## 4 Results and Discussion
### ANOVA Analysis  
In the statistical analysis, the ANOVA test was used to determine if the populations had the same mean value or if there were differences between them. For this purpose, as stated in Section 3.1, the data obtained during the academic years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 have been used. The results obtained are shown in Tables 14 and 15. Table 14 shows no significant differences comparing the two academic years studied, which have very similar values for the averages achieved by the participants, 5.38 for the first year and 5.20 for the second (see Figure 2). With the data obtained, a more in-depth comparison of the methodological blocks applied proved interesting. In the comparison by methodologies, and as seen later in the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Academic Year** & **Sample Size** & **Means** & **Standard Deviation** \\ \hline
2019–2020 & 39 & 5.38 & 2.22 \\
2020–2021 & 28 & 5.20 & 1.92 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 14: Number of questions per subject in the final examination in both academic years. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Topic 1** & **Topic 2** & **Topic 3** & **Topic 4** & **Topic 5** & **Topic 6** & **Topic 7** & **Topic 8** & **Topic 9** & **Topic 10** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Success} & \multirow{4}{*}{126} & \multirow{4}{*}{236} & \multirow{4}{*}{146} & \multirow{4}{*}{100} & \multirow{4}{*}{88} & \multirow{4}{*}{151} & \multirow{  
ANOVA study, there are specific differences between the means (see Table 15), mainly in comparing the block corresponding to the face-to-face methodology (see Figure 3). The face-to-face and synchronous mean values offer similar values (1.04 and 1.26); the face-to-face and asynchronous averages did not offer significant differences, either (1.54 and 1.81), but they did in the face-to-face and face-to-face comparison (2.79 and 2.15). These differences will be examined in more detail below. Tables 16 and 17 list the \(p\)-values obtained in the analysis of variance. The values of \(p\) must be compared with the significance level to assess the null hypothesis to determine  
Figure 3: Comparison of methodologies. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Methodologies** & **Academic Year** & **Sample Size** & **Means** & **Standard Deviation** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Face-to-face vs. face-to-face} & 19–20 & 39 & 2.79 & 1.00 \\  & 20–21 & 28 & 2.15 & 0.88 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Face-to-face vs. synchronous} & 19–20 & 39 & 1.04 & 0.55 \\  & 20–21 & 28 & 1.26 & 0.53 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Face-to-face vs. asynchronous} & 19–20 & 39 & 1.54 & 0.96 \\  & 20–21 & 28 & 1.81 & 0.92 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 15: Descriptive statistics from the data experiment for different methodologies. whether the differences between the mean values are statistically significant. A significance level \(\alpha\) = 0.05 has been set for this study. If the \(p\)-value is less than or equal to the significance level, the null hypothesis is rejected, and it can be concluded that not all population means are equal. Otherwise, if the \(p\)-value is greater than the significance level, there is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis that the population means are all equal. The results obtained from the one-way ANOVA for the analysis of the mean scores obtained by each class can be seen in Table 16. The \"F\" value of the sample (2019-2020 and 2020-2021) is 0.12 and lower than the critical F of 3.99; \(p\)-value = 0.73 (\(p\) < 0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis of equality of means is not rejected, and there is no difference between the groups. As seen in Table 17, if the \"face-to-face vs synchronous\" methodology is considered, the ANOVA analysis of variance shows no significant differences, obtaining a \(p\) = 0.11.