## 4 Results  
In order for the outcomes to be more easily understood, we will firstly present those obtained through the application of the first part of the instrument relating to the TAM model, subsequently showing those corresponding to students' assessment of the objects, and finally carrying out an analysis of the correlations between both of them. As for the TAM model, Table 3 lists the means and standard deviations obtained for the two used objects. It also offers the results referring to: (a) the instrument globally; (b) each of the dimensions shaping it; and (c) each of the items. The values obtained allow us to point out that the students showed a high degree of acceptance of AR and VR technologies, revealing a highly favorable attitude towards their use (AR = 6.45 and VR = 6.48), and a strong agreement regarding their intention to use them (AR = 6.63 and VR = 6.68). Likewise, it was deemed appropriate to verify a set of hypotheses that we formulated as follows:  
Figure 5: Screenshots of the work process (**a–c**). Source: developed by the authors. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c l c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**AR**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**VR**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & & **m** & **s.d.** & **m** & **s.d.** \\ \hline (1) & Perceived usefulness (PU) & 6.20 & 1.20 & 6.40 & 1.14 \\
1.1. & Using this system could improve my learning in the classroom. (PU1) & 6.60 & 0.60 & 6.70 & 0.57 \\
1.2. & Using this system during classes will make it easier for me to understand certain concepts. (PU2) & 6.40 & 1.14 & 6.35 & 1.18 \\
1.3 & I think the system is useful when learning. (PU3) & 6.40 & 1.14 & 6.40 & 1.14 \\
1.4. & Using this system would increase my learning. (PU4) & 6.40 & 1.14 & 6.40 & 1.14 \\
2. & Perceived ease of use (PEU) & 5.35 & 1.27 & 5.11 & 1.05 \\
2.1. & I think the system is user-friendly. (PEU1) & 5.15 & 1.63 & 5.20 & 1.58 \\
2.2. & Learning to use and manage the system was not a problem for me. (PEU2) & 5.70 & 1.49 & 5.70 & 1.38 \\
2.3. & The information received to use and manage the system seemed clear and understandable to me. (PEU3) & 6.85 & 0.37 & 6.80 & 0.41 \\
3.2. & I enjoyed using the system (PE2) & 6.50 & 0.95 & 6.65 & 0.67 \\
3.3. & I think the system permits learning by playing. (PE3) & 6.60 & 0.75 & 6.75 & 0.64 \\
4. & Attitude towards its use (AU) & 6.60 & 0.60 & 6.65 & 0.49 \\
4.1. & Using the system makes learning more interesting. (AU1) & 6.30 & 0.98 & 6.30 & 0.98 \\
4.2. & In my opinion, using this system in the classroom is a good idea. (AU2) & 6.60 & 0.75 & 6.70 & 0.66 \\
5.1. & I would like to use this system in the future if I had the chance. (IU1) & 6.65 & 0.59 & 6.65 & 0.59 \\
5.2. & I would like to use the system to learn both the topics dealt with and others (IU2). & 6.40 & 0.97 & 6.46 & 0.95 \\  & Perceived usefulness (PU) & 5.40 & 1.27 & 5.36 & 1.16 \\  & Perceived enjoyment (PE) & 6.65 & 0.58 & 6.73 & 0.48 \\  & Attitude towards its use (AU) & 6.45 & 0.71 & 6.48 & 0.64 \\  & Intention to use it (IU) & 6.63 & 0.60 & 6.68 & 0.52 \\  & TAM globality & 6.28 & 0.67 & 6.32 & 0.62 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Means and standard deviations reached with the instrument related to the TAM model. Source: developed by the authors. H1-H2-H3. The perceived ease of use may positively and significantly influence perceived enjoyment and perceived usefulness, as well as the attitude towards the use of learning objects produced in AR and VR. * H4-H5-H6. The perceived usefulness of learning objects produced in AR and VR is likely to positively and significantly affect perceived enjoyment and the intention to use them, as well as the attitude towards the use of learning objects in AR and VR. * H7-H8. Perceived enjoyment may positively and significantly influence both the attitude towards their use and the intention to use learning objects produced in AR and VR. * H9. The attitude towards their use is likely to positively and significantly affect the intention to use learning objects made in AR and VR.