## 4 Results
### Analysis and Description of Usage among the Pilot Groups  
Once the individual usage by pilot group was analyzed, specific analyses were applied in order to compare if there were differences in usage among regions in Spain. This comparison takes place among Pilots Groups (1, 2, and 3) and Classes Groups (1 st cycle and 2 nd cycle) depending on their use of the activities by area (Science, Logic, Spatial, Literacy, Art, Multiplayer, Emotions). In order to verify data consistency, a reliability analysis was carried out. For the variable 'time of use' the in Pilot Group 1 was 0.695, and 0.817 in Pilot Group 2. For 'number of activities' the \(\alpha\)-Cronbach obtained was 0.825 in Pilot Group 1, and 0.901 in Pilot Group 2. It should be noted that in Pilot Group 1 the variances were larger than in Pilot Group 2. Equally, there were greater differences in 'time of use' among the different worlds in Pilot Group 1. This variability in the variance may reflect the teachers' predisposition towards certain activities. Usage can also be influenced by the very school. Groups with special educational needs did not have enough sample for this analysis, so they could not be considered for comparison in the factorial analysis. In a first place, a Factorial ANOVA was introduced along with the following factors: the first factor was the pilot group (1, 2 and 3), the second factor was class classification: by Special Needs, 1 st Cycle or 2 nd Cycle classes. The interaction effect that these two factors establish shows significance with the 'time of use' for the world Emotion, F(2) = 6.104, \(p\) = 0.003 (\(<\)0.05), np2 = 0.050, \(p\) = 0.885. This indicates the time of use dedicated to Emotion's world was different in each of the groups and the pilots--in other words, these activities are presenting with a higher variety in the ways users implemented their resources for the world of Emotion. Another explanation is that some schools dedicate more time to emotional intelligence for skills development. It was the case of schools in Pilot Group 3, as results point out in Tables 11, 12 and 13. Moreover, the three pilot groups of the different regions showed significance in the worlds of Logic F(2) =10.699, \(p\) = \(<\)0.005, np2 = 0.084, \(p\) = 0.989; Science, F(2) = 10.121, \(p\) = \(<\)0.005, np2 = 0.080, \(p\) = 0.985 and Literacy F(2) = 5.203, \(p\) = 0.006 (\(<\)0.05), np2 = 0.043, \(p\) = 0.826. These differences in 'time of use' among the pilots are due to the higher use of these worlds by schools in Pilot Group 2 and Pilot Group 3. This fact could indicate that implementation time was not decisive for an increased use of activities. Pilot Group 1 was the first to carry out the training and implementation, however showing a significantly lower usage. On the other hand, between the 1 st and 2 nd cycle groups there was significance in the world of Literacy F (1) = 6.168, \(p\) = 0.014 (\(<\)0.05), np2 = 0.026, \(p\) = 0.696. Nonetheless, the strength of the effect found in this difference in use was lower than the use when comparing pilot groups. A higher use of the world of Literacy stood out by 1 st cycle students of primary education (Tables 11, 12 and 13). Tendency of usage was high in all the pilot groups analyzed. No significance was found in the use of the Artistic, Spatial, or Multiplayer worlds, nor among the pilot groups schools, nor between 1 st and 2 nd cycle. It can be read that usage was homogeneous. This can mean a consensus of use by teachers to develop the skills of these areas via using technology. The differences in use detected may have also been due to the use of devices in the centers, or the teachers' motivation for a certain type of activities.