Integrating Virtual Reality into Art Education: Enhancing Public Art and Environmental Literacy Among Technical High School Students

Abstract

With rapid technological advancements and increasing environmental challenges, educational systems face demands for innovative teaching methods. This study integrates Virtual Reality (VR) technology into vocational high school art curricula, examining its impact on public art creation and environmental literacy. Based on the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) model and scaffolding theory, the course includes units on public art, aesthetic composition, and environmental issues. Participants were second-year students from a vocational high school in Taiwan, with 29 in the VR-assisted experimental group and 35 in the control group using traditional teaching methods. Data were collected via pre- and post-tests, teacher evaluations, and self-assessments. Results showed that VR significantly improved students’ engagement, exploration, and creation, effectively integrating art and environmental knowledge. The experimental group excelled in spatial expression, showing better understanding and interaction with spatial concepts. The CPS model enhanced problem-solving skills, innovation, teamwork, and feedback. This study confirms that combining VR with the CPS model fosters creativity and problem-solving in art education.

1. Introduction

The rapid advancement of technology has driven progress in various sectors of society, but it has also exacerbated environmental issues. As early as 1972, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment underscored the importance of environmental protection [1,2], and in 2015, the UN introduced 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to address global environmental challenges [3].

The unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global education systems has posed significant challenges to countries worldwide [4]. However, this crisis has also sparked opportunities for innovation in education, accelerating the rise in virtual technologies. Particularly, the concept of the metaverse, promoted by Meta, which integrates mixed reality with virtual worlds, has revealed new possibilities for future educational technologies [5]. Virtual reality (VR) offers immersive learning experiences in a safe environment, enabling students to engage more deeply in the learning process [6,7]. The application of VR in education represents a significant leap, not only replacing traditional teaching methods but also advancing interactive learning models [8]. Incorporating VR technology into art curricula in technical high schools overcomes spatial and equipment limitations, reduces resource consumption, and provides learners with diverse virtual scenarios to address problems more flexibly.

Modern educational philosophies emphasize learner-centered approaches, where students actively construct knowledge and learn to solve problems through real or simulated environments [9]. This study designs an art curriculum that integrates VR technology, supported by scaffolding theory and the Creative Problem-Solving (CPS) model, and aligns with the educational philosophy of “initiative”, “interaction”, and “shared good”, as outlined in the 108 Curriculum Guidelines [10]. By incorporating public art and environmental issues, the curriculum employs a tiered framework with three units, allowing students to explore and experience environmental issues in a virtual reality setting and create art under teacher guidance. Peer collaboration among students not only enhances cooperative learning but also promotes creative thinking, teamwork, and communication skills. The curriculum design is illustrated in Figure 1.

This study investigates the impact of integrating Virtual Reality (VR) teaching strategies with scaffolding theory and the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) model on students’ learning outcomes, aiming to enhance student engagement and educational effectiveness. A public art curriculum tailored for vocational high school students was developed, combining environmental issues with public art to foster knowledge, skills, and attitudes in these domains. The experimental teaching focused on second-year automotive students, exploring the efficacy of a VR-based public art module in art education.

The research seeks to address the following key questions: How does VR influence students’ learning outcomes in public art and environmental literacy compared to traditional methods? How does it enhance aesthetic composition, spatial abilities, and creative problem-solving? Additionally, can VR improve students’ environmental literacy on issues like climate change and sustainable resource use? Through these inquiries, this study aims to validate the effectiveness of VR-based teaching strategies in advancing public art education and environmental literacy, providing innovative insights for future curriculum development and pedagogical approaches in art education.

2. Literature Review

This study’s literature review is structured around three key areas: the 12-Year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines, the integration of art education and environmental issues in the curriculum, and theoretical research on the application of Virtual Reality (VR) in art education. These areas were chosen for their relevance to the study’s objectives, addressing both the educational framework and the innovative methodologies needed to enhance interdisciplinary learning. The curriculum guidelines provide a foundation for aligning teaching strategies with national education goals, while the integration of art and environmental issues highlights the importance of sustainability in fostering holistic learning. Additionally, VR in art education offers transformative opportunities for creativity and engagement, forming the basis for exploring its potential impact on learning outcomes in technical high schools.

2.1. The 12-Year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines

The rapid development of technology and information in the 21st century has made knowledge more accessible than ever before. The “108 Curriculum Guidelines”, introduced in 2014, are founded on the principles of “autonomy”, “interaction”, and “collaborative good”, with a vision to “empower every child to develop their potential and engage in lifelong learning” [10,11]. The guidelines place significant emphasis on “competency”, aiming to cultivate students’ interests and abilities that can be applied to both their daily lives and careers. According to the Competency-Based Teaching Manual, the goal of competency-based education is to develop students’ ability to handle new knowledge and unfamiliar situations [12]. In particular, the core competencies outlined for the arts domain in technical high schools emphasize the integration of art in both daily life and professional development, aiming to foster skills in teamwork, communication, and career preparedness. The ultimate goal is to cultivate systematic thinking, problem-solving, communication, collaboration, technological literacy, aesthetic appreciation, and creativity [12].

2.2. Integration of Art Education and Environmental Issues in the Curriculum

Environmental education aims to enhance learners’ environmental knowledge and attitudes, promoting sustainable development [13]. It covers five key themes: environmental ethics, sustainable development, climate change, disaster prevention, and sustainable use of energy resources. Stapp (1969) emphasized that environmental education focuses on the biophysical environment and problem-solving methods, cultivating citizens dedicated to addressing environmental issues [14]. Human negligence of environmental concerns has led to natural repercussions, such as environmental pollution and abnormal climate patterns driven by industrial development. In response, the United Nations introduced the “2030 Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) in 2015, calling for global collaboration to achieve sustainability. The 108 Curriculum Guidelines stress the importance of integrating environmental issues into education, aiming to cultivate students’ critical thinking, civic awareness, responsibility, and problem-solving skills. Teachers are expected to educate students about environmental ethics and conservation, using simulated life scenarios to encourage reflection and planning, ultimately fostering environmentally responsible lifestyles [15].

Art, being rooted in life, is a major pathway for nurturing aesthetic literacy [12]. The 108 Curriculum Guidelines emphasize the principles of “autonomy, interaction, and collaborative good”, guiding students to engage in artistic experiences through “expression”, “appreciation”, and “practice” to enhance their environmental awareness. Public art, created in public spaces, must adhere to principles of public accessibility, artistic merit, and local relevance [16], facilitating a dialog with the environment [17]. Environmental art stresses the coexistence of humans and nature, drawing attention to environmental concerns. Li and Lin (2018) argue that teaching should provide students with tasks to solve real-world problems in authentic environments [18]. Public art can be used to present environmental issues and promote sustainable development [17]. By visualizing environmental concerns, public art inspires public participation in environmental protection, emphasizes environmental ethics, and fosters community involvement and environmental education. Artists, through their creations, reflect ecological degradation, raising awareness of conservation efforts.

2.3. Related Theoretical Research on Virtual Reality in Art Education

Virtual reality (VR) creates simulated environments where users interact through sensory inputs. Burdea and Coiffet (2003) proposed the “3I characteristics” of VR: Imagination, Interaction, and Immersion. VR has wide-ranging applications, extending from gaming to entertainment, science, medicine, business, and education. In the context of education, VR can enhance learning motivation, practical training, and overall learning outcomes [19]. Piaget’s cognitive development theory emphasizes how humans adapt to their environment through cognitive processes such as balance, assimilation, and accommodation [20]. Research indicates that implementing cognitive structures can sharpen students’ computational thinking and help them solve real-world problems [21]. Recent educational research in Taiwan over the past five years has demonstrated that cognitive development theory continues to be widely applied across various disciplines and instructional designs. For instance, Lin (2024) explored the application of aesthetic education principles in art therapy, emphasizing the importance of cognitive development in students’ understanding of artistic expression [22]. Cheng (2024) integrated cognitive development theory in the study of outdoor experiential education, examining behavioral changes in participants [23]. Additionally, Kuo et al. (2024) incorporated experiential and self-directed learning models in outdoor recreational activities, highlighting learners’ cognitive needs at different stages [24].

Cognitive development theory provides theoretical support, helping curriculum designers understand students’ cognitive abilities at various learning stages, enabling the design of teaching activities that meet developmental needs. By simulating learning scenarios, this study utilizes the core principles of cognitive development theory to enhance students’ understanding of environmental issues, spatial composition, and public art creation, which is crucial for stimulating creativity and strengthening problem-solving abilities.

Vygotsky’s scaffolding theory emphasizes achieving goals with the support of more experienced individuals [25]. The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) is a theoretical concept introduced by Vygotsky (1978), referring to the gap between a learner’s ability to complete a task independently and their ability to complete it with assistance from others, such as teachers or peers. Within the ZPD, through scaffolding support provided by the teacher, students can transcend their current abilities, achieving higher levels of learning and development [26]. Azevedo, Cromley, and Seibert (2004) argued that teachers should provide appropriate scaffolding support [27]. Chiu, Lin, and Chu (2021) highlighted that scaffolding helps students develop interest and acquire key competencies [28]. Research by Wu et al. (2021) demonstrated that scaffolding can improve learning outcomes [29]. The zone of proximal development (ZPD) refers to the distance between a learner’s ability to solve problems independently and their potential to solve problems with guidance [30].

The Creative Problem Solving (CPS) model integrates creative thinking and problem-solving [31]. Parnes (1967) developed CPS, emphasizing the generation of multiple solutions [32]. Chen (2006) noted that CPS encourages the generation of diverse possibilities before selecting a solution [33]. Treffinger, Isaksen, and Dorval (2023) proposed a non-linear, three-component, six-stage model: constructing challenges, generating ideas, and preparing for action [34]. This study adopts Treffinger’s model as the core theoretical framework for curriculum design, helping students explore environmental issues and create public art in a VR environment. Howe (1997) suggested that CPS is applicable to both individual and group problem-solving contexts [35]. The three components and six stages of CPS are illustrated in Figure 2.

In summary, Piaget’s cognitive development theory, Vygotsky’s scaffolding theory and ZPD, and the CPS model provide the theoretical foundations for this study. VR technology has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of these theories in educational settings. By providing an immersive environment as emphasized by Piaget’s sensorimotor and concrete operational stages, offering real-time feedback and adaptive support based on Vygotsky’s scaffolding theory, and applying CPS to address real-world problems within virtual environments, this study aims to develop students’ multifaceted abilities.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Architecture

This study is based on the core competencies of the arts domain in the 12-year Basic Education Curriculum. It focuses on the integration of public art and environmental issues in art education, utilizing virtual reality (VR) as a teaching strategy for the public art unit. The study aligns with the 108 Curriculum Guidelines, where teachers play the role of facilitators, helping students connect learning experiences to real-life contexts. The goal is to develop students’ ability to integrate knowledge, skills, and attitudes through creative experiences in VR, ultimately enhancing their learning outcomes in public art and environmental literacy. The research observes how students approach environmental problems through the lens of the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) model, supported by cognitive development and scaffolding theories, enabling them to actively identify optimal solutions. The research framework is illustrated in Figure 3.

3.2. Participants

The participants of this study were second-year students from the automotive department of a technical high school in central Taiwan. Prior to the experimental teaching, these students had completed the course on mechanical and electrical drafting. The two participating classes were divided into a control group (Class B, 35 students) that received traditional lecture-based instruction and an experimental group (Class A, 29 students) that received instruction using the VR teaching strategy. Both groups were divided into five heterogeneous subgroups for the teaching process.

3.3. System Architecture

The study utilized Meta Quest 2 VR equipment, allowing learners to interact with objects and complete tasks in virtual scenarios. Meta Quest was employed as the platform for developing the VR teaching system, with software such as VR Youtube 360 (version 1.32.31), a VR spatial ability assessment tool, and VR BlockWorks (version 0.23.1) used in the experimental teaching. The VR spatial ability assessment tool, available in both VR and app versions, tests students’ observational and operational skills in three-dimensional spaces, enhancing their spatial awareness and creative abilities [36]. VR BlockWorks, a software designed for virtual art creation, enabled students to design and create public art projects in a virtual environment using various block elements for 3D modeling [37]. During the sessions, each group’s VR interactions were projected onto a laptop screen so that the instructor could provide guidance and support. Observing teachers and students in each group also documented the interactive processes within the VR environment. The system architecture is presented in Figure 4.

3.4. System Function and Design

Three teaching units were designed for this study to enable experiential learning and artistic creation. VR displays were projected onto computer screens, where the instructor provided guidance to facilitate students’ VR experiences and problem observations. Throughout the teaching activities, assessments were conducted and qualitative data were collected.

The course content involved using VR Youtube 360 software on the virtual platform to allow students to appreciate public art and observe environmental issues. After completing the VR experiences, students engaged in group discussions, data collection, and problem identification. They then used the VR spatial ability assessment tool to explore three-dimensional spaces.

Finally, the VR BlockWorks software was employed to link environmental issues with public art creation, fostering students’ abilities in reflection, communication, problem-solving, and teamwork. The system function design is illustrated in Figure 5.

3.5. Research Design

A quasi-experimental research design was adopted in this study, with the students’ mechanical and electrical drafting course grades used as a measure of their prior knowledge. Several teaching environment control measures were put in place, including controlling for student grade level, instructor, instructional hours, student ability, course content, and assessment methods. The instructional period lasted for 18 weeks, with 1 h of instruction per week, for a total of 18 h. The teaching experiment design is shown in

Table 1. Experimental teaching design.

Group	Grouping Method	Pre-Test	Experimental Treatment	Post-Test
Experimental group	Heterogeneous Grouping	$O_1$	$X_1$	$O_2$
Control group	Heterogeneous Grouping	$O_3$	$X_2$	$O_4$

X₁: Teaching strategy integrating virtual reality into public art; X₂: traditional lecture-based teaching method. O₁: Pre-test results of the experimental group before receiving the virtual reality teaching strategy (X₁). O₂: Post-test results of the experimental group after receiving the virtual reality teaching strategy (X₁). O₃: Pre-test results of the control group before receiving the traditional lecture-based teaching method (X₂). O₄: Post-test results of the control group after receiving the traditional lecture-based teaching method (X₂).

, and the instructional process is presented in Figure 6.

The experimental group was divided into five teams, each consisting of approximately six students. During the learning process, each team shared one Meta Quest 2 VR headset, rotating its use to gain immersive experiences. Students initially used the VR headset with the VR YouTube 360 application to observe virtual presentations on public art and environmental issues, such as climate change scenarios and public art installations, to enhance perception and understanding. In the learning phase, students practiced spatial perception and perspective skills using a VR spatial ability assessment tool, improving their comprehension of three-dimensional structures. During the creative phase, students employed the VR Block Works application to conceptualize and design virtual public art projects, integrating art with environmental themes. Throughout the VR-integrated process, the device’s display was mirrored on classroom computers or projectors, enabling real-time guidance from the teacher and fostering collaboration and feedback among students. This immersive approach effectively enhanced students’ learning outcomes and practical skills.

In contrast, the control group followed a traditional lecture-based teaching method, relying primarily on teacher-led oral explanations and demonstrations to deliver knowledge [38]. The curriculum included topics such as public art, environmental literacy, aesthetic composition, spatial expression, and public art creation. Teachers used verbal instruction and visual aids to help students understand spatial structures, public art design, and related environmental issues. Unlike the experimental group, the control group did not utilize virtual reality (VR) technology. Instead, students completed learning and creative activities using paper or two-dimensional tools. To ensure a fair comparison of spatial ability performance, the control group also used the “Spatial Ability Assessment” application in a non-immersive format via smartphones. This allowed students to explore basic three-dimensional structures and perspective concepts without VR immersion.

The experimental group incorporated a VR-based teaching approach, while the control group employed a traditional lecture-based teaching method. The latter, characterized by teacher-centered knowledge transmission, emphasized systematic content delivery and allowed coverage of extensive material in a short period. This study aimed to compare the two teaching strategies in terms of their impact on learning outcomes, including knowledge acquisition, skill development, and attitudinal changes.

3.6. Instructional Material Development

The instructional outline for this study was based on the Arts Domain Curriculum Guidelines for Technical High Schools in the 12-year Basic Education program (Ministry of Education, 2020) [15], with reference to the National Academy for Educational Research-approved textbook Fine Arts for Technical High Schools [39], the Ministry of Environment’s E-learning platform [40], and the CPS theory [34]. The course design focused on the public art unit within the arts curriculum and incorporated environmental issues.

The course design developed three instructional units: “Art and Environmental Literacy”, “Aesthetic and Spatial Representation”, and “Public Art Creation.” Based on the CPS model, the course was divided into “introductory”, “basic”, and “advanced” levels, with each stage of the course content implemented sequentially as follows.

3.6.1. Introductory Level—Unit 1: Art and Environmental Literacy

The focus of this unit was on understanding public art and environmental problems. In the first phase, the course integrated VR and CPS’s “Component 1: Understanding the Challenge” teaching strategy to explore public art and environmental literacy issues. Students used VR Youtube 360 to explore and observe, followed by data collection and problem identification. In the second phase, CPS’s “Component 2: Generating Ideas” was implemented through group discussions, encouraging creative solutions and feasibility brainstorming. The third phase, CPS’s “Component 3: Preparing for Action”, involved group discussions to develop feasible public art projects and specific solutions for environmental issues. Finally, a formative assessment was conducted to evaluate students’ learning outcomes in public art and environmental literacy. The course structure is shown in Figure 7.

3.6.2. Basic Level—Unit 2: Aesthetic and Spatial Representation

This unit emphasized understanding the aesthetic composition of public art and the basics of spatial representation, serving as the foundation for public art creation in virtual environments. In the first phase, VR and CPS’s “Component 1: Understanding the Challenge” were used to explore the diversity of aesthetic composition and spatial perspective in public art. In the second phase, CPS’s “Component 2: Generating Ideas” shifted the focus to understanding spatial representation. The third phase, CPS’s “Component 3: Preparing for Action”, involved group discussions and the use of the VR spatial ability assessment tool to explore spatial development. A second formative assessment was conducted to evaluate students’ knowledge of aesthetic composition and spatial representation in public art. The course structure is shown in Figure 8.

3.6.3. Advanced Level—Unit 3: Public Art Creation

The focus of this unit was on virtual public art creation using VR. In the first phase, the course integrated VR and CPS’s “Component 1: Understanding the Challenge”, using the learning content from Units 1 and 2 as the foundation for creative thinking and discussion, incorporating environmental literacy into public art creation. In the second phase, CPS’s “Component 2: Generating Ideas” involved group discussions, where students collaborated on creative thinking, problem-solving, and communication, and drafted artwork designs. In the third phase, CPS’s “Component 3: Preparing for Action”, students used the VR BlockWorks software to create virtual public art. A final creative worksheet was used to assess learning outcomes. The course structure is shown in Figure 9.

3.7. Statistical Analysis and Data Processing

The data for this study were processed and analyzed using the latest version of SPSS Statistics 29 to validate the research hypotheses. Descriptive statistics were first employed to summarize the learning outcomes (knowledge, skills, attitudes) of students in both the experimental and control groups, including the calculation of means and standard deviations. To ensure the initial equivalence of the sample, a homogeneity test was conducted using an independent sample t-test to compare baseline data between the two groups prior to the intervention. Post-test learning outcomes were analyzed through independent sample t-tests to identify differences between the experimental and control groups. Additionally, a one-way ANCOVA was utilized to assess the within-group progress of the experimental group before and after the intervention. To ensure the reliability and validity of the research instruments, Cronbach’s α was applied to test the internal consistency of the scales used.

To complement the quantitative findings, qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. This included synthesizing teacher observations, student feedback, and group interaction records, providing deeper insights and additional support for the effectiveness of the VR teaching strategies.

4. Results

4.1. Analysis of Prerequisite Competencies in Public Art and Environmental Literacy Issues

Both the experimental and control groups of students in this study had completed a course in mechanical and electrical drawing prior to the experimental teaching, which served as their prerequisite knowledge. This study first conducted homogeneity testing and independent sample t-tests between the experimental and control groups. The results summarized in

Table 2. Summary of students’ prior knowledge scores.

	Group	N	Mean	SD	t-Value
Mechanical and Electrical Drawing Course Scores	Experimental group	29	77.53	6.158	0.576
	Control group	35	76.57	6.858

indicate that there were no significant differences in the mean scores and standard deviations of the prerequisite competencies between the two groups, suggesting that their foundational knowledge was relatively consistent before the experiment. Prior to the experimental teaching, the experimental group had an average score of 77.53, while the control group averaged 76.57, with the experimental group scoring 0.96 points higher than the control group. The independent sample t-test yielded a t-value of 0.576, which did not reach statistical significance, indicating that there were no significant differences in prerequisite knowledge between students in the experimental and control groups after completing the mechanical and electrical drawing course. After ranking the students in both classes by their prerequisite competency scores, heterogeneous grouping was employed to divide the control and experimental groups into five groups each. This grouping method aimed to ensure a uniform distribution of scores within each group, thereby avoiding excessive score deviation within any single group.

4.2. Pre-Test Analysis of Public Art and Environmental Literacy Issues

The results of the homogeneity test for standard deviations indicate that, assuming equal variances, the independent samples t-test reveals no significant difference in the mean pre-test scores between the experimental and control groups (t = 1.660, p = 0.102). Even when not assuming equal variances, the results remain non-significant (t = 1.701, p = 0.094). These findings suggest that the differences in pre-test scores between the experimental and control groups are not significant, indicating that the baseline levels of the two groups are relatively consistent prior to the experiment. This provides a fair foundation for subsequent experiments, as illustrated in

Table 3. Homogeneity test of pre-test for public art and environmental literacy issues.

	Group	N	Mean	SD	t-Value
Pre-Test Scores	Experimental group	29	73.53	5.767	1.660
	Control group	35	70.71	7.489

.

This study analyzes the pre-test results concerning knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to public art and environmental literacy issues for both the experimental and control groups. Regarding knowledge of public art, the independent samples t-test indicates no statistically significant difference in mean pre-test scores between the two groups (t = −0.495), suggesting that their baseline levels were comparable at the beginning of the experiment. Similarly, in terms of skills, the score difference is also non-significant (t = 0.394). The attitude dimension similarly shows no significant difference in pre-test scores (t = 1.191), confirming that the baseline levels of the two groups are alike, as shown in

Table 4. Summary of public art knowledge, skills, and attitudes (pre-test).

Item	Group	N	Mean	SD	t-Value
Knowledge	Experimental group	29	7.9310	1.50430	−0.495
	Control group	35	8.1429	1.85334
Skills	Experimental group	29	6.8966	1.08874	0.394
	Control group	35	6.7857	1.14587
Attitude	Experimental group	29	5.7759	1.35348	1.191
	Control group	35	5.2143	2.21720

.

In the environmental literacy pre-test knowledge section, the independent samples t-test results reveal no statistically significant difference in scores between the two groups (t = 1.001). Likewise, the skill scores also show no significant difference (t = −0.083), and the attitude results are similarly non-significant (t = 0.176). This indicates that both groups share similar baseline levels across various dimensions of environmental literacy issues, as illustrated in

Table 5. Summary of environmental literacy knowledge, skills, and attitude (pre-test).

Item	Group	N	Mean	SD	t-Value
Knowledge	Experimental group	29	13.7069	2.55482	1.001
	Control group	35	13.0714	2.50629
Skills	Experimental group	29	14.3966	1.58891	−0.083
	Control group	35	14.4286	1.49579
Attitude	Experimental group	29	12.3276	2.20906	0.176
	Control group	35	12.2143	2.82917

.

In the pre-test section for spatial performance knowledge related to public art creation, the t-test result is −0.079, indicating that the score difference between the two groups is also non-significant. Therefore, overall, the pre-test results of this study demonstrate that the baseline levels of the experimental and control groups are relatively consistent across all dimensions, as shown in

Table 6. Summary of spatial representation knowledge in public art creation.

Item	Group	N	Mean	SD	t-Value
Knowledge	Experimental group	29	12.5000	2.75487	−0.079
	Control group	35	12.5714	4.17828

.

4.3. Analysis of Differences in Phased Learning Outcomes of Public Art and Environmental Literacy Issues Based on Different Teaching Strategies

This study implemented phased assessments of learning outcomes after the first and second units. Following the application of virtual reality teaching strategies, the summary of learning outcomes is described as follows.

1. Analysis of the First Learning Assessment Outcomes

The first learning assessment was conducted in the seventh week of the experimental teaching phase, evaluating knowledge, attitudes, and skills related to public art and environmental literacy. The results indicated that the experimental group had a higher mean score than the control group, with a t-value of 11.921 *, achieving statistical significance. Additionally, a detailed analysis of the knowledge, skills, and attitude items in the first learning assessment is presented in

Table 7. Summary of public art knowledge, skills, and attitude.

Item	Group	N	Mean	SD	t-Value
Knowledge	Experimental group	29	26.4828	4.94701	6.925 *
	Control group	35	15.4286	7.31753
Skills	Experimental group	29	19.0345	2.80920	4.168 *
	Control group	35	14.2286	5.65210
Attitude	Experimental group	29	17.3793	4.63229	3.127 *
	Control group	35	13.3714	5.46155

* p < 0.05.

. The analysis shows that for public art knowledge, the experimental group had a higher mean score than the control group, with a t-value of 6.925 *, reaching statistical significance (p < 0.05). In terms of public art skills, the experimental group again surpassed the control group, with a t-value of 4.168, achieving statistical significance. For public art attitudes, the experimental group’s mean score was higher than that of the control group, with a t-value of 3.127 *, indicating statistical significance, as shown in Table 7.

For the environmental literacy knowledge assessment results displayed in

Table 8. Summary of environmental literacy knowledge, skills, and attitude.

Item	Group	N	Mean	SD	t-Value
Knowledge	Experimental group	29	8.8966	4.73848	0.033
	Control group	35	8.8571	4.73499
Skills	Experimental group	29	12.0000	0.00000	11.424 *
	Control group	35	6.5143	2.58242
Attitude	Experimental group	29	8.0000	0.00000	6.235 *
	Control group	35	5.5429	2.11914

* p < 0.05.

, the experimental group’s mean score exceeded that of the control group, with a t-value of 0.033, which did not reach statistical significance. In the area of environmental literacy skills, the experimental group’s mean score was notably higher than the control group, with a t-value of 11.424 *, achieving statistical significance. Similarly, for environmental literacy attitudes, the experimental group outperformed the control group, with a t-value of 6.235 *, indicating statistical significance, as shown in Table 8.

2. Analysis of the Second Learning Assessment Outcomes

The second learning assessment was conducted in the twelfth week of the experimental teaching phase, focusing on knowledge of aesthetic composition in public art and spatial performance knowledge in public art creation. The assessment results yielded a t-value of 4.831 *, achieving statistical significance. A detailed analysis of the aesthetic composition knowledge and spatial performance knowledge items in the second learning assessment is presented in

Table 9. Summary of aesthetic composition knowledge and spatial representation in public art creation.

Item	Group	N	Mean	SD	t-Value
Public Art Aesthetic Composition Knowledge	Experimental group	29	22.4828	9.03414	−0.194
	Control group	35	22.8571	6.40378
Public Art Creation—Spatial Performance Knowledge	Experimental group	29	38.8966	6.33778	6.178 *
	Control group	35	20.2286	15.19885

* p < 0.05.

. In the aesthetic composition knowledge section, the experimental group’s mean score was slightly lower than that of the control group, with a t-value of −0.194, which did not reach statistical significance. However, in the area of spatial performance knowledge in public art creation, the experimental group had a higher mean score than the control group by 18.67 points, with a t-value of 6.178 *, achieving statistical significance. These data indicate that the experimental group performed significantly better than the control group in the assessment of spatial performance knowledge related to public art creation, while there was no significant difference in the assessment of aesthetic composition knowledge in public art, as shown in Table 9.

4.4. Analysis of the Differences in Learning Outcomes on Public Art and Environmental Literacy Topics Under Different Teaching Strategies

1. Overall Learning Outcome Analysis

(1) Test of Homogeneity of Regression Slopes for Overall Learning Outcomes

As shown in

Table 10. Homogeneity test of intra-group regression coefficients for overall learning effectiveness.

Source	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F
Different Teaching Strategies * Electromechanical Drafting Practicum Semester Scores	459.995	15	30.666	0.548

, the test for homogeneity of regression slopes for overall learning outcomes yielded an F value of 0.548, which was not statistically significant. This result indicates that it is appropriate to proceed with a one-way ANCOVA (analysis of covariance).

(2) Overall Learning Effectiveness: One-Way ANCOVA Analysis

As shown in

Table 11. Summary of ANCOVA for overall learning effectiveness in public art and environmental literacy issues.

Source	SS	df	MS	F
Electromechanical Drafting Practicum Semester Scores	14.476	1	14.476	0.355
Teaching Strategies	1379.163	1	1379.163	33.777 ***
Error	2490.733	61	40.832
Total	337,412.500	64

*** p < 0.001.

, after controlling for the influence of prior knowledge on the overall learning effectiveness of the two groups of students, the effect of different teaching strategies on overall learning effectiveness was found to be significant, with an F value of 33.777 ***. This indicates that the overall learning effectiveness related to public art and environmental literacy varies significantly based on the teaching strategy employed.

Table 12. Descriptive statistics of overall learning effectiveness in public art and environmental literacy issues.

Group	N	Mean	SD	Adjusted Mean
Experimental group	29	77.32	6.71256	77.29
Control group	35	67.92	6.04778	67.95

presents the descriptive statistics summary for the overall learning effectiveness regarding public art and environmental literacy. It shows that the adjusted mean for the experimental group is higher than that of the control group, suggesting that the introduction of virtual reality teaching strategies in public art courses has a positive impact on overall learning effectiveness.

2. Analysis of Learning Outcomes in Public Art

(1) One-Way ANCOVA for Public Art Knowledge

As shown in

Table 13. Summary of ANCOVA for public art knowledge.

Source	SS	df	MS	F
Knowledge Comparison Between the Two Groups	0.319	1	0.319	0.095
Teaching Strategies	19.202	1	19.202	5.737 *
Error	204.151	61	3.347
Total	4612.500	64

* p < 0.05.

, after controlling for the prior knowledge of the two groups, the effect of different teaching strategies on public art knowledge was significant, with F = 5.737 *. This indicates that the knowledge of public art varies depending on the teaching strategy.

Table 14. Descriptive statistics of public art knowledge.

Group	N	Mean	SD	Adjusted Mean
Experimental group	29	8.87	1.26530	8.88
Control group	35	7.78	2.16688	7.78

, which presents the descriptive statistics for public art knowledge, shows that the adjusted mean of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group. This suggests that the integration of virtual reality teaching strategies into public art courses had a positive impact on students’ public art knowledge.

(2) Analysis of Public Art Skills: One-Way ANCOVA

As shown in

Table 15. Summary of ANCOVA for public art skills.

Source	SS	df	MS	F
Pre-Test of Public Art Skills: Comparison Between Two Groups	5.386	1	5.386	1.631
Teaching Strategies	50.562	1	50.562	15.312 ***
Error	201.425	61	3.302
Total	3212.500	64

*** p < 0.001.

, after controlling for the influence of the baseline skills of both groups on public art skills, the effect of different teaching strategies on public art skills was found to be significant (F = 15.312 ***). This indicates that public art skills differ due to the variation in teaching strategies.

Table 16. Descriptive statistics of public art skills.

Group	N	Mean	SD	Adjusted Mean
Experimental group	29	7.75	1.81078	7.77
Control group	35	6.00	1.83912	5.98

summarizes the descriptive statistics for public art skills, revealing that the adjusted mean for the experimental group is higher than that of the control group. This suggests that the integration of virtual reality teaching strategies in the public art curriculum positively impacts public art skills.

(3) Analysis of Public Art Attitudes Using One-Way ANCOVA

As shown in

Table 17. Summary of ANCOVA for public art attitude.

Source	SS	df	MS	F
Public Art Pre-Test Attitudes for Both Groups	0.066	1	0.066	0.019
Teaching Strategies	118.630	1	118.630	34.259 ***
Error	211.227	61	3.463
Total	3256.250	64

*** p < 0.001.

, after controlling for the pre-existing attitudes of both groups of students, the analysis revealed that the effect of different teaching strategies on attitudes toward public art was significant, with an F value of 34.259 ***. This indicates that attitudes toward public art differ based on the teaching strategy employed. Furthermore, as indicated in

Table 18. Descriptive statistics of public art attitude.

Group	N	Mean	SD	Adjusted Mean
Experimental group	29	8.27	1.78078	8.27
Control group	35	5.50	1.89814	5.50

, the adjusted mean attitude score of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group, suggesting that the integration of virtual reality teaching strategies into the public art curriculum positively influenced students’ attitudes toward public art.

3. Analysis of Learning Outcomes on Environmental Literacy Issues

(1) One-Way ANCOVA for Environmental Literacy Knowledge

As presented in

Table 19. Summary of ANCOVA for environmental literacy knowledge.

Source	SS	df	MS	F
Knowledge of Environmental Literacy Issues Pre-Test for Two Groups	3.192	1	3.192	0.656
Teaching Strategies	84.348	1	84.348	17.348 ***
Error	296.587	61	4.862
Total	11218.750	64

*** p < 0.001.

, after controlling for the prior knowledge of both groups regarding environmental literacy issues, the analysis revealed a significant effect of different teaching strategies on environmental literacy knowledge, with an F value of 17.348 ***. This indicates that students’ knowledge of environmental literacy issues varies depending on the teaching strategy employed.

Additionally, the descriptive statistics summarized in

Table 20. Descriptive statistics of environmental literacy knowledge.

Group	N	Mean	SD	Adjusted Mean
Experimental group	29	14.31	2.39946	14.27
Control group	35	11.92	2.01882	11.95

indicate that the adjusted mean score for the experimental group is higher than that of the control group. This suggests that the integration of virtual reality teaching strategies into the public art curriculum positively influences students’ knowledge of environmental literacy issues.

(2) Analysis of Skills in Environmental Literacy Issues Using One-Way ANCOVA

As shown in

Table 21. Summary of ANCOVA for environmental literacy skills.

Source	SS	df	MS	F
Skills in Environmental Literacy Issues Pre-Test for Two Groups	3.245	1	3.245	0.357
Teaching Strategies	64.518	1	64.518	7.090 *
Error	555.093	61	9.100
Total	9006.250	64

* p < 0.05.

, after controlling for the prior skills of the two groups of students, the effect of different teaching strategies on skills related to environmental literacy issues was tested, yielding an F value of 7.090 *, which indicates a significant difference. This result suggests that skills in environmental literacy issues differ based on the teaching strategies employed. According to the descriptive statistics summary presented in

Table 22. Descriptive statistics of environmental literacy skills.

Group	N	Mean	SD	Adjusted Mean
Experimental group	29	10.34	3.45404	10.34
Control group	35	12.35	2.56839	12.35

, the adjusted mean for the control group was higher than that of the experimental group, indicating that the integration of virtual reality teaching strategies into the public art curriculum did not have a positive impact on skills related to environmental literacy issues.

(3) Analysis of Attitudes Towards Environmental Literacy Issues Using One-Way ANCOVA

As shown in

Table 23. Summary of ANCOVA for environmental literacy attitude.

Source	SS	df	MS	F
Attitudes Toward Environmental Literacy Issues Pre-Test for Two Groups	0.041	1	0.041	0.011
Teaching Strategies	61.156	1	61.156	16.957 ***
Error	219.996	61	3.606
Total	10218.750	64

*** p < 0.001.

, after controlling for the prior attitudes of the two groups of students, the effect of different teaching strategies on attitudes towards environmental literacy issues was assessed, yielding an F value of 16.957 ***, which indicates a significant difference. This result suggests that attitudes towards environmental literacy issues vary based on the teaching strategies employed. According to the descriptive statistics summary presented in

Table 24. Descriptive statistics of environmental literacy attitude.

Group	N	Mean	SD	Adjusted Mean
Experimental group	29	13.53	1.56941	13.53
Control group	35	11.57	2.10791	11.57

, the adjusted mean for the experimental group was higher than that of the control group, indicating that the integration of virtual reality teaching strategies into the public art curriculum had a positive impact on attitudes towards environmental literacy issues.

4. Analysis of Aesthetic Composition and Spatial Representation in Public Art: Evaluation of Drafts by Teachers and Self-Assessment by Students

Following the implementation of Unit 2: Aesthetic Composition and Spatial Representation in Public Art, students created initial drafts of their public art projects. The evaluation utilized the “VR Public Art Draft Assessment Scale” for the experimental group and the “Public Art Draft Assessment Scale” for the control group, encompassing both teacher evaluations and student self-assessments. The “Public Art Draft Assessment Scale” is a tool designed to evaluate students’ performance during the initial draft stage of public art creation, incorporating both teacher feedback and student self-reflection. The scale assesses key aspects such as conceptualization, design composition, environmental interaction, and attention to environmental issues, aiming to provide bidirectional feedback for refining artistic creations. The scoring system, calculated as percentages, comprises two major components: Aesthetic Composition and Spatial Representation. Aesthetic Composition includes Form (20%) and Color Application (30%), with Form evaluated based on levels of abstraction (representational, semi-representational, or abstract) and Color Application judged on the quality of pairing and coherence. Spatial Representation includes Modeling (20%), Environmental Interaction (15%), and Spatial Perspective (15%), assessing the quality of modeling, harmony with the environment, and perspective representation.

As shown in

Table 25. Teacher and student self-assessment for public art aesthetic composition and spatial representation—first draft.

Public Art Creation		Teacher Evaluation		Student Self-Assessment
Items		Experimental Group Average Score	Control Group Average Score	Experimental Group Average Score	Control Group Average Score
Aesthetic Composition of Public Art	Form (Representational, Semi-representational, Abstract)	16.8	16.2	16.4	16.2
	Color Application	26.4	26.2	26.2	26.0
Spatial Expression of Public Art	Shape (2D, 3D)	18.0	16.6	18.2	16.6
	Environmental Interaction	13.6	11.8	13.8	11.8
	Spatial Perspective	14.6	11.4	13.6	11.4
Total		89.4	82.2	17.6	16.4

, VR technology significantly influenced students’ spatial representation in public art, while no significant difference was found in the aesthetic composition. The analysis of the two major components—Aesthetic Composition and Spatial Representation—is presented below:

(1) Aesthetic Composition in Public Art

A. Form (Representational, Semi-Representational, Abstract):

a. The teacher evaluation score for the VR group was 16.8, with a self-assessment score of 16.4, indicating almost equivalence, while the control group recorded scores of 16.2 across both assessment scales, showing no significant differences. Thus, in this category, the scores for both groups were nearly identical, suggesting no significant difference in form representation regardless of whether assessed by teachers or self-reported by students.

b. The rationale behind this finding is that the aesthetic presentation of public art relies more on the students’ artistic expression than on the influence of VR technology. Whether through accurate representational depiction or creative abstract expression, these elements primarily depend on the students’ artistic capabilities, hence VR technology did not provide a significant advantage in this area.

B. Color Application:

a. The average teacher evaluation score for the VR group was 26.4, and the self-assessment score was 26.2, indicating a minimal difference. The control group’s scores for teacher evaluations and self-assessments were also very close, at 26.2 and 26.0, respectively. Consequently, color application in this category was not influenced by VR technology.

b. The reasoning is that color application relies on students’ aesthetic and color perception abilities, typically derived from their artistic experiences and personal perceptions, and has little correlation with the application of VR technology. Whether in a VR environment or traditional media, students’ use of color is grounded in their inherent aesthetic judgment rather than technical assistance.

(2) Spatial Representation in Public Art

A. Form (2D, 3D):

a. The teacher evaluation score for the VR group was 18.0, closely matched by the self-assessment score of 18.2, indicating that both teachers and students recognized the impact of VR technology on spatial representation. In contrast, both the control group’s teacher evaluation and student self-assessment scores were 16.6, slightly lower than those of the VR group.

b. The reason is that VR technology indeed aids in spatial representation from both teachers’ and students’ perspectives, particularly because VR provides a more immersive creative platform, enhancing students’ capabilities in spatial representation. This allows students to create and adjust their work in a virtual space, improving their spatial perception and application of form. Through the virtual environment, students can intuitively grasp three-dimensional space and make real-time observations and adjustments. The control group, however, relied on traditional 2D representations for 3D spatial modeling, which somewhat limited their control over three-dimensional space, leading to lower scores from both teachers and students compared to the VR group.

B. Environmental Interaction (Coherence with Surrounding Environment):

a. The teacher evaluation score for the VR group was 13.6, with a self-assessment score of 13.8, showing minimal difference. Both the control group’s teacher and student evaluations were identical at 11.8, indicating a consensus among teachers and students regarding the performance of environmental interaction. The VR group’s scores were significantly higher than those of the control group, demonstrating that VR technology has a notable advantage in aiding students’ understanding of their work’s interaction with the environment.

b. The reason is that VR enables students to instantaneously simulate the placement effects of their work within a virtual environment, facilitating a more intuitive understanding of the interaction between their works and the surrounding context, thus enhancing coherence and effectiveness in environmental interaction. In contrast, students in the control group lacked real-time spatial simulation and could only rely on static models or flat drawings for their estimations, which limited their control over the relationship between the environment and their work.

C. Spatial Perspective:

a. The teacher evaluation score for the VR group was 14.6, while the self-assessment score was 13.6; although there is a one-point difference, both maintained a relatively consistent trend. The control group’s teacher and student evaluations were completely aligned, both at 11.4, showing that the VR group’s scores significantly exceeded those of the control group, indicating that VR technology aids students in better comprehending spatial perspective.

b. The rationale is that VR technology offers multi-perspective visual effects, allowing students to observe their initial drafts from various angles and make real-time adjustments to the perspective structure of their work. This advantage enhances students’ understanding and representation of spatial structure. In contrast, students in the control group lacked this multi-dimensional visual assistance and could only understand their work through static perspective drawings, which imposed considerable limitations in handling complex spatial structures.

(3) Comprehensive Discussion and Explanation

A. Aesthetic Composition in Public Art:

a. In terms of form (representational, semi-representational, abstract) and color application, the VR and control groups showed no significant differences, indicating that student performance in these areas primarily depended on individual aesthetic abilities and artistic perception rather than the application of VR technology.

b. Form representation emphasizes students’ modes of expression in creation; whether through precise representation or abstract creativity, these aspects are not closely related to VR technology. Thus, VR technology did not yield significant assistance in this area.

c. Color application presented similar results. The choice and application of color are more influenced by students’ perception and aesthetic experience rather than by the VR tools. Whether in a virtual environment or traditional mediums, students’ color representation predominantly relies on their internal aesthetic abilities.

d. Therefore, we can conclude that the application of VR technology did not result in significant enhancement in aesthetic composition within public art.

B. Spatial Representation in Public Art:

a. The greatest advantage of VR technology is demonstrated in spatial representation in public art, especially in the areas of form, environmental interaction, and spatial perspective, where the VR group’s performance significantly surpassed that of the control group. This indicates that VR technology can markedly enhance students’ understanding of form design, environmental interaction, and spatial perspective.

b. In the form (2D, 3D) project, the VR group clearly outperformed the control group, particularly in the creation of initial drafts of 3D forms in a virtual space. VR technology provides an immersive platform that enables students to make real-time adjustments to their work. In contrast, control group students relied mainly on 2D drawings to complete their 3D forms and were unable to make immediate adjustments due to the lack of virtual technology assistance. Consequently, the immediate feedback and visualization characteristics of the virtual environment allow students to make quicker adjustments, which is more challenging to achieve in traditional teaching methods.

c. VR technology allows students to simulate the placement effects of their work in real environments and adjust the coherence between their works and the surrounding context in real-time, encouraging them to focus on the interaction between the work and the environment. In the control group, students, lacking immediate environmental simulation, could only rely on static images to envision the relationship between their work and the environment, which limited their performance in terms of environmental coherence and interactivity, highlighting the constraints of traditional teaching methods in this regard.

d. In the spatial perspective project, VR enables students to observe their work from different angles, significantly enhancing their understanding and representation of spatial perspective and allowing them to adjust and optimize their work at any time. Control group students primarily relied on traditional spatial design methods, and static planar images failed to provide multi-perspective observation, thus preventing them from fully mastering the spatial perspective and structure of their work as effectively as their VR counterparts.

5. Analysis of Teacher Assessments and Student Self-Evaluations in Public Art Creation

This study further investigates the results of teacher assessments and student self-evaluations, using the “Teacher and Student Self-Assessment for Public Art Creation” tool, in both the experimental and control groups. This evaluation tool, employed during the final phase of public art creation, includes professional assessments by teachers of students’ creative outcomes, alongside students’ self-reflections on their creative processes and results. The assessment covers aspects such as form, color application, spatial expression, integration of environmental literacy, and teamwork and communication skills. The scoring system is based on percentages and includes three categories: Knowledge (40%), Attitude (30%), and Skills (30%). Knowledge evaluates understanding of public art and environmental issues, and the application of art design principles. Attitude assesses environmental awareness and creative approach, while Skills focuses on technical execution and design thinking. As illustrated in

Table 26. Teacher and student self-assessment for public art creation.

Public Art Creation		Teacher Evaluation		Student Self-Assessment
Items		Experimental Group Average Score	Control Group Average Score	Experimental Group Average Score	Control Group Average Score
Knowledge	Understanding of Public Art (15 points)	14.5	12.5	13.8	11.6
	Understanding of Environmental Literacy Issues (15 points)	13.0	11.5	13.9	11.4
	Application of Art and Design Principles (10 points)	9.0	7.5	8.9	7.6
Skills	Technical Execution and Artistic Expression (15 points)	13.5	11.0	13.5	11.2
	Thinking and Design (15 points)	14.0	12.0	14.1	12.2
Attitudes	Awareness and Responsibility for Environmental Protection (15 points)	13.5	12.5	13.5	10.7
	Creative Attitude and Initiative (15 points)	13	12.0	13.3	10.1
Total		90.5	79	91	74.8

, students in the experimental group scored higher than those in the control group across these three dimensions. A detailed analysis is presented below.

(1) Knowledge Dimension

A. Understanding of Public Art:

In teacher assessments, students in the experimental group performed better, achieving a score of 14.5 compared to 12.5 for the control group. In the self-assessment, the experimental group scored 13.8, while the control group scored 11.6. This indicates that virtual reality (VR) technology aids students in comprehending the historical context of public art and relating it to environmental issues.

B. Understanding of Environmental Literacy Issues:

In teacher assessments, the experimental group’s knowledge application score was 13.0, significantly higher than the control group’s score of 11.5. For self-assessment, the experimental group scored 13.9, while the control group scored 11.4. This demonstrates that VR technology effectively enhances students’ understanding of environmental issues and enables them to concretize these concepts in their work.

C. Application of Artistic and Design Principles:

In teacher assessments regarding the application of artistic principles, the experimental group scored 9.0 out of 10, compared to 7.5 out of 10 for the control group. In self-assessments, the experimental group scored 8.9, while the control group scored 7.6. This indicates that VR technology allows students to apply artistic principles, such as color, form, and line, more flexibly.

(2) Skills Dimension

A. Technical Execution and Artistic Expression:

In teacher assessments, the experimental group scored 13.5, significantly higher than the control group’s score of 11.0. In self-assessments, both groups scored equally at 13.5 for the experimental group and 11.2 for the control group. This shows that students are more adept at mastering technical skills and creating artistically compelling works when using VR for creation.

B. Creative Thinking and Design:

In teacher assessments, the experimental group’s scores for thinking and design were 14.0, significantly surpassing the control group’s score of 12.0. In self-assessments, the experimental group scored 14.1, while the control group scored 12.2. This indicates that VR technology provides students with greater creative freedom, enabling them to achieve higher levels of design capability.

(3) Attitudes Dimension

A. Environmental Awareness and Sense of Responsibility:

In teacher assessments, the experimental group scored 13.5 for environmental awareness, significantly higher than the control group’s score of 12.5. In self-assessments, the scores were the same, with the experimental group at 13.5 and the control group at 10.7. This suggests that VR technology, through immersive simulations, helps students better understand the importance of environmental protection and enhances their sense of responsibility.

B. Creative Attitude and Initiative:

In teacher assessments, the experimental group’s scores for creative attitude and initiative were 13.0, also significantly higher than the control group’s score of 12.0. In self-assessments, the experimental group scored 13.3, while the control group scored 10.1. This indicates that VR technology can stimulate students’ creative enthusiasm, encouraging them to actively explore and address challenges encountered in their creative processes.

4.5. Post-Test Analysis of Public Art and Environmental Literacy Issues

This study conducted a pre- and post-test analysis of public art and environmental literacy issues to evaluate the improvements in knowledge, skills, and attitudes among the experimental group following the intervention. According to the paired sample t-test results presented in

Table 27. Pre-test and post-test analysis summary for public art and environmental literacy issues.

Pre- and Post-Test Analysis of Public Art and Environmental Literacy Issues	Paired Sample t-Test Results			t-Value
	MD	Standard Deviation	Standard Error of the Mean
Public Art Knowledge	1.01563	2.38708	0.29839	3.404 **
Public Art Skills	1.4063	2.03516	0.25439	5.528 ***
Attitude toward Public Art	1.6797	2.401	0.30013	5.597 ***
Overall Effectiveness of Public Art	3.6719	4.77611	0.59701	6.150 ***
Environmental Literacy Knowledge	1.7578	3.69147	0.46143	3.809 ***
Environmental Literacy Skills	1.59375	2.87004	0.35875	4.442 ***
Attitude toward Environmental Literacy	2.9297	3.79418	0.47427	6.177 ***
Overall Effectiveness of Environmental Literacy	5.66406	7.57557	0.94695	5.981 ***
Knowledge of Space Performance in Public Art Creation	2.4609	4.72439	0.59055	4.167 ***

*** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01.

, significant enhancements were observed in the participants’ understanding of public art and environmental literacy issues from pre-test to post-test, as detailed below.

1. Public Art Knowledge:

The average post-test score (M = 1.01563, SD = 2.38708) was significantly higher than the pre-test score. The t-test revealed a t-value of 3.404 with 63 degrees of freedom and a p-value of 0.001, indicating a significant increase in participants’ knowledge of public art following the intervention.

2. Skills Improvement:

The post-test score for skills (M = 1.40625, SD = 2.03516) was also significantly higher than the pre-test score, with a t-value of 5.528, degrees of freedom of 63, and a p-value of 0.000. This demonstrates a significant improvement in participants’ performance regarding public art skills, reflecting the effective impact of the intervention.

3. Attitudinal Changes:

The post-test score for attitudes (M = 1.67969, SD = 2.40100) showed a significant increase compared to the pre-test, with a t-value of 5.597, degrees of freedom of 63, and a p-value of 0.000. This indicates that the intervention effectively enhanced participants’ attitudes toward public art.

4. Overall Effectiveness in Public Art:

The average post-test score (M = 3.67188, SD = 4.77611) was significantly higher than the pre-test score, as evidenced by a t-value of 6.150, degrees of freedom of 63, and a p-value of 0.000. This signifies substantial improvement in participants’ comprehensive performance in knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to public art post-intervention.

5. Environmental Literacy Knowledge:

The average post-test score (M = 1.75781, SD = 3.69147) for environmental literacy knowledge was significantly greater than the pre-test score, with a t-value of 3.809, degrees of freedom of 63, and a p-value of 0.000. This indicates a significant effect of the intervention on enhancing participants’ knowledge of environmental literacy.

6. Skills in Environmental Literacy:

Post-test skill scores (M = 1.59375, SD = 2.87004) were significantly higher than pre-test scores, as shown by a t-value of 4.442, degrees of freedom of 63, and a p-value of 0.000. This finding suggests notable progress in participants’ performance in environmental literacy skills.

7. Attitudinal Development in Environmental Literacy:

The post-test score for environmental literacy attitudes (M = 2.92969, SD = 3.79418) also significantly exceeded the pre-test score, with a t-value of 6.177, degrees of freedom of 63, and a p-value of 0.000. This reveals significant improvement in participants’ attitudes toward environmental literacy, highlighting the positive role of the intervention in fostering such attitudes.

8. Overall Effectiveness in Environmental Literacy:

The average post-test score (M = 5.66406, SD = 7.57557) for overall environmental literacy effectiveness was significantly higher than the pre-test score. The t-test results showed a t-value of 5.981, degrees of freedom of 63, and a p-value of 0.000, indicating substantial enhancement in participants’ overall performance in knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to environmental literacy following the intervention.

9. Public Art Creation—Spatial Knowledge:

Finally, in the area of spatial performance knowledge, the post-test score (M = 2.46094, SD = 4.72439) was significantly higher than the pre-test score, with a t-value of 4.167, degrees of freedom of 63, and a p-value of 0.000. This suggests that the intervention was effective in improving participants’ knowledge of spatial performance.

4.6. Qualitative Data Perspective Analysis

During the teaching period of this study, the experimental group was observed by one instructor who provided classroom observation and feedback, along with two formative assessments and a post-test. The observation items encompassed various stages of Creative Problem Solving (CPS) and the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), ensuring a comprehensive understanding of students’ performances and needs at different stages. The observation items included problem identification and data collection, which correspond to the existing level of the ZPD. Following these were problem analysis and creative generation, which relate to the proximal development zone of the ZPD. Finally, solution evaluation, selection, implementation, and assessment correspond to the potential development level of the ZPD. The qualitative data collection involved feedback from two teachers and one student from the experimental group, resulting in a total of nine feedback reports after each formative assessment. The results of the qualitative data triangulation are shown in

Table 28. Summary of positive feedback on vr teaching strategy—qualitative data.

Main Item	Sub Item	Teacher (A)	Teacher (B)	Student (C)	Count
Problem Identification	A1: How did you discover this problem?	3	2	3	8
	A2: What was your first reaction when you encountered this problem?	3	3	3	9
	A3: What thoughts or assumptions do you have about this problem?	3	3	2	8
Data Collection	B1: What methods did you use to gather information about the problem?	3	3	2	8
	B2: From which sources did you obtain information about the problem?	3	3	3	9
	B3: How did you connect the different pieces of information?	3	2	2	7
Problem Analysis	C1: How did you break down this problem?	3	2	3	8
	C2: What do you think is the root cause of the problem?	3	3	2	8
	C3: How did you analyze the factors influencing this problem?	3	3	3	9
Idea Generation	D1: What creative solutions did you propose during the discussion?	3	3	2	8
	D2: How did you come up with these ideas?	3	3	3	9
	D3: Which idea do you think has the most potential?	3	2	2	7
Solution Evaluation and Selection	E1: What criteria did you use to evaluate the solutions?	3	2	3	8
	E2: How did you select the best solution?	3	3	3	9
	E3: What advantages do you think this solution has?	3	3	2	8
Implementation and Evaluation	F1: How did you develop the implementation plan?	3	3	2	8
	F2: What challenges did you face during the implementation, and how did you solve them?	3	2	3	8
	F3: How did you evaluate the effectiveness of the solution?	3	3	2	8

,

Table 29. Summary of diverse opinions on VR teaching strategy—qualitative data.

Main Item	Sub Item	Teacher (A)			Teacher (B)			Student (Experimental Group)
		Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree
Problem Identification	A1: How did you discover this problem?	3/9	0	0	2/9	1/9	0	3/9	0	0
	A2: What was your first reaction when you encountered this problem?	3/9	0	0	3/9	0	0	3/9	0	0
	A3: What thoughts or assumptions do you have about this problem?	3/9	0	0	3/9	0	0	2/9	1/9	0
Data Collection	B1: What methods did you use to gather information about the problem?	3/9	0	0	3/9	0	0	2/9	1/9	0
	B2: From which sources did you obtain information about the problem?	3/9	0	0	3/9	0	0	3/9	0	0
	B3: How did you connect the different pieces of information?	3/9	0	0	2/9	1/9	0	2/9	1/9	0
Problem Analysis	C1: How did you break down this problem?	3/9	0	0	2/9	1/9	0	3/9	0	0
	C2: What do you think is the root cause of the problem?	3/9	0	0	3/9	0	0	2/9	1/9	0
	C3: How did you analyze the factors influencing this problem?	3/9	0	0	3/9	0	0	3/9	0	0
Idea Generation	D1: What creative solutions did you propose during the discussion?	3/9	0	0	3/9	0	0	2/9	1/9	0
	D2: How did you come up with these ideas?	3/9	0	0	3/9	0	0	3/9	0	0
	D3: Which idea do you think has the most potential?	3/9	0	0	2/9	1/9	0	2/9	1/9	0
Solution Evaluation and Selection	E1: What criteria did you use to evaluate the solutions?	3/9	0	0	2/9	1/9	0	3/9	0	0
	E2: How did you select the best solution?	3/9	0	0	3/9	0	0	3/9	0	0
	E3: What advantages do you think this solution has?	3/9	0	0	3/9	0	0	2/9	1/9	0
Implementation and Evaluation	F1: How did you develop the implementation plan?	3/9	0	0	3/9	0	0	2/9	1/9	0
	F2: What challenges did you face during the implementation, and how did you solve them?	3/9	0	0	2/9	1/9	0	3/9	0	0
	F3: How did you evaluate the effectiveness of the solution?	3/9	0	0	3/9	0	0	2/9	1/9	0

and

Table 30. Summary of observation coefficients for VR teaching strategy—qualitative data.

Main Item	Sub Item	The Total Feedback from the Three Observers (Instructor, One Observing Teacher, and Students)
		Mean Agreement Coefficient	Agreement Coefficient		Neutral Coefficient		Disagreement Coefficient
Problem Identification	A1: How did you discover this problem?	0.93	8	0.89	1	0.11	0	0.00
	A2: What was your first reaction when you encountered this problem?		9	1.00	0	0.00	0	0.00
	A3: What thoughts or assumptions do you have about this problem?		8	0.89	1	0.11	0	0.00
Data Collection	B1: What methods did you use to gather information about the problem?	0.89	8	0.89	1	0.11	0	0.00
	B2: From which sources did you obtain information about the problem?		9	1.00	0	0.00	0	0.00
	B3: How did you connect the different pieces of information?		7	0.89	2	0.22	0	0.00
Problem Analysis	C1: How did you break down this problem?	0.93	8	0.89	1	0.11	0	0.00
	C2: What do you think is the root cause of the problem?		8	0.89	1	0.11	0	0.00
	C3: How did you analyze the factors influencing this problem?		9	1.00	0	0.00	0	0.00
Idea Generation	D1: What creative solutions did you propose during the discussion?	0.89	8	0.89	1	0.11	0	0.00
	D2: How did you come up with these ideas?		9	1.00	3	0.33	1	0.11
	D3: Which idea do you think has the most potential?		7	0.78	2	0.22	0	0.00
Solution Evaluation and Selection	E1: What criteria did you use to evaluate the solutions?	0.93	8	0.89	1	0.11	0	0.00
	E2: How did you select the best solution?		9	1.00	0	0.00	0	0.00
	E3: What advantages do you think this solution has?		8	0.89	1	0.11	0	0.00
Implementation and Evaluation	F1: How did you develop the implementation plan?	0.89	8	0.89	1	0.11	0	0.00
	F2: What challenges did you face during the implementation, and how did you solve them?		8	0.89	1	0.11	0	0.00
	F3: How did you evaluate the effectiveness of the solution?		8	0.89	1	0.11	0	0.00

.

In Table 28 and Table 29, the numbers presented have specific meanings. In Table 28, the numbers indicate the frequency of positive feedback from teachers and students regarding corresponding items. For instance, in the item “Problem Identification—A1: How did you discover this problem?”, Teacher A provided positive feedback three times, suggesting that most students could clearly describe the process of problem discovery as observed by Teacher A.

In Table 29, expressions like “3/9” represent the ratio of agreements in the feedback. Taking “Problem Identification—A1: How did you discover this problem?” as an example, “3/9” for Teacher A means that there were three agreements out of a total of nine feedbacks. These data are obtained through the classification, organization, and statistics of teachers’ and students’ feedback, rather than codes used for qualitative data analysis.

The nine feedback reports were provided by a feedback team consisting of two teachers and one student after each formative assessment. These reports cover students’ performances in various stages of the Creative Problem Solving (CPS), including problem identification, data collection, problem analysis, idea generation, solution evaluation and selection, and implementation and evaluation. In the problem identification stage, the feedback reports might record whether students’ problem discovery methods are diverse and whether they accurately grasp the core of the problem. In the idea generation stage, the quantity and quality of students’ creative ideas are documented. In the data presentation of Table 28 and Table 29, these feedback contents are classified and statistically analyzed according to different CPS stages and specific items, presenting an intuitive view of students’ performances in each link.

Which presents a statistical summary of the qualitative data regarding the implementation of virtual reality teaching strategies, we can observe the following:

1. Problem Identification:

The average agreement coefficient for problem identification reached 0.93.

(1) In response to the question “A1 How did you discover this problem?”, the average agreement coefficient was 0.89. Both teachers and students expressed strong affirmation of this sub-item, indicating that most participants could clearly describe the process of discovering the problem. For the question “A2 What was your first reaction when you encountered this problem?”, the agreement coefficient was 1.00, with all participants agreeing they could respond quickly and take appropriate action when faced with a problem. For “A3 What are your thoughts or hypotheses regarding this problem?”, the average agreement coefficient was 0.89, showing that the majority of participants could propose relevant ideas or hypotheses.

(2) The observing teacher suggested that the process of problem identification in the experimental group’s curriculum needed to be more cautious. Students felt unfamiliar with the application of virtual reality technology during the initial stages and therefore required more specific guidance and explanation. Additionally, some students experienced operational difficulties when using virtual reality equipment, which could affect their understanding and engagement with the course content. Consequently, teachers should observe students’ reactions more frequently and use questioning to help students adapt more quickly to the virtual reality course. While the attractiveness and interactivity of virtual reality increased the learning interest and engagement of some students, others, who were less familiar with the technology or experienced dizziness from virtual reality, might feel pressure and frustration, ultimately diminishing their motivation to learn.

2. Data Collection:

The average agreement coefficient for data collection reached 0.89.

(1) In the question “B1 What methods did you use to collect information about the problem?”, the average agreement coefficient was 0.89, indicating that participants could effectively employ various methods to gather information. For “B2 What sources did you obtain this information from?”, the agreement coefficient was 1.00, with all participants confirming that they could obtain information from diverse sources. In the question “B3 How did you connect different pieces of information?”, the average agreement coefficient was 0.89, suggesting that most participants could effectively connect and integrate information from different sources.

(2) During data collection, the observing teacher noted that students had varied experiences using virtual reality. Some students quickly grasped and applied virtual technology, while others required more guidance and practice. Furthermore, some students reported that the insufficient number of virtual reality devices hindered their ability to collect data in class, negatively impacting their continuous virtual experiences. Therefore, the observing teacher recommended preparing sufficient equipment for data collection, as well as gathering more operational records, individual student reactions, and team feedback to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the difficulties and challenges students faced while using virtual reality.

3. Problem Analysis:

The average agreement coefficient for problem analysis reached 0.93.

(1) In response to “C1 How did you decompose this problem?”, the average agreement coefficient was 0.93, indicating that participants could clearly break down the problem. For “C2 What do you believe is the root cause of this problem?”, the average agreement coefficient was 0.89, showing that most participants could identify the root cause of the problem. For “C3 How did you analyze the influencing factors of this problem?”, the agreement coefficient was 1.00, with all participants affirming their ability to comprehensively analyze the various influencing factors of the problem.

(2) In this stage, the observing teacher pointed out that students exhibited significant differences in their interactive behaviors within the virtual reality environment. Some students could operate both software and hardware smoothly and effectively apply the knowledge they learned, while others displayed slower performance in this regard. These operational difficulties might stem from unfamiliarity with the equipment, software malfunctions, or discomfort with the virtual scenarios. Consequently, the observing teacher suggested providing students with more time to practice and familiarize themselves with the software and hardware operations.

4. Creative Generation:

The average agreement coefficient for creative generation reached 0.89.

(1) In response to “D1 What creative solutions did you propose during the discussion?”, the average agreement coefficient was 0.89, indicating that participants could propose a variety of creative solutions. For “D2 How did you come up with these ideas?”, the agreement coefficient was 1.00, with all participants affirming their ability to generate creative thoughts. For “D3 Which idea do you think has the most potential?”, the average agreement coefficient was 0.78, indicating that most participants could identify the most promising ideas.

(2) During the creative generation process, the observing teacher noticed that some students displayed high levels of creativity and proactivity, successfully proposing diverse creative solutions. However, some students appeared relatively passive, possibly due to limited understanding of virtual reality technology or a lack of confidence in sharing their ideas. This situation may require more guidance and encouragement from the teacher. Thus, the observing teacher recommended that teachers encourage more students to participate in discussions and present their innovative ideas regarding the virtual reality public art course.

5. Solution Evaluation and Selection:

The average agreement coefficient for solution evaluation and selection reached 0.93.

(1) In the question “E1 What criteria did you use to evaluate the solutions?”, the average agreement coefficient was 0.89, indicating that participants could use clear criteria to evaluate the solutions. For “E2 How did you choose the best solution?”, the agreement coefficient was 1.00, with all participants affirming their ability to select the best solution. For “E3 What advantages do you believe this solution has?”, the average agreement coefficient was 0.89, suggesting that participants could clearly articulate the advantages of the solution.

(2) At this stage, the observing teacher found that students had different evaluation criteria for various solutions. Some students might prioritize the creativity of the solutions, while others might focus on the practicality and feasibility of the solutions. Moreover, due to the nature of virtual reality technology, certain solutions might encounter technical issues during implementation. Therefore, the observing teacher recommended that the evaluation of solutions should encompass more practical and verification aspects. Teachers could also arrange for students to operate in different virtual scenarios and observe their performances. Additionally, the teacher suggested introducing a third-party assessment mechanism to evaluate students’ learning outcomes, ensuring that the selection of solutions is more scientific and objective.

6. Implementation and Evaluation:

The average agreement coefficient for implementation and evaluation reached 0.89.

(1) In the question “F1 How did you develop the implementation plan?”, the average agreement coefficient was 0.89, indicating that participants could effectively develop an implementation plan. For “F2 What challenges did you encounter during implementation, and how did you solve them?”, the average agreement coefficient was 0.89, showing that participants could overcome challenges and resolve problems during implementation. For “F3 How did you assess the effectiveness of this solution?”, the average agreement coefficient was 0.89, indicating that participants could effectively evaluate the solution’s effectiveness.

(2) In this phase, the observing teacher noted that students faced several challenges. Firstly, the number of virtual reality devices became a major issue, preventing some students from receiving adequate hands-on practice in class. Secondly, some students encountered technical problems when using the virtual reality equipment, which could impact their learning outcomes. Therefore, the observing teacher suggested that during the implementation process, teachers should hold regular feedback meetings to gather students’ operational reactions and technical feedback, adjusting the course based on this feedback.

Based on the statistical summary of qualitative data and the observations from the observing teacher, the difficulties encountered during the implementation of virtual reality strategies can be summarized as follows:

1. Overview of Virtual Reality Course Implementation:

The virtual reality teaching strategies received high levels of agreement in all aspects. From “problem identification”, “data collection”, “problem analysis”, “creative generation”, “solution evaluation and selection”, to “implementation and evaluation”, all phases recorded agreement coefficients close to or exceeding 0.89, reflecting the participants’ strong affirmation of the teaching strategies. Particularly during the data collection and problem analysis phases, participants recognized the value of utilizing multiple data sources and conducting thorough problem analysis. The observing teacher recommended placing greater emphasis on students’ adaptation processes to virtual reality in the experimental group’s curriculum. Specific recommendations include enhancing technical guidance during the early implementation of the course, expanding information sources, observing students’ interactive behaviors in detail, and encouraging broader student participation during the creative generation phase.

2. Implementation Challenges of Virtual Reality Courses

During the implementation of the virtual reality (VR) curriculum, students in the experimental group encountered several technical challenges. These included unfamiliarity with virtual software technologies, difficulties in operating VR equipment, insufficient availability of devices, and psychological pressures along with physiological sensations of dizziness experienced by some students. These physical and mental issues have, to some extent, affected the learning motivation and outcomes of certain students.

5. Discussion

The findings of this study indicate that the implementation of virtual reality (VR) teaching strategies and qualitative data assessment have a positive impact on students’ overall learning outcomes. There are significant differences between the two groups in terms of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. The following sections will discuss the implications regarding “Teacher Subject Matter Teaching Competence”, “Student Inquiry and Practical Ability and Learning Outcomes”, “Student Environmental Literacy Outcomes in Environmental Education and Topic Integration”, and “Learning Outcomes from Integrating Virtual Reality into Art Curriculum Units.”

5.1. Teacher Subject Matter Teaching Competence

This research employed VR and creative teaching across three units, with the instructional design structured at the introductory, basic, and advanced levels of teacher pedagogical knowledge. Each unit was conducted over 6 weeks, totaling 18 weeks, with a formative assessment at the end of each unit to validate student learning outcomes. A matrix relationship diagram integrating teacher teaching strategies and subject content knowledge is presented in Figure 10, with the following explanations:

1. Unit 1: Art and Environmental Literacy (Introductory Level)

X1Y1: At this stage, the course utilized VR to integrate the Constructive Problem-Solving (CPS) model through a challenge that involves exploring data and framing problems, alongside Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. This approach allowed students to independently learn about public art in virtual contexts and frame environmental issues.

X2Y1: This phase implemented the CPS model’s ideation process to encourage students to creatively brainstorm and discuss environmental issues through scaffolding.

X3Y1: This phase applied the CPS model’s preparatory action to develop solutions, leveraging the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) learning theory. Students were the focal point of learning while teachers acted as facilitators and supervisors, aiding students in developing public art creation and problem-solving skills related to environmental issues.

2. Unit 2: Aesthetic and Spatial Representation (Basic Level)

X1Y2: This stage implemented the CPS model’s constructive challenge and Piaget’s developmental theory to enable students to discuss and develop aesthetic compositions and diverse spatial representations in public art.

X2Y2: The CPS model’s ideation phase was utilized to guide students in creative thinking and discussions on aesthetic composition and spatial representation through scaffolding.

X3Y2: This stage integrated VR into the CPS model’s preparatory action, applying the ZPD learning theory. Students were central to the learning process, and teachers provided guidance and supervision to assist students in exploring the diversity of spatial development through VR.

3. Unit 3: Public Art Creation (Advanced Level)

X1Y3: At this stage, VR was integrated into the CPS model’s constructive challenge, with students engaging in group discussions to synthesize the subject knowledge from Units 1 and 2 to complete foundational tasks in public art creation.

X2Y3: This phase involved the CPS model’s ideation phase, where scaffolding encouraged students to brainstorm diverse creative ideas for public art and create draft sketches of their works.

X3Y3: This stage incorporated VR into the CPS model’s preparatory action, with students being the focal point of learning while teachers guided and supervised them, facilitating the process of public art creation through VR.

5.2. Student Inquiry and Practical Ability and Learning Outcomes

After an 18-week instructional experiment across the introductory, basic, and advanced levels, the study employed pre-tests, formative assessments, post-tests, classroom observation records, and student feedback to verify learning outcomes in cognition, skills, and attitudes. The relationship matrix of student learning outcomes and subject content knowledge is presented in Figure 11, with the following explanations:

1. Pre-Test Assessment (Introductory Level)

KY1A, SY1A, AY1A showed no significant differences in “Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes towards Public Art” at the introductory level, indicating that both the experimental and control groups had similar baseline levels before the experiment.

KY1B, SY1B, AY1B showed no significant differences in “Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes towards Environmental Literacy Issues” at the introductory level, suggesting consistency in baseline levels between the groups prior to the experiment.

KY1C indicated no significant differences in “Knowledge of Public Art Creation—Spatial Representation”, confirming comparable baseline levels between the two groups before the experiment.

2. First Formative Assessment (Introductory Level)

KY2-1A, SY2-1A, AY2-1A showed significant levels in “Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes towards Public Art”, attributed to the enhanced understanding of public art due to the application of VR, which increased students’ motivation and engagement.

KY2-1B at the introductory level for “Knowledge of Environmental Literacy Issues” did not achieve significant levels, potentially due to initial VR teaching strategies and applications failing to sufficiently engage students in a deep understanding of environmental literacy issues. This indicates that teachers should enhance VR teaching strategies and provide students with more time for VR experiences. In remedial teaching, more VR experience time was added to the KY2-2 curriculum to gradually deepen students’ understanding of environmental literacy issues.

SY2-1B showed significant differences in the introductory level for “Skills in Environmental Literacy Issues”, as VR teaching strategies provided a more immersive and interactive learning environment, allowing students to intuitively understand and apply skills related to environmental literacy issues, resulting in higher skill levels.

AY2-1B indicated significant differences in the introductory level for “Attitudes towards Environmental Literacy Issues”, as VR teaching strategies enabled students to directly perceive the importance and urgency of environmental problems, increasing their awareness and positive attitudes towards environmental literacy issues. This immersive teaching method enhanced students’ sense of responsibility and engagement in environmental protection.

3. Second Formative Assessment (Basic Level)

KY2-2D showed no significant levels in “Aesthetic Knowledge of Public Art” at the basic level, possibly due to some students’ unfamiliarity with operating VR, which affected their learning outcomes in aesthetic knowledge. VR requires a certain level of technical ability, and students needed time to adapt to this new learning tool, which may have contributed to the lack of significant improvement in aesthetic knowledge. Remedial teaching strategies for enhancing aesthetic knowledge could include: increasing operational training for students unfamiliar with VR to help them interact and operate within the virtual environment, and grouping students based on their operational proficiency to provide simpler, step-by-step instructional content for those needing additional support while offering more challenging material for those more familiar with the operation.

KY2-2C achieved significant levels in “Knowledge of Spatial Representation in Public Art” at the basic level, likely due to VR allowing students to explore and observe space in an immersive environment, enhancing their intuitive understanding of spatial representation concepts. The 3D visualization provided by VR enabled students to observe and interact from multiple angles, thereby strengthening their understanding of spatial representation.

KY2-2AB, SY2-2AB, AY2-2AB did not undergo assessment at the basic level due to insufficient time during the implementation of the teaching plan to complete all assessment items within the scheduled timeframe. The need for more ample time for students to adapt to VR learning also led to adjustments in subject content, thus affecting the pace and arrangement of assessments. In remedial teaching, teachers provided individualized VR experiences focused on public art and environmental literacy issues for KY2-2AB, SY2-2AB, and AY2-2AB students to address time constraints, allowing more opportunities for students to adapt to VR learning.

4. Overall Assessment (Advanced Level)

KY3AB, SY3AB, AY3AB indicated significant differences at the advanced level in “Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes towards Public Art and Environmental Literacy Issues”, suggesting a positive significant impact of VR teaching strategies on student learning outcomes. The learning contexts provided by VR allowed students to confront public art and environmental literacy issues more directly, enhancing their learning effectiveness.

In the advanced level of “Aesthetic and Spatial Representation”, teacher evaluations and peer self-assessments revealed no significant differences in performance between the VR and control groups concerning form (figurative, semi-figurative, abstract) and color application. This indicates that students’ performances in these areas largely depended on individual aesthetic abilities and artistic perception rather than the application of VR technology. Therefore, we can conclude that the application of VR technology did not significantly enhance aesthetic composition in public art. Conversely, in the spatial representation of public art, the advantages of VR technology were prominently reflected in students’ performances concerning form, environmental interaction, and spatial perspective, with the VR group performing significantly better than the control group. This suggests that VR technology can significantly enhance students’ understanding of modeling design, environmental interaction, and spatial perspective. The control group primarily relied on traditional spatial design methods, and due to the limitations of static two-dimensional images, they could not fully grasp the spatial perspective and structure of their works like the VR group.

In the advanced level of “Public Art Creation”, results from teacher evaluations and peer self-assessments indicated that students in both the experimental and control groups scored higher than the control group across knowledge, skills, and attitudes. This suggests that VR teaching strategies positively influence students’ learning performance, particularly in spatial interaction and creative practice, such as group discussion engagement, ideation, public art creation, and the application of environmental issues.

5.3. Effectiveness of Student Environmental Literacy in Integrating Environmental Education and Issues into Teaching

The Twelve-Year Basic Education Environmental Education framework is organized around five major themes: environmental ethics, sustainable development, climate change, disaster prevention and mitigation, and sustainable use of energy resources. This study addresses the most pressing issues concerning environmental ethics, climate change, and sustainable energy resource utilization. Over a period of 18 weeks, three instructional units—entry-level, foundational level, and advanced level—were implemented to assess students’ environmental literacy effectiveness across these units. The findings are detailed as follows:

1. Unit One: Public Art and Environmental Literacy Issues

This unit emphasizes the importance of understanding the fundamental concepts of public art while integrating core environmental issues such as environmental ethics, climate change, and sustainable energy resource utilization into artistic creations. Through virtual reality (VR) technology, students can experience the impact of climate change on ecosystems and the environmental challenges posed by resource consumption within a virtual environment.

Knowledge Enhancement: VR technology provides an immersive learning experience, allowing students to intuitively comprehend the environmental crises brought on by climate change, the necessity of sustainable energy use, and how to integrate environmental ethics into their artistic practices. The experimental group showed significantly higher knowledge scores compared to the control group, indicating that virtual reality plays a crucial role in helping students grasp these complex issues more effectively.

Attitude Change: Through VR simulations, students gained a more visceral understanding of the severity of climate change and the consequences of improper energy use, reinforcing their understanding of environmental ethics and sense of responsibility. Students in the experimental group displayed significantly higher scores in environmental protection attitudes than those in the control group, demonstrating the significant impact of VR technology in promoting environmental awareness.

Outstanding Performance in Climate Change Learning: VR technology allows students to experience concrete scenarios such as global warming, extreme weather, and rising sea levels, greatly enhancing their understanding of climate change. Data indicate significant improvements in students’ knowledge and attitudes regarding this issue, particularly reflecting a stronger sense of responsibility and urgency in their creative outputs.

Environmental Ethics as a Secondary Focus: Simulated scenarios in the VR environment, such as pollution events and deforestation, help students recognize the importance of protecting natural resources and ecosystems. Students can translate these experiences into ethical expressions in public art, demonstrating a heightened awareness of environmental ethics. However, due to the relatively abstract nature of this issue, students’ understanding and performance in environmental ethics were slightly lower compared to climate change.

Relative Weakness in Sustainable Energy Resource Utilization: Although VR technology aids students in understanding the long-term environmental impacts of energy use and resource consumption, the concept of sustainable energy resource utilization is challenging to visualize within a virtual environment, resulting in comparatively weaker performance in this area. The topic of energy resources leans more toward data and policy knowledge, indicating that students’ abilities to integrate this issue into their artistic creations need further development.

2. Unit Two: Aesthetic and Spatial Representation

This unit focuses on enabling students to comprehend the aesthetic composition and spatial representation of public art while cultivating creative thinking. In the VR environment, students can observe the spatial arrangement of public artworks, 2D and 3D spatial experiences, proportions, and forms intuitively.

Improved Spatial Representation: Data indicates that the experimental group scored significantly higher in spatial skills compared to the control group, attributed to the 3D visual effects and spatial manipulation experiences provided by the VR environment. Students can observe from multiple angles and adjust based on timely feedback, significantly enhancing their spatial perception and design abilities.

Diverse Creative Generation: VR technology offers students greater creative freedom, enabling them to transcend the limitations of traditional flat design and realize more imaginative spatial concepts. Data show that the VR experimental group was able to propose diverse creative solutions in terms of creative thinking and design, illustrating the effectiveness of this instructional model in stimulating students’ creativity.

Outstanding Performance in Climate Change Learning: Through VR, students could incorporate real environmental changes resulting from climate change—such as floods, droughts, or extreme weather—into their design projects, thus enhancing their expressive capabilities regarding climate change while illustrating the relationship between spatial design and environmental protection.

Secondary Focus on Environmental Ethics: In their public art space design, students regarded environmental ethics as a core element, using artistic expressions to convey respect for and protection of the environment. While VR provided greater design flexibility, the more abstract concept of environmental ethics proved more challenging to embody in spatial design than specific environmental phenomena, resulting in slightly lower performance compared to climate change.

Relative Weakness in Sustainable Energy Resource Utilization: Although students understood the importance of sustainable energy resource use in spatial design, effectively translating the abstract concept of energy utilization into intuitive expression within specific spatial designs proved difficult. Consequently, performance in VR simulations for this issue did not match that in climate change.

3. Unit Three: Public Art Creation

This unit aims to have students comprehensively apply the knowledge and skills acquired from the previous two units to create complete public artworks that specifically reflect issues of environmental ethics, climate change, and sustainable energy resource utilization. However, results regarding environmental literacy skills and spatial representation in public art creation showed no significant differences between the experimental and control groups, although positive enhancements were still noted in terms of knowledge and attitudes toward environmental literacy.

Enhancements in Knowledge and Attitude: Students in the experimental group demonstrated significantly better performance in environmental literacy knowledge, gaining a deeper understanding of climate change and sustainable energy resource utilization. They were also able to reflect these concepts in their creations. Moreover, students exhibited an increased sense of responsibility regarding environmental ethics, as evidenced by their deeper engagement with environmental themes in their works. The experimental group also scored significantly higher in environmental literacy attitudes, reflecting the positive impact of VR instruction on attitude formation.

Environmental Literacy Skills and Public Art Creation Spatial Representation: While students in the experimental group showed noticeable improvements in knowledge and attitudes regarding environmental literacy, no significant differences emerged between the VR experimental group and the control group in terms of environmental literacy skills. This indicates that, although students understood environmental issues, their ability to apply this knowledge into concrete technical skills during the creation process requires further enhancement; additional practice may be necessary. Furthermore, in terms of spatial representation knowledge in public art creation, no significant performance differences were observed between the experimental and control groups, suggesting that spatial design performance did not fully benefit from the positive influence of VR instruction. While virtual reality technology helped students enhance their creativity, their progress in concrete spatial design and representation remained limited, likely necessitating further guidance and feedback for improvement.

Prominent Performance in Climate Change: In public art creation, students successfully transformed the challenges of climate change into creative inspiration, designing works imbued with profound environmental significance.

Good Performance in Environmental Ethics: Students demonstrated a strong sense of social responsibility in their works, emphasizing environmental protection, though the representation of this aspect was not as concrete as that of climate change.

Unremarkable Performance in Sustainable Energy Resource Utilization: Issues concerning energy resources tend to focus more on data and policy knowledge, making it challenging for students to effectively translate these aspects into their creative expressions, resulting in relatively weak learning outcomes in this area.

5.4. Learning Outcomes of Integrating Virtual Reality into Art Curriculum Instructional Units

Overall, the integration of VR into the art curriculum significantly outperformed traditional teaching methods concerning public art and environmental literacy issues. Virtual reality technology not only enhanced students’ learning in public art knowledge, skills, and attitudes but also significantly improved their understanding of environmental issues and the formation of responsibility. In contrast, the creative outputs of students in the control group were relatively unremarkable, particularly characterized by passive attitudes and engagement. This study employs the three phases of the CPS model: “Understanding the Challenge”, “Generating Ideas”, and “Preparing for Action”, constructing a layered learning framework across three units that enable students to systematically explore, discuss, and create around environmental literacy topics such as climate change, environmental ethics, and sustainable energy resource utilization. The following outlines students’ learning outcomes across the three instructional units of the art curriculum integrated with VR:

1. Learning Outcomes from Integrating VR into Public Art and Environmental Issues Unit

In Unit One, students utilized VR technology to explore and understand topics such as climate change, environmental ethics, and sustainable energy resource utilization. VR provided an immersive learning experience, allowing students to observe the effects of environmental problems, such as extreme climate events and the impacts of global warming and various forms of human pollution. Through sensory experiences, students deepened their understanding of environmental issues and utilized VR YouTube 360 videos to experience different environmental contexts, highlighting how these problems affect human society.

Specific outcomes include the following: In the context of climate change, students experienced extreme weather events through VR simulations, such as rising sea levels and melting ice in polar regions, and documented their understanding and reflections on climate change through reports. In terms of environmental ethics, students engaged in group discussions to reflect on the destruction caused by human activities and environmental responsibilities, discussing how to practice environmentally friendly behaviors while recording their observations and thoughts. Finally, regarding sustainable energy resource utilization, students explored issues related to resource sustainability and discussed solutions through energy-saving habits and renewable energy sources. Through collaborative work, students gathered information related to environmental challenges, conducted preliminary problem confirmations, and proposed detailed analytical reports.

2. Learning Outcomes of Integrating VR into Aesthetic Composition and Spatial Representation of Public Art

In Unit Two, students engaged in collaborative learning and creative brainstorming to discuss how to express issues such as climate change, environmental ethics, and the sustainable use of energy resources through public art. The implementation of VR technology allowed students to visualize the creative possibilities more concretely, enabling them to explore the relationship between public art and environmental protection through aesthetic forms and spatial representation. By working in groups, students collectively deliberated on how to incorporate these creative ideas into public art while integrating environmental education topics, thus proposing innovative and feasible solutions.

The specific outcomes are as follows: Regarding climate change, students suggested employing a dual-color application in public art’s aesthetic composition to symbolize the consequences of global warming, utilizing an eye-catching red to represent this phenomenon and raising public awareness of the severity of climate change. In terms of environmental ethics, students designed artworks that emphasize coexistence between humanity and natural ecosystems, awakening a sense of responsibility for environmental protection among the public. Ultimately, each group produced initial drafts of their public art creations, engaging in discussions, presentations, and feedback sessions with peers and teachers. These sketches illustrate the process of materializing students’ creativity (see Figure 12 for initial drafts from the experimental group).

3. Learning Outcomes of Integrating VR into Public Art Creation

In Unit Three, students transformed their creative ideas into concrete action plans, utilizing VR BlockWorks software for virtual public art creation centered on environmental education themes. Through VR technology, students could simulate how public artworks would be presented in real public spaces, making real-time adjustments to enhance the coordination and interaction between their artistic creations and the surrounding environment. Throughout this process, students not only focused on the artistic aspect but also contemplated how to convey real-world environmental issues through their artworks and employed VR to simulate the effects in different contexts.

The specific outcomes are as follows: In relation to climate change, students created virtual public art pieces that simulated the impacts of global warming on Earth’s species, illustrating scenarios such as penguins and polar bears in polar regions becoming homeless due to climate change, thereby prompting reflections on the effects and responses to this crisis. In terms of environmental ethics, the students’ designs effectively showcased their artworks in public spaces via VR, emphasizing the balance between humanity and nature while raising public awareness about environmental protection. This preparatory action resulted in final pieces that not only highlighted the value of art but also reflected the students’ profound understanding of environmental issues. The application of VR BlockWorks software allowed students to visualize their creations instantly, facilitating deeper testing of their artworks’ environmental adaptability and interactivity. This learning process not only enabled students to comprehend environmental issues more effectively but also deepened their understanding and sense of responsibility towards environmental protection, ultimately enhancing the impact and educational significance of their public art projects (see Figure 13 for public art creations from the experimental group).

5.5. Study Limitations

This study has several research limitations. The sample size, comprising approximately 60 participants, reflects the smaller class sizes typical of Taiwanese vocational high schools, influenced by the nation’s declining birth rate [41]. With class sizes ranging from 30 to 33 students, this limited sample size poses challenges in achieving sufficient statistical power, which may affect the generalizability and external validity of the findings. While the results offer meaningful insights into the integration of Virtual Reality (VR) technology in fine arts education, caution is necessary when applying these findings to broader or more diverse populations. To address this limitation, future research could consider cross-school collaborations or extending the experimental period to increase sample size, thereby enhancing the reliability and applicability of the study results.

6. Conclusions

This study integrates Virtual Reality (VR) technology into fine arts courses in vocational high schools, combining the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) model and Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) to investigate students’ learning outcomes in public art creation and environmental literacy. The results indicate that VR technology significantly enhances students’ abilities in spatial expression, environmental interaction, and public art creation. Specifically, the experimental group outperformed the control group in spatial perspective understanding and artwork layout (e.g., spatial performance scores: experimental group, 90.3 points, control group, 72.3 points). Among environmental literacy topics, the greatest improvement was observed in addressing climate change, while sustainable energy resource utilization showed relatively weaker gains.

The integration of the CPS model in the curriculum fostered problem identification, analysis, and solution evaluation, thereby enhancing students’ creativity, environmental awareness, and engagement in learning. Furthermore, VR technology provided an immersive learning environment that increased students’ interest in and commitment to public art and environmental issues, with notable progress demonstrated in practical public art creation. The phased assessments and teacher guidance embedded in the curriculum further amplified learning outcomes, highlighting the potential of this teaching model for the future development of art education.

This study emphasizes innovation and advancement in art and environmental education. By introducing VR technology to create immersive learning experiences, students were placed in realistic simulated scenarios, enabling them to intuitively perceive the relationship between space and environment, thereby deepening their understanding of art design while stimulating creativity and imagination. The curriculum integrated public art with environmental issues, encouraging students to create works that reflect themes of environmental protection or sustainable development, thus strengthening their environmental literacy and fostering a sense of environmental responsibility through simulated problem-solving exercises. The findings validate the effectiveness of VR technology in enhancing students’ artistic creativity and environmental literacy, providing empirical evidence and an innovative model for the education sector. This approach offers valuable insights for integrating VR into other subject areas in the future.