## 4 Results
It is additionally worth highlighting that the standard deviations achieved were not very high, which suggests a certain level of agreement in students' assessments. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Contrast Dimension** & **Correlation** \\ \hline Perceived usefulness (PU) & 0.955 \\ Perceived ease of use (PEU) & 0.969 \\ Perceived enjoyment (PE) & 0.941 \\ Attitude towards its use (AU) & 0.914 \\ Intention to use it (IU) & 0.903 \\ Instrument globality & 0.974 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Correlations between the scores achieved by the two objects in each dimension. Source: developed by the authors. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c l c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**AR**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**VR**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **m** & **s.d.** & **m** & **s.d.** \\ \hline (1) & Technical and aesthetic aspects & 5.05 & 0.85 & 5.35 & 0.75 \\
1.1 & The operation of the resource that we have presented to you is: & 5.00 & 1.15 & 5.15 & 0.88 \\
1.2 & On the whole, you consider the aesthetics of the resource produced: & 5.11 & 0.99 & 5.20 & 0.77 \\
1.3 & In general, you would describe the technical functioning of the resource as: & 5.37 & 1.01 & 5.20 & 0.89 \\
1.4 & Broadly speaking, how would you assess the presentation of information on the screen? & 5.05 & 0.91 & 5.05 & 0.97 \\
2 & Ease of use & & 5.37 & 0.83 & 5.26 & 0.99 \\
2.1 & How would you describe the user-friendliness and handling of the resource that we have presented to you? & 4.95 & 1.03 & 5.16 & 1.07 \\
2.2 & How would you assess the overall design of the AR resource produced? & 4.65 & 1.50 & 4.79 & 1.23 \\
2.4 & How would you assess the overall design of the resource that we have presented to you? & 5.21 & 1.13 & 5.21 & 0.98 \\
2.5 & How would you assess the flexibility in the utilization of the material that we have presented to you? & 5.95 & 0.52 & 6.00 & 0.49 \\
2.6 & Using the resource produced was fun for you: & 5.13 & 0.88 & 5.23 & 0.61 \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Technical aspects} & 5.02 & 1.18 & 5.22 & 0.79 \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Ease of use} & 4.98 & 1.17 & 5.23 & 0.63 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Mean scores and standard deviations for each of the dimensions. Source: developed by the authors. The following hypotheses were put forward in order to ascertain whether significant differences existed in students' assessments of both objects:  
**Hypothesis 0** (Null hypothesis): No significant differences exist in students' assessments of the objects produced in AR and those produced in VR, with a 0.05 alpha risk of our being wrong, as both regard the scores assigned to the object globally, to its technical aspects, and to ease of navigation. **Hypothesis 1** (Alternative hypothesis): significant differences exist in students' assessments of the objects produced in AR and those produced in VR, with a 0.05 alpha risk of our being wrong, as both regard the scores assigned to the object globally, to its technical aspects, and to ease of navigation. To that end, we once again applied the Student's t-test and obtained the values offered in Table 8.  
The obtained values do not allow us to reject either of the formulated null hypotheses. We can thus point out that no significant differences exist, with a \(p\leq 0.05\) alpha risk in students' assessments of the different objects produced in AR and VR. Furthermore, as we had done previously, we paid attention to the correlations established between the assessments given to the different objects in each dimension. For this purpose, we applied [PERSON]'s correlation coefficient and obtained the scores provided in Table 9.  
Once more, as could be expected from the abovementioned results, the correlation between the scores assigned to the different objects can be considered very high [72]. So as to check the existence of relationships between the different dimensions analyzed in the instrument, and between them in the two objects, we performed a [PERSON]'s correlation coefficient test (Table 10).