## 3 Results
### Findings
#### 3.2.2 Impact of Instructional Modalities on Learners' Perceptions  
The chi-square (Table 6) test did not reveal any statistically significant associations between participants' background characteristics and instructional format. However, the near-significant result for computer game experience (\(p\) = 0.05) warrants further investigation, as it hints at a possible trend [34] that could be more apparent with a larger sample. Accordingly, Mann-Whitney \(U\) tests (Table 7) were conducted to compare participants' perceptions of the perceived quality and learning effectiveness of the intervention across the different instructional formats. The analysis revealed a significant difference in how learners perceived the relevance of the educational content (U = 158.5, z = \(-\)2.48, \(p\) = 0.01) with participants in the face-to-face format rating the content as more'relevant' and 'accurate' than those in the online format, thus highlighting the influence of instructional delivery on learners' perceptions. This observation aligns with the existing literature suggesting that face-to-face interactions can \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Variable** & \(\chi^{2}\) **(Statistic)** & **DF** & \(p\) \\ \hline Gender & 0.096 & 1 & 0.75 \\ Age Group & 4.533 & 2 & 0.6 \\ Computer Game Experience & 9.073 & 4 & 0.05 \\
3D Virtual Environment Experience & 7.545 & 4 & 0.11 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Analysis of background characteristics by instructional format. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline  & **Face-to-Face** & **Online** \\ \hline
1.1 How would you rate of the content of the scenario? & 2.95 & 3.65 \\
1.2 How would you rate the quality of the 3D objects? & 3.17 & 3.43 \\
1.3 How would you rate the quality of the animations? & 3.21 & 3.21 \\
1.4 How would you rate the quality of the learning material (in the scenario) in general? & 3.30 & 3.6 \\
1.5 How would you rate the quality of the texts (in the scenario)? & 3.39 & 3.52 \\
1.6 Did your activities in the virtual world help you comprehend & 2.73 & 3.39 \\ the presented topics? & 2.73 & 3.39 \\
1.7 Do you feel that this tool positively impacted your learning by helping you develop new transversal skills such as collaboration and problem-solving? & 2.39 & 2.56 \\
1.8 What is your overall impression of having a class in TESLA & 2.82 & 3.69 \\ virtual world? & 2.95 & 3.13 \\
1.9 How interesting did you find your time in the virtual world? & 2.43 & 2.47 \\
2.1 Is there a need of a real teacher to be present in the classroom & 2.34 & 2.43 \\ when learning in the virtual world? & 2.34 & 2.43 \\
2.2 Would you use a similar educational Virtual World in the future? & 2.52 & 2.6 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Mean ratings for VR experience and adoption perception by instructional modality. foster greater engagement and knowledge retention, likely due to increased opportunities for real-time feedback and clarification [35]. In contrast, we found no significant differences between the two formats in learners' perceptions of learning material quality (U = 198, z = \(-\)1.64, \(p\) = 0.1), including aspects such as visuals (U = 211.5, z = \(-\)1.26, \(p\) = 0.2), animations (U = 262, z = \(-\)0.05, \(p\) = 0.96), and text clarity (U = 234.5, z = \(-\)0.74, \(p\) = 0.46). On these grounds, it can be suggested that developers may have flexibility in how they prioritize these aspects across delivery methods. Similarly, we found no significant differences between formats in learners' perceptions of the 3 DVLE's effectiveness in aiding topic comprehension (U = 189.5, z = \(-\)1.69, \(p\) = 0.09), skill development (U = 225, z = \(-\)0.98, \(p\) = 0.32), or stimulating learners' interest in the subject matter (U = 243.5, z = \(-\)0.50, \(p\) = 0.62). We, therefore, hypothesize that the 3 DVLE's design and features, rather than the delivery mode, may be the primary factors influencing learners' engagement and perceptions of its educational value.