## 5 Results
### Analysis of the Questionnaires
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Source** & \(\boldsymbol{S}\) & \(\boldsymbol{df}\) & \(\boldsymbol{MS}\) & \(\boldsymbol{F}\) & \(\boldsymbol{p}\) & \(\boldsymbol{\eta_{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) \\ \hline Between-Subjects & & & & & & \\ Gender & 0.336 & 1 & 0.336 & 0.41 & 0.525 & 0.010 \\ Residuals & 34.339 & 42 & 0.818 & & & \\ \hline Within-subjects & & & & & & \\ Immersion & 24.757 & 1.652 & 14.986 & 38.83 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.480 \\ Gender \(\times\) immersion & 0.882 & 1.652 & 0.534 & 1.38 & 0.256 & 0.032 \\ Residuals & 26.782 & 69.386 & 0.386 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note.: As the sphericity assumption was violated in the data related to immersion, the results of the Greenhouse–Geisser test are reported.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: The results of the repeated measures ANOVA test for immersion. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Source** & \(\boldsymbol{S}\) & \(\boldsymbol{df}\) & \(\boldsymbol{MS}\) & \(\boldsymbol{F}\) & \(\boldsymbol{p}\) & \(\boldsymbol{\eta_{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) \\ \hline Between-Subjects & & & & & & \\ Gender & 0.616 & 1 & 0.616 & 1.03 & 0.315 & 0.024 \\ Residuals & 25.023 & 42 & 0.596 & & & \\ \hline Within-subjects & & & & & & \\ Enjoyment/positive feelings & 4.900 & 2 & 2.450 & 6.64 & 0.002 & 0.137 \\ Gender \(\times\) enjoyment/positive feelings & 0.523 & 2 & 0.261 & 0.71 & 0.495 & 0.017 \\ Residuals & 30.975 & 84 & 0.369 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: The results of the repeated measures ANOVA test for enjoyment/positive feelings. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Factor** & **Factor** & \(\boldsymbol{Mean}\) & \(\boldsymbol{Std.}\) & \(\boldsymbol{p}\) \\ Gender & 0.336 & 1 & 0.336 & 0.41 & 0.525 & 0.010 \\ Residuals & 34.339 & 42 & 0.818 & & & \\ \hline Within-subjects & & & & & \\ Immersion & 24.757 & 1.652 & 14.986 & 38.83 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.480 \\ Gender \(\times\) immersion & 0.882 & 1.652 & 0.534 & 1.38 & 0.256 & 0.032 \\ Residuals & 26.782 & 69.386 & 0.386 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note.: Factor 1 = enjoyment/positive feelings printed materials, Factor 2 = enjoyment/positive feelings conventional videos, and Factor 3 = enjoyment/positive feelings 360\({}^{\circ}\) videos.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Pairwise comparisons for enjoyment/positive feelings. The effect of gender on the averaged scores of motivation was not significant, meaning that gender did not contribute meaningfully to the variance in motivation across all tools. There were significant differences between the three media regarding motivation, and the effect size was large. There was no interaction effect between gender and motivation, suggesting that gender did not have a differential effect on motivation across its different levels (Table 8). The pairwise comparisons revealed a statistically significant difference in motivation between printed materials and 360\({}^{\circ}\) videos, favoring the latter (Table 9). Consequently, in addressing RQ2c, it can be concluded that students were more motivated when viewing 360\({}^{\circ}\) videos compared to printed materials. The impact of gender on the average scores for ease of use was not significant, indicating that gender did not contribute meaningfully to the variance in ease of use across all tools (Table 10). Additionally, there was no interaction effect between gender and ease of use. Then again, significant differences were observed among the three types of media with respect to ease of use, with a very large effect size. Specifically, pairwise comparisons demonstrated statistically significant differences when comparing 360\({}^{\circ}\) videos to both printed materials and conventional videos, with the former lacking behind (Table 11). Consequently, in response to RQ2d, it is conclusive that 360\({}^{\circ}\) videos were the least easy-to-use medium.