## 4 Results and Discussion
### Questionnaire Survey
The overall problem organization average increased by 0.52, from 3.62 to 4.14, indicating that students' ability to organize problems was enhanced using the AMVR system. The problem analysis ability was asked to evaluate the ability to analyze data obtained after students were trained with the AMVR system. Table 4 shows the evaluation questions and scores, and Figure 9 illustrates the results. For question 4, due to the enhanced ability to organize the problem, hence, the score of the ability to analyze and classify the information of the students also improved, from 3.38 to 4.15. The score of the student's confidence level in logical thinking ability improved by 0.71 from 3.41 to 4.12. The scores for the questions showed a relatively low standard deviation of 0.73 and 0.77, respectively. For the problem comment ability presented in Table 5 and Figure 10, a uniform change was observed in the results obtained before and after training with the AMVR system. Students become more active in sharing their opinions and discussing problems encountered with each other after using the AMVR system, as evidenced by an increase in scores by 0.32, from 3.83 to 4.15, in question 9 and by 0.33, from 3.86 to 4.19, in question 10. The score of the student's ability to think backward also improved from 3.71 to 4.08. Overall, the result shows that the ability in comment of each student improved significantly. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Number** & **Question** & **Pre-Test** & **Post-Test** \\ \hline
4 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Faced with a complicated aircraft maintenance manual, \\ students can quickly complete the sorting and classification. \\ \end{tabular} & 3.38 & 4.15 \\ \hline
5 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Student can infer information and learn from Do 228 \\ walk-around inspection data. \\ \end{tabular} & 3.52 & 4.15 \\ \hline
6 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Student confidence in the logical thinking ability about the Do \\ 228 walk-around inspection. \\ \end{tabular} & 3.41 & 4.12 \\ \hline
**Average** & **3.44** & **4.14** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: The results for the problem analysis ability. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Number** & **Question** & **Pre-Test** & **Post-Test** \\ \hline
7 & Students can judge the problems that others have not found. & 3.59 & 4.00 \\ \hline
8 & Students can think backward to discuss problems. & 3.72 & 4.08 \\ \hline
9 & Students can share their opinions on the current situation. & 3.83 & 4.15 \\ \hline
10 &
\begin{tabular}{c} In the discussion of the Do 228 walk-around inspection, they \\ talk about the problems with each other. \\ \end{tabular} & 3.86 & 4.19 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Results for the problem comment ability. Figure 9: Students’ problem analysis ability in the previous test and the post-test. For the problem-solving ability, 4 questions were asked to assess students' problem-solving ability with the AMVR system to perform the walk-around inspection for the Dornier 228. Table 6 and Figure 11 present the questions and the results. In question 14, the ability to draw diagrams for the inspection of the aircraft improved significantly with the average score, increasing by 0.62 from 3.34 to 3.96. This was followed by an improved solution strategy and review methodology (question 12), with the average score increasing from 3.66 to 4.19. The standard deviation of the score of question 11 was 0.71, which shows the consistent influence of the AMVR system on students' problem-solving abilities. In general, students' problem-solving ability has improved significantly after using the AMVR system, with the average score changing from 3.7 to 4.13. The scores of three questions in the teamwork category are shown in Table 7 and Figure 12. Through an improvement in problem comment ability, it can be seen that students' ability to work in groups has also improved as well.