## 3 Results
### Analysis and Description of Data
#### 3.1.2 Aim 2  
To respond to objective 2, which referred to assessing the usefulness of AR as a teaching and learning technique in the framework of the 3P model, according to each variable, both overall and by gender, the students filled out the questionnaire individually and the data was organized by blocks or theoretical constructs with the goal of clarifying and organizing the results. Table 5 shows the descriptive statistics for the overall perception students have of the usefulness of AR for the teachers' teaching and for their own learning. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Blocks** & **Dimensions** & **Mean** \\ \hline
1 & Presentation of the questionnaire & 3.71 \\
2 & Instructions for completing the questionnaire & 3.22 \\
3 & Structure and overall design of the questionnaire & 3.57 \\
4.1 & Suitability of the lexis/language & 3.96 \\
4.2 & Suitability of the response options & 4.00 \\
5 & Overall rating of the questionnaire’s suitability & 3.89 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Content validity of the “Sixth-grade primary education students’ perception of the usefulness of augmented reality” (PEURA-E) questionnaire according to the experts. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Blocks** & **Dimensions** & **Items** \\ \hline
1 & Presentation of the questionnaire & 1 to 7 \\
2 & Instructions for completing the questionnaire & 8 to 10 \\
3 & Structure and overall design of the questionnaire & 11 to 20 \\
4.1 & Suitability of the lexis/language & Analysis of each item \\
4.2 & Suitability of the response options & Analysis of each item \\
5 & Overall rating of the questionnaire’s suitability & 21 to 23 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Classification of the rating scale used by blocks and items. The perspective for the teaching construct reveals high values, with a mean score between 4.08 (\(\text{Sd. }=0.957\)) and 4.50 (\(\text{Sd. }=0.734\)) out of 5.00, and medians of 4.00 and 5.00 points for the four items. The most notable rating was for item 2, for which 61.3% of students selected the option strongly agree, and therefore consider that AR can complement teaching performed with books and notes. For the learning construct the scores were slightly lower but still high, with the lowest rating being 3.97 (\(\text{Sd. }=1.108\)) and the highest 4.25 (\(\text{Sd.}=1.067\)). Item 6 stands out, with 83% of students responding agree or strongly agree, showing a firm majority in support of the idea that AR can improve students' motivation. This was also the only item whose median was 5 points, while the others returned a value of 4. As for the overall score for the usefulness of AR with respect to the curriculum, Table 6 shows that there are two items in each area whose values were respectively the highest and the lowest, according to the proposed contents that were taught. We have had to select results due to spatial limitations, but all the items can be seen in the supplementary document 5. It can be seen that most of the items achieved mean scores of over 4.00 points, except for items 14 and 20, which were rated 3.99 (\(\text{Sd. }=0.951\)) and 3.93 (\(\text{Sd. }=1.106\)), respectively. The median was between 4.00 and 5.00 points for all the items. Also of note is the fact that in two of the five areas the items referring to the usefulness of learning these types of content with (items 16 and 34) received the maximum rating for their constructs (4.45; \(\text{Sd. }=0.794\) and 4.64; \(\text{Sd. }=0.679\), respectively). The highest percentages were in Social Sciences (item 23) and Natural Sciences (item 34), where strongly agree was over 70%. In contrast, strongly disagree was very low in all the areas with no item receiving over 5% and many at 0%.