## 4 Experiment
### Exam Performance  
We also analyzed the results of both control and test student groups by observing their performance in a conventional in-class exam in order to confirm our hypothesis about the experiment's impact on the students' performance. The exam results were graded using grades 1 (worst grade) to 5 (best grade). The first-year control group students achieved an average grade of 4.3, while the test group students achieved an average of 4.5 (4% increase). The results were statistically tested while using the Mann-Whitney U-test and the difference was not statistically significant (U = 16, \(p\) > 0.05). A larger difference was observed for second-year students, where the control group achieved an average score of 3.58 and the test group 4.44 (19% better, significant difference, U = 24, \(p\) < 0.001). We can confirm that the use of the application had a positive effect on their performance in the exam, as better results were achieved by students using the rhythmic dictation application. As both of the  
Figure 9: The frequency of application’s use, sorted by the final achieved level of individual user. The circle color represents individual levels (11, 12, 13, 22, and 24), while its size shows the number of games played by the individual user.  
groups were relatively small, we also used a resampling method to compare the group averages. At 1000 replicates, the method estimated a 69.2% probability that the average test group score was greater than the average control group score for the first-year student groups. For second-year results, the algorithm estimated this probability at 99.6% at 1000 iterations. These estimates confirmed the Mann-Whitney U test; therefore, showing that students who used the application performed better in the exam.  
The difference between the first (no significant impact) and second year (significant impact) student groups could be attributed to several factors. While the five-week challenge in combination with the application's use produced an improvement in the students' results, our approach could have a less motivating affect on the first-year students, as compared to the second-years. Moreover, the second-year students have undergone a larger amount of training at the observatory level, possibly resulting in higher self-discipline for training. In addition, rhythmic dictation and ear training is itself a specifically frustrating task for some students. Given the fact that the first-year students come with various levels of knowledge and have yet to overcome their personal frustrations with certain aspects of training, this could indicate that the application has not been a substantial aid to the first-year students. The students who ranked highest in the competition rankings were also from the second year test group. However, both student groups were small and a larger longitudinal study is needed in order to further confirm the results of this evaluation, and fully evaluate the application's impact on the learning process and performance.  
Based on our previous work, where we also observed the positive impact on the students' performance while testing the intervals dictation application without the five-week challenge, we assume that the challenge is not a substantial contributor to the increase in the students' performance. However, further research is planned to identify the underlying causes for this difference in the increase between both years. Because we included all conservatory students enrolled in first and second year--either in control or in test groups--as further confirmation that the evaluation results could also be achieved by performing a similar experiment on more institutions, in order to observe the application's impact and confirm, whether the results gathered within this study could be generalised.