# The Influence of Immersive and Collaborative Virtual Environments in Improving Spatial Skills
## 5 Discussion  
Student performance on both the MRT and DAT:SR improved significantly from the pre-test to the post-test. This suggests that the 3D modeling activity the students worked on in our application may have had a positive impact on the spatial skills which are measured by these instruments. What is not as clear is why the correlation between scores on the MRT and DAT:SR was only significant in the post-test case. This could be due to the greater \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Question** & **Average Score** & **Standard Deviation** \\ \hline Q1. I would use this tool frequently & 4.79 & 0.41 \\ \hline Q2. I find this tool unnecessarily complex & 1.00 & 0 \\ \hline Q3. The tool was easy to use & 4.69 & 0.46 \\ \hline Q4. I would need the help of somebody with technical knowledge of this tool & 1.31 & 0.46 \\ \hline Q5. The tool’s functionality is well integrated & 4.90 & 0.30 \\ \hline Q6. The tool is inconsistent & 1.14 & 0.34 \\ \hline Q7. Most people could learn how to use this tool very quickly & 4.79 & 0.41 \\ \hline Q8. The tool is very difficult to use & 1.03 & 0.18 \\ \hline Q9. I feel confident using this tool & 4.14 & 0.78 \\ \hline Q10. I had to learn many things before I could use this tool & 1.17 & 0.38 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Results of usability assessment (I = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Question** & **Average Score** & **Standard Deviation** \\ \hline Q1. Navigating the command menus was not a problem for me & 4.69 & 0.46 \\ \hline Q2. Navigating in the scene was not a problem for me & 5.00 & 0 \\ \hline Q3. Changing the scale of the scene was not a problem for me & 3.90 & 0.80 \\ \hline Q4. Finding the commands I was looking for was not a problem for me & 4.97 & 0.18 \\ \hline Q5. Creating a 3D primitive was not a problem for me & 5.00 & 0 \\ \hline Q6. Drawing in 3D was not a problem for me & 5.00 & 0 \\ \hline Q7. Deleting an object was not a problem for me & 5.00 & 0 \\ \hline Q8. Modifying an object was not a problem for me & 4.31 & 0.46 \\ \hline Q9. Copying an object was not a problem for me & 1.00 & 0 \\ \hline Q10. Undoing and redoing the last command was not a problem for me & 1.00 & 0 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Results of the functionality assessment (I = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). overall improvement in MRT scores compared to DAT:SR scores. Others have similarly reported that the DAT:SR yields relatively high pre-test scores, and that post-training gains are not as high on this test as on other spatial tests, possibly due to a ceiling effect [35]. Other possible explanations could be a practice effect that the students better understood the MRT test the second time around, or that the students put more effort into the assessments after having completed the in-person portion of this study. While the MRT is an extremely popular and widely used instrument, it has been subject to criticism regarding its accuracy and fairness [71]. Test-retest reliability is not generally demonstrated with the MRT, and even one additional test session tends to lead to improvements in scores [72]. However, this study is not unique in using the same spatial instruments as pre- and post-tests; this is a common practice across most spatial training studies. More research is needed to validate our 3D modeling activity with more students, but the initial results are promising with regard to its ability to train spatial skills. The second portion of our study focused on the usability and functionality of our application. The usability was rated consistently high, suggesting that the participants found the application intuitive to use. The functionality was also rated highly, except for the questions of two functions that were not yet implemented into our application.