## 5 Results
### Analysis of the Evaluation Tests  
To analyze the results from the evaluation tests and address RQI, a repeated measures Analysis of Covariance (rANCOVA) was deemed the most suitable method. The primary objective was to investigate whether differences existed in the learning outcomes across the three media types while controlling for students' prior knowledge. The results from the pre-tests were employed as a covariate. Additionally, gender was introduced as a between-subjects factor to determine if any differences emerged between girls and boys. The data demonstrated a fairly normal distribution, as indicated by the skewness values. Further, the assumptions regarding the homogeneity of variance were confirmed through [PERSON]'s tests of equality of error variances and the equality of the covariance matrices among groups was validated using [PERSON]'s tests of equality of covariance matrices. Moreover, the assumption of sphericity was not violated, as confirmed by [PERSON]'s test of sphericity.  
The rANCOVA analysis (Table 2) revealed that the main effect of the re-test was significant, indicating that students' prior knowledge explained a significant amount of the variance in the scores of the evaluation tests across all three media. On the other hand, gender was not a contributing factor. The main effect of the within-subjects factor was not significant, indicating that there were no differences in the results of the evaluation tests. Furthermore, the interaction effects between students' prior knowledge and the within-subjects factor, as well as between gender and the within-subjects factor, were not  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable (N = 44)** & _Mint_ & _Max_ & \(M\) & _SD_ \\ \hline Pre-test & 33 & 86 & 59.32 & 11.01 \\ Evaluation tests printed materials & 38 & 90 & 69.55 & 11.76 \\ Evaluation tests conventional videos & 40 & 97 & 70.34 & 13.14 \\ Evaluation tests 360\({}^{\circ}\) videos & 35 & 97 & 73.80 & 14.36 \\ Enjoyment/positive feelings printed materials & 1.80 & 5.00 & 3.74 & 0.73 \\ Enjoyment/positive feelings conventional videos & 2.40 & 4.80 & 4.12 & 0.58 \\ Enjoyment/positive feelings 360\({}^{\circ}\) videos & 1.80 & 5.00 & 4.15 & 0.68 \\ Immersion printed materials & 1.25 & 5.00 & 3.55 & 0.87 \\ Immersion conventional videos & 2.00 & 5.00 & 3.80 & 0.68 \\ Immersion 360\({}^{\circ}\) videos & 3.25 & 5.00 & 4.56 & 0.48 \\ Motivation printed materials & 1.00 & 5.00 & 3.92 & 0.94 \\ Motivation conventional videos & 2.33 & 5.00 & 4.36 & 0.63 \\ Motivation 360\({}^{\circ}\) videos & 2.33 & 5.00 & 4.47 & 0.71 \\ Ease of use printed materials & 3.00 & 5.00 & 4.32 & 0.55 \\ Ease of use conventional videos & 3.00 & 5.00 & 4.20 & 0.60 \\ Ease of use 360\({}^{\circ}\) videos & 1.20 & 5.00 & 3.74 & 0.85 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Descriptive statistics for the study’s variables.  
significant. This indicated that the results in the evaluation tests were consistent regardless of students' gender and prior knowledge. However, despite the lack of significance in the main effect of the within-subjects factor, the pairwise comparisons identified a statistically significant difference in evaluation test results between printed materials and 360\({}^{\circ}\) videos in favor of the latter (Table 3). As a result, and for addressing RQ1, it is evident that students' learning outcomes were superior when using 360\({}^{\circ}\) videos only when compared to printed materials.