## 5 Results
In other words, it can be said that the students who used FB-ITS in learning performed better academically compared to the students using the traditional e-learning system. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Dependent Variable: Post-Test**} \\ \hline
**Source** & **Type III Sum of Squares** & **df** & **Mean Square** & **F** & **_p_ & **Partial Eta Squared** \\ \hline Corrected Model & 10,032.096a & 3 & 3344.032 & 11.047 & 0.000 & 0.372 \\ Intercept & 28,122.920 & 1 & 28,122.920 & 92.906 & 0.000 & 0.624 \\ Pretest & 8195.327 & 1 & 8195.327 & 27.074 & 0.000 & 0.326 \\ Group & 7005.216 & 2 & 3502.608 & 11.571 & 0.000 & 0.292 \\ Error & 16,951.433 & 56 & 302.704 & & & \\ Total & 385,244.339 & 60 & & & & \\ Corrected Total & 26,983.529 & 59 & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* R-squared = 0.372 (Adjusted R-squared = 0.338).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Dependent Variable: Post-Test**} \\ \hline
**(I) Group** & **(J) Group** & **Mean Difference (I-J)** & **Std. Error** & **Sig. a** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**95\% Confidence Interval for Difference a**} \\ \cline{5-7}  & & & & **Lower Bound** & **Upper Bound** \\ \hline A1 & A2 & 3.043 & 5.632 & 1.000 & \(-\)10.858 & 16.944 \\ \cline{2-7}  & A3 & \(-\)27.067 * & 7.082 & 0.001 & \(-\)44.545 & \(-\)9.588 \\ \hline A2 & A1 & \(-\)3.043 & 5.632 & 1.000 & \(-\)16.944 & 10.858 \\ \cline{2-7}  & A3 & \(-\)30.110 * & 6.392 & 0.000 & \(-\)45.885 & \(-\)14.335 \\ \hline A3 & A1 & 27.067 * & 7.082 & 0.001 & 9.588 & 44.545 \\ \cline{2-7}  & A2 & 30.110 * & 6.392 & 0.000 & 14.335 & 45.885 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Based on estimated marginal means.
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Bonferroni Test (Pairwise Comparisons). To test hypothesis H2, a one-way between-groups analysis of covariance was conducted to compare the students' academic performance in two different groups. The independent variable was the type of the e-learning system (A3 and B), and the dependent variable consisted of the scores for the students' academic performance administered after the experiment was completed. The participants' scores on the pre-test administration of the basic knowledge test were used as the covariate in this analysis. Preliminary checks were conducted to ensure that there was no violation of the assumptions of linearity, homogeneity of variances, homogeneity of regression slopes, and reliable measurement of the covariate. From Table 7, after adjusting for the pre-test scores, it has come to the light that there was a significant difference between Groups A3 and B on the post-test scores of the students, F(1, 77) = 21.092, \(p\) < 0.001. The partial eta squared = 0.215 indicated a large effect size [36]. There was a weak relationship between the pre-test and the post-test scores, as indicated by a partial eta squared value of 20%. H2 is confirmed, and it can be concluded that the students who studied under FB-ITS (A3) have significantly better academic performance than the students who studied using the traditional e-learning system (B). There is also a statistically significant difference between the groups A1, A2, and A3 in time taken to perform the post-test. Group A2 had the highest mean time value (M = 10.65, SD = 5.65), and group A1 had (M = 8.64, SD = 6.03), while group A3 had the lowest mean time value (M = 7.87, SD = 4.84). According to the descriptive statistics of the time taken values of two groups, Group B had a higher mean time value (M = 13.86, SD = 5.90) than group A3 (M = 7.87, SD = 4.84).