## 3 Results  
### Data Analysis  
The primary data were analyzed using the \(R\) programming language (v. 4.3.1). The dataset was inspected for missing or incomplete values [25] and none were found. Potential outliers were examined using both graphical (boxplots) and analytical (z-scores) methods with no significant issues requiring correction or exclusion [25]. The entire dataset is provided as Supplementary Material. To determine the underlying constructs within the instrument, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) (Table 1) was conducted [26]. Both the Kaiser criterion (eigenvalues > 1) and the scree plot supported a two-factor solution. The first factor, labeled \"Perceived Quality of the Virtual Environment\", is characterized by high loadings on questions pertaining to the overall impression of the virtual classroom such as the quality of the 3D objects, animations, and texts. In a sense, this construct reflects users' perceptions of the technical aspects and the aesthetic appeal of the 3D Virtual Learning Environment (3 DVLE). The second factor, termed \"Adoption Perception\", is primarily associated with items related to the learning experience itself. These include the role of the teacher and the degree to which the 3 DVLE was perceived as interesting and useful for learning. It, therefore, captures users' perceptions towards its wider adoption in education. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline
**Item** & **Factor 1 * & **Factor 2** \\ \hline Q1. How would you rate the content of the scenario in terms of relevance and accuracy? & \(-\)0.64 & \(-\)0.07 \\ Q2. How would you rate the visual quality of the 3D objects in the scenario? & \(-\)0.55 & \(-\)0.33 \\ Q3. How would you rate the smoothness and realism of the animations in the scenario? & \(-\)0.47 & \(-\)0.43 \\ Q4. How would you rate the overall quality of the learning materials in the scenario? & \(-\)0.59 & \(-\)0.16 \\ Q5. How would you rate the clarity and readability of the texts in the scenario? & \(-\)0.33 & \(-\)0.6 \\ Q6. To what extent did your activities in the 3D virtual environment help you understand the presented topics? & \(-\)0.67 & 0.29 \\ Q7. Do you feel that this tool positively impacted your learning by helping you develop new transversal skills such as collaboration and problem-solving? & \(-\)0.58 & \(-\)0.04 \\ Q8. What is your overall impression of learning in a 3D virtual environment? & \(-\)0.74 & \(-\)0.01 \\ Q9. How would you rate your overall immersive learning experience in the virtual environment? & \(-\)0.59 & 0.43 \\ Q10. To what extent do you believe teacher’s presence is necessary when undertaking learning activities in a virtual environment? & \(-\)0.23 & \(-\)0.11 \\ Q11. Would you consider using a similar educational 3D Virtual Environment for future training? & \(-\)0.53 & 0.33 \\ Q12. How likely are you to recommend this learning approach to other students? & \(-\)0.57 & 0.1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
* Note: Loadings above 0.4 are considered significant.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Exploratory factor analysis. Figure 4: VR module evaluation process at AAUP during a face-to-face session. Following the EFA, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to verify the factors' structure [26]. The results supported the two-factor solution with relatively high loadings for each construct (Table 2). The emergence of these factors indicates that users' perceptions of the 3 DVLE are multi-faceted, encompassing both the quality of the environment itself and the effectiveness of the learning experience within the environment. This is in line with the relevant literature [27; 28] which suggests that a technologically advanced virtual environment alone does not ensure a successful learning experience; the pedagogical framework and its execution are equally critical. Internal consistency reliability for each construct was assessed using [PERSON]'s alpha (\(\alpha\)).