# Mixed, Augmented and Virtual, Reality Applied to the Teaching of Mathematics for Architects
## 3 Results Achieved  
Here we show the mean scores and standard deviations obtained with both tools, starting with those reached with the TAM instrument. So that a correct interpretation is made, readers must bear in mind that the answer scale ranged between 1 (extremely unlikely/I disagree) and 7 (extremely likely/I agree). (Table 4). The analysis of the preceding table allows us to focus on two aspects: the degree of acceptance of MR technology can be regarded as very high and additionally quite uniform amongst all students, as shown by the low standard deviation values obtained. The high average value reached in the dimension \"intention to use it\" (6.64) also deserves to be stressed. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MR**} \\ \cline{2-3}  & **m** & **s.d.** \\ \hline \hline (1) & **Perceived usefulness (PU)** & \\ \hline \hline
1.1. The use of this system could enhance my learning in the classroom. (PU1) & 6.30 & 1.17 \\ \hline
1.2. The use of this system during classes would make it easier for me to understand certain concepts. (PU2). & 6.65 & 0.65 \\ \hline
1.3. I think the system is useful when one is learning. (PU3) & 6.38 & 1.16 \\ \hline
1.4. The use of this system would improve my learning. & 6.40 & 1.14 \\ \hline (2) & **Perceive ease of use (PEU)** & \\ \hline \hline
2.1. In my opinion, the system is user-friendly. (PEU1) & 5.23 & 1.16 \\ \hline
2.2. Learning to use and operate the system was not a problem for me. (PEU2) & 5.18 & 1.61 \\ \hline
2.3. I found the explanations about how to use and operate the system clear and understandable. (PEU3) & 5.72 & 1.41 \\ \hline (3) & **Perceived enjoyment (PE)** & \\ \hline \hline
3.1. Utilizing the system was fun for me (PE1) & 6.82 & 0.39 \\ \hline
3.2. I enjoyed myself using the system (PE2) & 6.58 & 0.81 \\ \hline
3.3. In my view, the system allows you to learn while playing. (PE3) & 6.63 & 0.70 \\ \hline (4) & **Attitude towards its use (AU)** & \\ \hline \hline
4.1. Using the system makes learning become more interesting. (AU1) & 6.62 & 0.55 \\ \hline
4.2. In my opinion, using the system in the classroom is a good idea. (AU2) & 6.31 & 0.89 \\ \hline (5) & **Intention to use it (IU)** & \\ \hline \hline
5.1. I would like to use these systems in the future if I had the chance. (IU1) & 6.65 & 0.71 \\ \hline
5.2. I would like to use the system to learn both about the topics that were presented to me and about others (IU3). & 6.63 & 0.62 \\ \hline \hline Perceived usefulness (PU) & 6.43 & 1.03 \\ \hline \hline Perceived ease of use (PEU) & 5.28 & 1.39 \\ \hline \hline Perceived enjoyment (PE) & 6.68 & 0.63 \\ \hline Attitude towards use (AU) & 6.47 & 0.72 \\ \hline \hline Intention to use (IU) & 6.64 & 0.72 \\ \hline TAM GLOBAL VALUES & 6.30 & 0.89 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Means and standard deviations obtained with TAM. And concerning students' assessment of the object produced, the means and standard deviations appear in Table 5; in this case, the scale provided for answers went from 1 (Very negative/I strongly disagree) to 6 (very positive/I strongly agree). Once again, the average scores achieved, both in the tool total (5.20) and in its different items, suggest a good assessment of the object, not only in technical terms (5.18) but also regarding its user-friendliness (5.21). After showing the means and standard deviations, we will now go on to contrast the various hypotheses, the first ones being those that are formulated as follows:  
Null hypothesis (H0): No significant differences exist between students' gender and their technical mastery regarding audiovisual, computer and Internet resources with a 0.05 alpha risk of being wrong. Alternative hypothesis (H1): Significant differences do exist between students' gender and their technical mastery regarding audiovisual, computer and Internet resources with a 0.05 alpha risk of being wrong.