# Impact of VR Application in an Academic Context
## 2 Materials and Methods
### Student Feedback: Surveys and Evaluation (Quiz, t-Test)  
To evaluate the usefulness, satisfaction, engagement, collaboration, and performance of the EduAssistant immersive experience for learning purposes, surveys were performed among 117 students. There were two types of questionnaires: one based on a pre-recorded video and another one based on a real VR experience with the application of the virtual assistant. The set of questions are detailed in Tables 2 and 3, and they considered several types of answers for responses such as Likert scale from 1 to 5, open- and closed-ended, yes or no. As presented in Table 4, a total of 117 participants were involved in this evaluation. Of these, 97 participants provided feedback after watching a pre-recorded video, while 20 participants tested the VR tool physically and provided their feedback accordingly. For the formulation of all surveys, we used a professor's (from Automatic Control and Computer Science Faculty) extensive experience in Workflow Management and other studies on the same topic for guidance [37; 38]. All questionnaires were anonymous, and participants gave their consent prior to answering the questions. The study was conducted among bachelor's degree students and master's degree students and included questions related to participants' opinion in terms of usefulness, motivation, satisfaction, collaboration, knowledge acquisition about the multimedia resources, immersive space, whiteboard, speech recognition, and video conference features. For each VR activity we designed a specific set of questions, aiming to determine usefulness of multimedia resources and system features and to determine the cognitive impact for students in an educational context. Additionally, students were asked to provide their thoughts and comments with the overall experience. The video was sent to the participants via email and the real VR interaction was conducted with 20 students. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Segmentation** & **Sample Type** & **No. of Simulations** \\ \hline Gender type & Female voice (auto-generated) & 50 \\  & Male (auto-generated) & 50 \\  & Female (human) & 50 \\  & Male (human) & 50 \\ \hline Environment & Noise (auto-generated) & 100 \\  & Silence (auto-generated) & 0 \\ \hline Emotion & Happiness & 20 \\  & Sadness & 20 \\  & Anger & 20 \\  & Surprise & 20 \\  & No emotion & 20 \\ \hline Sound frequency & Low & 10 \\  & Medium & 10 \\  & High & 10 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Segmentation of voice samples used for simulation. Furthermore, to evaluate the performance of the tool for knowledge acquisition we created a quiz. The questions of the quiz were single- and multiple-choice answers. To make sure the answers are relevant, the quiz was sent only to students who experienced more than 30 min in VR mode and who were asked to focus more on the speech recognition feature. The participants were students who had not attended the Workflow Management course before. Table 4 shows a summary of the participants in surveys and quizzes. The structure of the quiz is presented in Table 5. A minimum grade of 6 was set up as the threshold for passing and proving that student has enough knowledge. To evaluate the efficacy of the VR-based training in comparison to traditional classroom training, our goal was to attain the results of a cohort of students who underwent the latter method. With the assistance of the professor of Workflow Management, we obtained the examination scores of a group of 20 students who were enrolled in the master program. The scores were obtained during the final examination of the Workflow Management course. During the examination, the same minimum passing grade of 6 was considered. To determine if there was a significant difference between the means of the two groups of students, we employed the \(t\)-test statistical method.