Table 3 Findings of statistical analysis of responses on the usefulness of eXtended reality 3D visualization technology in student future work.
Technologies | Findings |
|---|---|
AR | - the average rating of AR technology across all respondents was 3.22, with a standard deviation of 1.17, which means that answers were pretty diverse, - in each field of study, both men and women assessed AR technology at a similar level, - women studying geoinformatics rated AR technology the highest of all groups (mean 4.33), but this group was also the most minor (only three responses), raising the chances of fluctuation, - for Civil Engineering students, men and women rated AR technology almost the same (mean 3.30 and 3.00, respectively), - confidence intervals for the averages indicate the diversity of responses within each group, - within each field of study, the lowest and highest ratings tended to be identical for men and women. |
VR | - The average rating of VR technology among all respondents was 3.50, with a standard deviation of 1.17, which means that the answers varied. - male and female students in each field of study rated VR technology at a similar level, with some differences, - male students studying geoinformatics rated VR technology the highest of all groups (mean 4.00), - women studying environmental engineering gave the lowest average rating (2.67), but this group was one of the most minor (only three responses), which may affect the fluctuation of results, - for civil engineering students, men rated VR technology slightly higher than women (mean 3.38 and 3.63, respectively), - confidence intervals for the averages indicate the variation in responses within each group, - within each field of study, the lowest and highest ratings tended to be identical for men and women. |
MR | - the average rating of the relevance of MR technology was 3.17 for all respondents, with a standard deviation of 1.13, indicating some variation in responses, - men and women from each field of study rated MR technology at a similar level, with some differences, - women studying geoinformatics rated MR technology the highest of all groups (mean 4.00), - one female environmental engineering student rated 1.00, the lowest possible rating. - for civil engineering students, men rated MR technology slightly lower on average than women (3.18 vs. 3.43, respectively), - the confidence intervals for the mean scores indicate the diversity of responses within each group, - within each field of study, the lowest and highest scores were generally identical for men and women. |
Hologram | - The average rating of the usefulness of hologram technology was 3.18 for all respondents, with a standard deviation of 1.19, indicating some variation in responses, - men studying environmental engineering rated hologram technology highest among all groups (mean 4.17), - for civil engineering students, men rated hologram technology slightly lower on average than women (2.91 vs. 3.63, respectively), - women studying surveying cartography and civil engineering rated hologram technology higher than men in the same fields of study, - The confidence intervals for the mean scores indicate the diversity of responses within each group, - in most fields of study, the lowest and highest scores tended to be identical for men and women, except in civil engineering, where men rated hologram technology between 2.00 and 4.00. In contrast, women rated it between 2.00 and 5.00. |
Virtual Tour | - The average rating of the relevance of Virtual Tour technology was 3.57 for all respondents, with a standard deviation of 1.32, indicating some variation in responses, - women studying land management, surveying and cartography, and civil engineering rated Virtual Tour technology very high, with average ratings of 4.03, 3.94, and 4.00, respectively, - for men, the highest ratings for Virtual Tour technology came from geoinformatics and environmental engineering students, with respective average ratings of 3.71 and 3.67, - all groups, except women studying environmental engineering, rated the Virtual Tour technology from 1 to 5. women studying environmental engineering gave the technology a consistent score of 2.00, but these values came from only two female respondents, which may not be representative of the entire group, - confidence intervals for mean scores indicate the diversity of responses within each group. |
UAV | - the average rating of the relevance of UAV technology was 3.37 for all respondents, with a standard deviation of 1.27, indicating some variation in responses, - women studying Geodesy and Cartography, and Geoinformatics rated UAV technology very highly, with average ratings of 3.89 and 4.33, respectively, - for men, the highest ratings for UAV technology came from students of land management and tourism and recreation, with respective average ratings of 3.58 and 3.40, - all groups, except women studying environmental engineering, rated UAV technology from 1 to 5. A woman studying environmental engineering gave the technology a consistent score of 3.00, but these values came from only one respondent, which may not be representative of the entire group, - confidence intervals for mean scores indicate the diversity of responses within each group. |
