## 4 Teaching Experiment
### Learning Effectiveness  
According to the descriptive statistics in Table 2, the experimental group had a pre-test score of 55.88 with a standard deviation of 15.99. After the intervention, the post-test score increased to 98.67 with a standard deviation of 9.35. The control group had a pre-test score of 60.60 with a standard deviation of 11.74. After the intervention, the post-test score increased to 75.00 with a standard deviation of 9.24.  
A paired samples \(t\)-test was used to assess the difference in learning achievement before and after the treatment for the two groups. According to the results in Table 3, both groups achieved significant progress after learning with different methods. A significant difference between the mean scores of the pre-test and post-test was found for the experimental group (t = 16.05, \(p<0.001\)). Observation of the test scores reveals that the post-test score is higher than the pre-test score. Similarly, the results achieved a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores (t = 7.10, \(p<0.001\)) for the control group. The results of the paired samples \(t\)-tests reveal a significant improvement in learning effectiveness for both groups after learning with their teaching methods.  
A one-way ANCOVA is a statistical method that examines differences between group means while adjusting for the influence of covariates, or other factors that might affect the outcome. By controlling for such variables, ANCOVA isolates the effect of the primary independent variable on the dependent variable. In this study, it enables an accurate comparison of learning outcomes between the experimental group and the control group, providing a clearer view of VR360's effectiveness in enhancing learning by adjusting for students' prior knowledge or related factors.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Group** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Pre-Test**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Post-Test**} \\  & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** \\ \hline Experimental group (n = 34) & 55.88 & 15.99 & 98.67 & 9.35 \\ Control group (n = 33) & 60.60 & 11.74 & 75.00 & 9.24 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Descriptive statistics of the pre-test and post-test scores for both groups.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Group** & **Mean** & **SD** & **t** & **Significance** \\ \hline Experimental group & 41.50 & 15.08 & 16.05 & 0.000 *** \\ Control group & 11.39 & 11.64 & 7.10 & 0.000 *** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Results of paired samples \(t\)-tests in learning achievement for both groups.  
A one-way ANCOVA was conducted to compare the learning effectiveness between the two groups. Before the analysis, the assumption of variance homogeneity was tested and no significance was found (F = 3.961, \(p\) > 0.05), confirming that ANCOVA can be conducted. The results of one-way ANCOVA are shown in Table 4 with F = 222.231 and \(p\) < 0.001, indicating a significant difference between the two groups in learning effectiveness due to different teaching methods. According to the results in Table 2, the experimental group made more progress than the control group, so the learning effectiveness of the VR360 ecological system is higher than that of the traditional teaching method.