The question that resulted in the most similar distribution for the two platforms was question 5, which asked students whether a platform played a dominant role in their visual recall. Table shows that for this question the median value for both platforms are 3; however, the interquartile ranges indicate that iMD-VR had fewer disagreement responses (range 3-5 compared to 2-5 for CHARMM/VMD). In interpreting the responses to this question, an important fact to bear in mind is that the students only had ten minutes in iMD-VR whereas they had 12 hours to work with CHARMM/VMD. This provides some indication of how powerful even a small amount of time in iMD-VR may be for influencing visual recall. Questions one and two asked students if they found the platforms enjoyable and easy to use, and figure shows that participants agreed that iMD-VR was easy to use, whereas they found CHARMM/VMD generally harder to use. For these questions, iMD-VR showed agreement responses with median values of 4 and 5 whilst CHARMM/VMD resulted in values of 2. These responses indicate that iMD-VR was more appealing for students to work with compared to CHARMM/VMD and suggests that iMD-VR is a tool that may improve student engagement. Question 7 also indicates that iMD-VR may attract students to the computational sciences, with Figure showing many more responses indicating agreement with the question for iMD-VR, with the median of these responses being 4, whereas CHARMM/VMD had a median of only 2. In combination with the earlier two questions measuring enjoyment and degree of simplicity, there seems to be a strong indication that the students have a positive perception of iMD-VR. The Figure results highlight the potential for state-of-the-art immersive tools like iMD-VR to have a profound effect on the student outlook in computational fields.