## 5 Results
### Classroom Participation Data  
During the following paragraphs, we present data related to research question 1: \"What effect does the use of PRSN have on classroom participation?\". ANOVA (nested) analyses were conducted for each one of the rows shown in Table 6. Results from these analyses are shown below, separated into the different stages of the procedure. The difference between the experimental and control group was the use (experimental) or not (control) of BeingExample.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Milestone** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Experimental Group**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control Group**} \\ \hline  & **Mean** & **SD** & **Diff. 1** ** & **Mean** & **SD** \\ \hline Pre & 0.46 & 0.27 & \(-6.12\%\) & 0.49 & 0.28 \\ During & 0.58 & 0.36 & \(38.10\%\) & 0.42 & 0.23 \\ Post & 0.78 & 0.57 & \(47.17\%\) & 0.53 & 0.30 \\ Overall & 0.60 & 0.44 & \(22.45\%\) & 0.49 & 0.33 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Classroom participation data collected by group.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Interaction** & **W1** & **W2** & **W3** & **W4** & **W5** & **W6** \\ \hline Initiative & 905 & 60 & 984 & 707 & 297 & 1501 \\ Participation & 784 & 30 & 796 & 573 & 228 & 1325 \\ Communication & 83 & 27 & 88 & 87 & 25 & 350 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Total number of interactions (per week).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c} \hline \hline
**Milestone** & **Mean** & **SD** \\ \hline Initiative & 92.79 & 78.73 \\ Participation & 77.83 & 70.44 \\ Communication & 13.75 & 11.59 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Mean online data per student (Experimental Group).  
Classroom Participation (see Table 6) data collected before the experiment showed F(1, 70) = 0.23, P = 0.63, therefore there were no pre-existing differences between groups. The data collected during the use of BeingExample were analyzed with the following results F(1, 70) = 4.19, P = 0.045, the difference being significant. After using the platform, the data obtained were F(1, 70) = 4.15, P = 0.046; again, there is a significant difference. Finally, all the classroom participation data were analyzed, and gave the following results: F(1, 70) = 3.36 and P = 0.068, which is close to, but not, a significant difference.  
Figure 4 shows how participation data for the experimental and control group are similar. During the second stage of the experimental study, when students used the platform, the experimental group increased their participation. This positive tendency continued once this stage ended up, and they stopped using the BeingExample platform, as it can be seen in the post-experiment stage.  
The during-use stage ended up with positive results for classroom participation. Students from the experimental group improved their participation. Furthermore, there was a significant difference between the control and the experimental group. Post-use data showed a significant difference between groups. However, once the classroom participation data were gathered, there was no significant difference between groups. This might be due to the data from the pre-use stage.  
Consequently, the answer to research question 1 is that there is indeed a clear positive relationship between BeingExample PRSN use and students' participation, since there is a significant difference between the control and experimental group: However, this may change when the platform is not used in class. Although classroom data were collected individually for this initial study, they were processed as a group, to see if PRSN adapted to educational environments is a useful tool for teachers. These individual data should be analyzed in future works, as they may provide answers to some interesting questions. It is important to establish these data as the initial data for the use of this platform, which aims to improve academic outcomes. Normalizing some of the data in order to allow comparison with future data may help to improve the process and the results.