## 4 Results
### Responses  
Participating professors express an intermediate average level of digital competence for VR use (between 3 and 4 out of 5) but higher ratings for technical and usability aspects (greater than or equal to 4 out of 5), according to the average responses shown in Table 4. On the other hand, the didactic aspects are rated lower than the technical and usability aspects (between 3 and 4 out of 5). Likewise, the level of disadvantage perceived by the professors is close to 4 out of 5. A bilateral \(t\)-test was performed to compare the mean ratings between teachers from CABEI countries and teachers from non-CABEI countries, the results of which are shown in Table 4 and Figure 2. Since the corresponding \(p\)-values are less than the significance level previously set (0.05) only for the usability and disadvantages variables, it can be concluded that there are significant differences between the mean ratings only for these variables. Specifically, professors from CABEI countries give better ratings of the usability of VR and identify a lower level of disadvantage in its use in lessons than professors from non-CABEI countries (Table 4). The bilateral \(t\)-test performed for the comparison of means between private and public universities reveals significant differences (\(p\)-values lower than the 0.05 significance level) for the usability and didactic aspects variables. Therefore, professors from private universities give higher ratings to the usability and didactic aspects of VR than those from public universities (Table 5). However, no differences by university tenure were identified in the professors' self-concept of digital competence or in their ratings of the technical aspects of VR, its future projection or its disadvantages (Table 5 and Figure 3). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**CABEI Countries** & **Proportion (\%)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Non-CABEI** \\ **Countries** \\ \end{tabular} & **Proportion (\%)** \\ \hline Argentina & 16.6 & Bolivia & 10.4 \\ Colombia & 29.5 & Brazil & 4.0 \\ Costa Rica & 1.1 & Chile & 4.8 \\ El Salvador & 1.9 & Ecuador & 22.4 \\ Guatem & 3.2 & Paraguay & 3.2 \\ Honduras & 1.1 & Peru & 44.4 \\ Mexico & 37.8 & Puerto Rico & 1.6 \\ Panama & 1.6 & Uruguay & 2.4 \\ Dominican Republic & 2.9 & Venezuela & 6.8 \\ TOTAL & 100 & TOTAL & 100 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Distribution of the participants by their country of origin. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Family of Responses** & **Cronbach’s Alpha** & **CR** \\ \hline Digital competence & 0.7551 & 0.7421 \\ Technical aspects & 0.8491 & 0.8406 \\ Usability & 0.7814 & 0.7696 \\ Disadvantages & 0.8017 & 0.7933 \\ Future projection & 0.7941 & 0.7861 \\ Didactic aspects & 0.7640 & 0.7551 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR) parameters. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Family**} & **Mean CABEI** & **Mean Non-CABEI** & \multirow{2}{*}{**t-Statistic**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(p\)-Value**} \\  & **Countries (Out of 5)** & **Countries (Out of 5)** & & \\ \hline Digital competence & 3.26 & 3.23 & 0.58 & 0.56 \\ Technical aspects & 3.97 & 3.91 & 0.91 & 0.36 \\ Usability & 4.29 & 4.15 & 2.81 & \textless{}0.05 * \\ Disadvantages & 3.80 & 3.92 & \textless{}1.96 & 0.04 * \\ Future projection & 4.00 & 3.90 & 1.62 & 0.10 \\ Didactic aspects & 3.08 & 3.14 & \textless{}0.87 & 0.38 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Average responses distinguishing between CABEI countries and non-CABEI countries as well as statistics of the bilateral \(t\)-test for comparison of means, carried out with the Welch correction, without assuming equality of variances. Figure 2: Average responses differentiated by geographic location (dark colors indicate significant differences between CABEI and non-CABEI countries).