# The Influence of Immersive and Collaborative Virtual Environments in Improving Spatial Skills
## 4 Results  
This study began with the completion of the MRT and DAT as pre-tests of spatial skills and concluded with a post-test using the same instruments. Table 3 shows the results obtained from the 29 students that participated. The distribution of the MRT pre-test and post-test data was normal and without outliers. The distribution of the DAT pre-test and post-test data was bimodal and without outliers. Following the recommendation of [PERSON] et al., (2016) [69], we proceeded with the paired \(t\)-test analysis for both tests. The mean score on the MRT improved by 34.0%, and the mean score on the DAT:SR improved by 1.6%. Thus, the improvement on the MRT score was higher than the improvement on the DAT:SR score, but performance improved on both tests. A paired samples t-test was used to compare performance on the MRT pre-test and post-test. There was a significant improvement in the MRT post-test scores (M = 25.79, SD = 7.97) over the MRT pre-test scores (M = 19.24, SD = 9.28); \(t\)(28) = 5.94, \(p\) < 0.001. The effect size was large, with a [PERSON]'s d of 1.10, 95% CI [0.63, 1.56]. A paired samples t-test was also used to compare performance on the DAT:SR pre-test and post-test. There was a significant improvement in the DAT:SR post-test scores (M = 33.07, SD = 11.32) over the scores on the DAT:SR pre-test (M = 32.52, SD = 10.86); \(t\)(28) = 4.33, \(p\) < 0.001. The effect size was large, with a [PERSON]'s d of 0.80, 95% CI [0.37, 1.19]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline Q1 & I would use this tool frequently & Q6 & The tool is inconsistent \\ \hline Q2 & I find this tool unnecessarily complex & Q7 & Most people could learn how to use this tool very quickly \\ \hline Q3 & The tool was easy to use & Q8 & The tool is very difficult to use \\ \hline Q4 & I would need the help of somebody with technical knowledge of this tool & Q9 & I feel confident using this tool \\ \hline Q5 & The tool’s functionality is well integrated & Q10 & I had to learn many things before I could use this tool \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Questions used in the usability assessment (SUS). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline Q1 & Navigating the command menus was not a problem for me & Q6 & Drawing in 3D was not a problem for me \\ \hline Q2 & Navigating the scene was not a problem for me & Q7 & Deleting an object was not a problem for me \\ \hline Q3 & Changing the scale of the scene was not a problem for me & Q8 & Editing an object was not a problem for me \\ \hline Q4 & Finding the command I was looking for was not a problem for me & Q9 & Copying an object was not a problem for me \\ \hline Q5 & Creating a 3D primitive was not a problem for me & Q10 & Undoing and redoing the last command was not a problem for me \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Questions used in the functionality assessment. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  & **N** & **Mean** & **SD** \\ \hline MRT-Pre & 29 & 19.24 & 9.28 \\ \hline MRT-Post & 29 & 25.79 & 7.97 \\ \hline DAT-Pre & 29 & 32.52 & 10.86 \\ \hline DAT-Post & 29 & 33.07 & 11.32 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Mean scores on the MRT and DAT pre- and post-tests. A Pearson correlation coefficient was computed to assess the linear relationship between the MRT pre-test score and the DAT:SR pre-test score. There was not a significant correlation between the two scores, r(28) = 0.34, \(p\) = 0.700. Figure 10 shows a scatterplot of the pre-test scores on the MRT and DAT:SR, demonstrating visually this lack of significant correlation. A Pearson correlation coefficient was also computed to assess the linear relationship between the MRT post-test score and the DAT:SR post-test score. There was a significant positive correlation between the two post-test scores, r(28) = 0.84, \(p\) < 0.001. Figure 11 shows a scatterplot of the pre-test scores on the MRT and DAT:SR, demonstrating visually this positive correlation.