
Figure 23: Level of satisfaction after using the EduAssistant platform. considered \"passed\" a result higher than 6. Only one student did not pass the assessment and most of them achieved a grade higher than 8. To evaluate the efficacy of the VR-based training in comparison with traditional classroom training, we compared the exam scores of the students who attended the Workflow Management course with those who used the VR tool. The results suggest that the VR tool has an increased efficacy compared to traditional learning (see Figure 25). The findings are corroborated by other studies that have examined the efficacy of VR in enhancing educational outcomes [1; 2; 3; 4]. [PERSON] et al. found that the use of VR had a positive impact on students' cognitive skills and reported that \"Most studies used quizzes and exams to measure learning outcomes, and many of them reported better performance among participants who experienced VR-based instruction than those who underwent traditional instruction. VR-based instruction resulted in better exam and quiz scores than traditional instruction\" [4] (pp. 728-729). Similarly, [PERSON] and [PERSON] compared the effectiveness of virtual reality and traditional learning and \"the results indicate that students in the VR condition significantly outperformed their counterparts in the traditional condition on two out of three knowledge assessments and on a transfer task, indicating the effectiveness of the VR system in teaching students engineering concepts and procedure\" [3] (p. 418). A \(t\)-test was used to compare the performance of students who received VR-based training to those who received traditional classroom instruction. This approach helped us identify significant differences in performance between the two groups, which validated  
Figure 24: Quiz results. Figure 25: Average quiz results (VR tool vs. traditional learning). the effectiveness of VR-based training. We found that the two-tailed \(p\) value was 0.0468, which is considered statistically significant by conventional criteria of 0.05.