## 5 Discussion  
Our results follow other authors' findings regarding the positive acceptance of AR and VR by our students [73; 74; 75; 63; 64; 65; 73; 65; 74]. Nevertheless, it is necessary for us to recognize that more coincidences were obtained with results that referred to AR than with those corresponding to VR, where research studies are less abundant, although their number has been growing lately [76]. Regarding the technical and aesthetic aspects of the design of AR and VR objects and their link to user-friendliness, the results match those achieved in other studies on AR subjects [69; 70]. In these studies, the assessments made by the students were also very positive, rating the objects as very attractive to them; thus, we concur with the results obtained by [PERSON] et al. [16]--although their work referred to the commercial context in art galleries--that the attitude towards AR was positive. Our research has also been linked to improved motivation, as have other similar studies [77]. The findings concerning the absence of significant differences between AR and VR matches those few available studies where both technologies are compared [78]. This leads us to stress, in accordance with [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] [79], the need for further research on the investigation of VR objects. The two sub-instruments used--both that of TAM and the one associated with object assessment--proved to have good reliability levels, which is in keeping with those obtained in other studies [68; 80]. Moreover, their simplicity and quick administration makes the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Dimension**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Object**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Correlations**} \\ \cline{3-4}  & & **Total** & **Ease of Use** & **Technical Aspects** \\ \hline Perceived & AR & 0.348 & 0.297 & 0.349 \\ usefulness (PU) & VR & 0.186 & 0.190 & 0.124 \\ Perceived ease of & AR & 0.429 & 0.439 & 0.339 \\ use (PEU) & VR & 0.341 & 0.367 & 0.201 \\ Perceived & AR & 0.520 & 0.387 & 0.593 \\ enjoyment (PE) & VR & 0.268 & 0.283 & 0.172 \\ Attitude towards & AR & 0.567 & 0.525 & 0.516 \\ its use (AU) & VR & 0.288 & 0.268 & 0.236 \\ Intention to use & AR & 0.463 & 0.418 & 0.436 \\ it (IU) & VR & 0.224 & 0.212 & 0.182 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 12: [PERSON]’s correlation coefficient between the scores achieved for both instruments. Source: developed by the authors. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Contrast** & **Correlation Coefficient** \\ \hline Augmented Reality Object & 0.561 \\ Virtual Reality Object & 0.335 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: [PERSON]’s correlation coefficient between the scores achieved for both instruments. Source: developed by the authors. resulting instrument easy to use for students to assess the produced resources, and thus to ascertain the degree of acceptance created by the utilization of these technologies. As explained above, AR and VR technologies are highly valued by experts for their incorporation into training [81]; they are equally appreciated by students [74] and are very significant, both when students become object producers [82] and as Smart Learning Environments [83]. Along these lines, it is worth stressing that the exploratory study was carried out in a real classroom situation, which allows us to state that both technologies can be implemented in formal training contexts. This is also indicated by [PERSON] et al. [84], where VR and MR are presented as suitable alternatives to traditional learning methods. We researched certain artistic works located in an enclosed space in line with the work of [PERSON] et al. [85] who addressed museum cultural heritage. Despite this limited space, our work process was analogous to others in terms of where open VR environments were constructed. An example of this is the interactive mapping approach to explore open urban landscapes by [PERSON] et al. [86] or the work of [PERSON] et al. [87] on virtual gardening and intellectual disability.