## 3 Results
### Inferential Statistics  
To test the hypothesis that the type of instruction would affect student learning outcomes, a series of independent-samples \(t\)-tests were conducted to compare the mean anatomy test scores of the two groups - this revealed differences between the two groups, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Instruction Method** & **Variable** & **Sex** & **N** & **Mean** & **SE Mean** & **StDev** & **Minimum** & **Q1** & **Median** & **Q3** & **Maximum** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Hololens} & Correct answers & Female & 16 & 6.813 & 0.672 & 2.689 & 3.000 & 4.250 & 6.000 & 9.000 & 12.000 \\  & Male & 34 & 9.147 & 0.647 & 3.775 & 2.000 & 6.750 & 9.500 & 12.000 & 16.000 \\  & Variable & Sex & N & Mean & SE Mean & StDev & Minimum & Q1 & Median & Q3 & Maximum \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{PowerPoint} & Correct answers & Female & 27 & 8.370 & 0.851 & 4.422 & 2.000 & 5.000 & 9.000 & 12.000 & 17.000 \\  & Male & 38 & 9.658 & 0.683 & 4.212 & 2.000 & 7.000 & 10.000 & 12.000 & 20.000 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive statistics of the two research groups. Figure 5: Gender distribution of the participants in the two study groups (HoloLens and PowerPoint). Figure 6: IQ score distribution of the two research groups. with the PPT group scoring slightly higher than the MR group. The effect size was small (t = \(-0.723\)), indicating that the magnitude of the differences was modest. As shown in Figure 7, the students who received PowerPoint instruction performed slightly better in the test than those who learned the material with HoloLens. The first group of students had a mean score of 9.123 and a standard deviation of 4.314, and the second group of students had a mean score of 8.4 and a standard deviation of 3.608. While PowerPoint instruction may have some learning outcome advantages (over HoloLens instruction), the difference is not very large. Although the results indicate a slight performance advantage for the PowerPoint instruction group, it is important to consider other factors that may have influenced the outcome, which include factors such as individual learning styles, prior experience with the instructional technology, and the specific content being taught, which could all have contributed to the observed differences. It is also worth noting that the standard deviations of both groups are relatively high, indicating a wide range of individual performance within each group. This suggests that there is considerable variability in how students engage with, and benefit from, different instructional approaches. In order to investigate the reasons for the different levels of performance and identify the optimal instructional method for each situation, we conducted a multiple mathematical regression analysis of the anatomy test scores, participant age and the type of instruction received (HoloLens vs. PowerPoint). The results, displayed in Figure 8, reveal that both the age and the instruction method (HoloLens vs. PowerPoint) had a significant (\(p\) = 0.004) influence on the learning outcomes. More specifically, the regression model showed that age was a significant predictor of test performance, indicating that older participants tended to perform better in the test than younger counterparts. In addition, the type of instruction received was also a significant predictor of test performance, suggesting that participants who received PowerPoint instruction tended to score higher on the test than counterparts who received HoloLens instruction (see Figure 9). Figure 7: Correct answers at the anatomy test, grouped by instruction method. However, it is important to note that while the differences in test scores (between the two instruction methods) were statistically significant, the effect sizes were relatively small.