## 2 Method
### Results of Software Evaluation by Experts
#### 2.3.2 Experts in Music Education  
As for the experts in education, the collaboration of six actively teaching experts in music education was requested, to whom a survey was sent with a similar evaluation to the one sent to the experts in _Max_ and music technology. The criteria applied to their selection were having experience in the use of technology in the classroom and having the Play Box hardware, which was provided by the research team of this study.  
The survey that was applied consisted of several blocks of rating items for the interface, one for each module (six in total), in which experts were asked to rate 1. the ability to generate and transform sound from an external instrument; 2. the ability to generate and transform sound from the software globally; and 3. the suitability of the software in educational contexts in the classroom.  
For the analysis of the quantitative evaluation by the experts, the same procedure was followed as in the previous analysis, i.e., the maximum possible score for each block was calculated in order to subsequently obtain the sum of the total of the experts' evaluations and then the corresponding percentage of the maximum score possible for the block.  
Analysis of the data (Table 2) shows that both the interface and each of the modules are rated at over 64%, with 65% being the lowest and 85% the highest.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Module** & \begin{tabular}{l} **Granular** \\ **(Max 100)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{l} **Dealy** \\ **(Max 125)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{l} **Reverb** \\ **(Max 100)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{l} **BPFB** \\ **(Max 125)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{l} **Sampler** \\ **(Max 125)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{l} **Looper** \\ **(Max 200)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Score & 69 & 92 & 66 & 76 & 95 & 157 \\ \hline
**\%** & 69 & 74 & 66 & 60 & 76 & 78 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Scoring for each of the assessment blocks.  
Similarly, it can be seen that the modules with the lowest ratings are the modules dedicated to synthesis (_granular_: 78% and _BPFB_: 77%) and the _looper_ module (65%), the latter being the module with the lowest rating, completely opposite to the result obtained by this module in the rating by the _Max_ and technology experts.  
The best rated modules are the _sampler_ and _reverb_, with 85% each and the _delay_, with 84%.  
We can infer from the above data that the synthesis modules may be more complex and less intuitive for students to use in the classroom, while the modules offering _delay_ and reverb, as well as the _sampler_, may be simpler and more intuitive to use.  
However, this difference in ratings between modules is not reflected in the rating of each of the modules for generating and transforming sound, obtaining in this section an overall rating of 137 out of 150 (91%) and 26 out of 30 (86%) in the overall capacity of the software (Table 3).  
Regarding the suitability of the software for classroom use, the experts' rating was again very high, with 27 out of 30 (90%), which shows that the software was generally very well received. In terms of qualitative assessments and proposals for improvement, almost all experts pointed to the need to increase the size of the controllers, considering them to be too small and impractical.  
Likewise, the majority said that consideration should be given to the possibility of adding some kind of pop-up window to provide explanations in the modules that they consider to be more complex to use, including _granular_, _BPFB_, and _looper_.  
On the other hand, there is agreement between education experts and _Max_ and technology experts on the recommendation to add some selectable _presets_ with reverberations of different architectural spaces to the _reverb_ module.