The participants indicated that iMD-VR was better at helping them understand molecular structure and movement (Q3) with a median value of 5 and an interquartile range of 4-5 compared to CHARMM/VMD, which had a median of 3.5 with a range of 3-4, despite only having a short time in iMD-VR (although the novelty effect cannot be discounted without further research). The immersion in a dynamic simulation, in this case, appears to have a clear effect on the students' perspective on the nature of molecular motion. An unexpected result was that iMD-VR seemed to help students better understand the difference between QM and MM calculations compared to CHARMM/VMD. When asked about the utility of iMD-VR and CHARMM/VMD for helping participants understand the difference between QM and MM calculations, the median value was 4 for iMD-VR and only 2 for CHARMM/VMD. This we found particularly surprising because the CHARMM/VMD section of the class explicitly demonstrated how students could go about setting up a QM/MM calculation. The response to this question may indicate that, despite understanding the terminology, the experiential difference played an important role in enhanc their understanding -i.e., iMD-VR connected to 'on-the-fly' molecular mechanics in tasks B and C did not enable students to break and make bonds, whereas iMD-VR connected to an 'on-the-fly' density functional theory in task A enabled students to experience interactively breaking and making bonds. When asked if a platform aided the understanding of the reaction in Q6 the survey indicated that the participants found iMD-VR to help their visualisation more than CHARMM/VMD. iMD-VR obtained a median value of 4 whereas CHARMM/VMD has a median of 3.5. Despite the similarity of these values, there is a marked difference in their interquartile spreads. CHARMM/VMD has values between 2 and 4 and iMD-VR has values between 4-5, indicating more consistency for the iMD-VR responses compared to the CHARMM/VMD responses.