deletions | additions       diff --git a/Aside_from_the_hit_miss__.tex b/Aside_from_the_hit_miss__.tex  index b5525dd..c0d82fe 100644  --- a/Aside_from_the_hit_miss__.tex  +++ b/Aside_from_the_hit_miss__.tex 
...
\caption{Overall Rating Summary}   \end{table}  \\  The questionnaire can be found in Appendix \textbf{__}. The questionnaire was answered right after the testing phase of the study. There are were  a total of forty-five testers, each with a  corresponding questionnaire to answer. To conclude, Question No.1 has an average of 89.44\% or 40 out of 45 testers  which means meant  that most of the users' found agreed that  the game was  very interesting. An average of 90\% in Question No. 2 states or almost 41 out of 45 testers agreed  that the information found inside of the game was beneficial to most of the users' as well. In Question No. 3, the researchers computed an average of 80.56\% or 36 out of 45 testers  which means meant  that the environmental knowledge provided by the game was compatible with what is happening in the present.The 4th  Question No. 4  has an average of 86.11\% or almost 39 out of 45 testers  which states meant  that the environmental information wassomehow  presented in a simplified and natural manner. Finally, Question No. 5 has an average of 74.90\% or 34 out of 45 testers  which means meant  that most users' have already never encountered and/or  played a game similar to our the  system. Overall, the system's rating has an average of 84\% which makes the game playable but lacks some environmental knowledge, and uniqueness for the users. \\ Lastly, the researchers also included a statistical treatment which is the T-distribution for dependent samples statistics. The questionnaire used was based from \citet{waikato2001environmental}'s study. Table \textbf{_} is a summary of results from the user's paired data. The forty-five testers answered a same set of questionnaire before and after playing the prototype that helped the researchers determined a certain increase in the learning of the group after the prototype was presented. With the assumption that there is no significant difference before and after the prototype was used by the testers. The Before playing results showed a mean of 0.778889, a variance of 0.008607, and a standard deviation of 0.092772 while the After playing resulted to a mean of 0.8650, a variance of 0.004074, and a standard deviation of 0.063827. With sample population of 45, and a degrees of freedom of 44. The researchers computed for the value of t that was -5.6522, with a critical value of 2.015. The p-value was determined from the t, which was 0.000001 with the alpha value of 0.05. The mean of differences which was -0.086111 and its variance was 0.010442. The Standard deviation resulted to 0.102186 and the Confidence Interval of the differences was from -0.116811 to -0.055411. The formulas used for the computation can be seen in section 3.5.3 in Chapter 3. The researchers determined that there is a significant difference between the knowledge of the user before and after the presentation of the prototype. It was determined from the comparison of the value computed, t and the critical value, 2.015. Since the researchers' assumption was that there was no significant differences between the two groups presented, all the values within the range of -2.015 and 2.015 were all accepted values that can prove that the assumption was true. Results showed a value t of -5.6552, and a value p of 0.00001. The absolute value of the calculated t exceeded the critical value (5.6552 \> 2.015), so the means were significantly different which rejects the assumption since the value t fell under the rejection region. Thus, proving that there was a significant difference before and after the prototype presentation. See Appendix \textbf{_} for basis of t-distribution table and Appendix \textbf{_} for the detailed raw data. \\