## 6 Discussion  
Summarizing the study's results, as presented in the previous section, the following key points can be noted:  
* Regarding learning effectiveness, 360\({}^{\circ}\) videos were found to be superior only in comparison to printed materials, with no significant differences observed between printed materials and conventional videos. While students' prior knowledge influenced evaluation test results across all media, the absence of an interaction effect indicates that prior knowledge did not impact the relative learning outcomes among the three media types. Gender did not influence the results in any capacity. * In terms of enjoyment/positive feelings, 360\({}^{\circ}\) videos provided a more positive and enjoyable experience only when compared to printed materials. Conventional videos were similarly found to be more enjoyable than printed materials. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Factor**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Factor**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} _Mean_ \\ _Difference_ \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} _Std._ \\ _Error_ \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} \(p\) \\ \(p\) \\ \end{tabular} } \\  & & & & & \\ \hline
1 & 2 & 0.135 & 0.079 & 0.285 \\
1 & 3 & 0.573 & 0.132 & \textless{}0.001 \\
2 & 3 & 0.438 & 0.137 & 0.008 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* _Notes._ Factor 1 = ease of use printed materials, Factor 2 = ease of use conventional videos, and Factor 3 = ease of use 360\({}^{\circ}\) videos.  
\end{table} 
Table 11: Pairwise comparisons for ease of use. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c l c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Printed materials \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Model summary \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(F(4,39)=0.42,\,p=0.797,\,R=0.202,\,R^{2}=0.041\)} \\ \cline{2-6}  & Factors & \(B\) & \(SE\,B\) & \(\beta\) & \(t\) & \(p\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Enjoyment/positive feelings & \(-2.049\) & \(2.979\) & \(-0.128\) & \(-0.688\) & \(0.496\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Immersion & \(0.429\) & \(2.580\) & \(0.032\) & \(0.166\) & \(0.869\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Motivation & \(0.577\) & \(2.543\) & \(0.046\) & \(0.227\) & \(0.822\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Ease of use & \(4.018\) & \(3.713\) & \(0.189\) & \(1.082\) & \(0.286\) \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Conventional videos} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} Model summary \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(F(4,39)=4.17,\,p=0.007,\,R=0.547,\,R^{2}=0.299\)} \\  & Factors & \(B\) & \(SE\,B\) & \(\beta\) & \(t\) & \(p\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Enjoyment/positive feelings & \(3.479\) & \(3.762\) & \(0.153\) & \(0.925\) & \(0.361\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Immersion & \(4.912\) & \(3.082\) & \(0.253\) & \(1.594\) & \(0.119\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Motivation & \(0.118\) & \(3.333\) & \(0.006\) & \(0.035\) & \(0.972\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Ease of use & \(5.868\) & \(3.926\) & \(0.268\) & \(1.494\) & \(0.143\) \\ \hline \hline \multirow{6}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} 360\({}^{\circ}\) videos \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} Model summary \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(F(4,39)=2.87,\,p=0.035,\,R=0.477,\,R^{2}=0.228\)} \\  & Factors & \(B\) & \(SE\,B\) & \(\beta\) & \(t\) & \(p\) \\ \cline{2-6}  & Enjoyment/positive feelings & \(4.786\) & \(3.378\) & \(0.226\) & \(1.417\) & \(0.164\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Immersion & \(11.952\) & \(4.553\) & \(0.399\) & \(2.625\) & \(0.012\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Motivation & \(-5.495\) & \(3.298\) & \(-0.270\) & \(-1.666\) & \(0.104\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Ease of use & \(0.169\) & \(2.553\) & \(0.010\) & \(0.066\) & \(0.948\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* _Notes._\(B\) = unstandardized beta coefficient, \(SE\,B\) = standard errors for \(B\), and \(\beta\) = standardized error coefficient.  
\end{table} 
Table 12: The results of the regression analyses. * Predictably, the sense of immersion was significantly stronger in 360\({}^{\circ}\) videos compared to both other media types, with no differences between printed materials and conventional videos.