�����������������

Citation: Hui, J.; Zhou, Y.; Oubibi, M.;

Di, W.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, S. Research

on Art Teaching Practice Supported

by Virtual Reality (VR) Technology in

the Primary Schools. Sustainability

2022, 14, 1246. https://doi.org/

10.3390/su14031246

Academic Editors: Di Zou and

Lucas Kohnke

Received: 21 December 2021

Accepted: 20 January 2022

Published: 22 January 2022

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in

published maps and institutional affil-

iations.

Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

This article is an open access article

distributed under the terms and

conditions of the Creative Commons

Attribution (CC BY) license (https://

creativecommons.org/licenses/by/

4.0/).

sustainability

Article

Research on Art Teaching Practice Supported by Virtual Reality(VR) Technology in the Primary SchoolsJing Hui 1,†, Yueliang Zhou 1,2,†, Mohamed Oubibi 1 , Weifeng Di 1,*, Lixin Zhang 1 and Sijia Zhang 1

1 College of Teacher Education, College of Education and Human Development, Zhejiang Normal University,Jinhua 321004, China; jinghui@zjnu.edu.cn (J.H.); zhouyl@zjnu.cn (Y.Z.); liby478@nenu.edu.cn (M.O.);zlx@zjnu.cn (L.Z.); zeal0224@zjnu.edu.cn (S.Z.)

2 Key Laboratory of Intelligent Education Technology and Application of Zhejiang Province,Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua 321004, China

* Correspondence: diwf@zjnu.cn† These authors contributed equally to this work.

Abstract: Nowadays, teaching and learning methods are constantly changing with the developmentand popularization of information technology. Many teaching activities are exploring the integrationof virtual technology. However, the specific effects of VR are challenging to verify. In this paper,“teaching in VR environment” and “traditional teaching” were designed to carry out a series of teach-ing comparison practices between two groups of a primary school. By analyzing the experimentaldata of the experimental group and the control group, the research found that it is easier to entermental flow in virtual reality, and the introduction of virtual reality technology is positively correlatedwith learning engagement. What is more, compared with traditional teaching and learning methods,virtual reality technology and related software can help individuals give full play to their creativity.

Keywords: virtual reality technology; art teaching; primary schools; teaching practice

1. Introduction

In recent decades, virtual reality (VR), like other experimental technologies born inresponse to scientific research, has broken through the science barrier to reach contentcreators and end-users, making it more accessible [1].

Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) are generating popularity in thisdigitally connected world due to their huge strategic potential. VR and AR are currentlycreating educational and creative trends, with important implications for many studiesand initiatives [2,3]. In any case, the phrases “innovation”, “creativity”, “immersion”,“fascination”, “technology”, and “information” define and complement the concept ofvirtual reality. There has been tremendous growth in scientific publications [4,5], reflectingthe global academic environment’s influence [6].

Virtual reality technology is the most advanced form of human-computer interaction,and this relationship enables instant interaction with the user and the AR environment;an environment designed to stimulate some or all of the human senses, contained bythe creation of perceptions through images and thus direct intervention inside this virtualenvironment [7]. The user is engrossed in a computer-generated artificial three-dimensional(3D) situation and is oblivious to his surroundings [8].

VR gives users access to real-time experiences in a 3D world while also allowing themto participate in interactive situations that give them the sensation of being in another place.It can now be linked in many areas of teaching and learning, integrating with varioustechniques, pedagogies, and styles, and allowing students to gain knowledge and be theprimary actor in their educational process to updates and new low-cost apps. As a result, ithas become an indispensable tool in various fields, including science, geography, heritage,art, and culture, because it creates a unique environment that piques people’s interest

Sustainability 2022, 14, 1246. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031246 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 1246 2 of 15

and motivates them to learn more [9,10]. The positive image of virtual reality emergesfrom digital interfaces’ ability to infiltrate the student’s mind through engaging visualexperiences, adding value to education and often difficult subjects to address.

This paper first sorts out the application and exploration of virtual reality technologyworldwide and then summarizes its present situation in art teaching. Then, it analyzes theadvantages and feasibility of using virtual reality technology in art teaching and repeat-edly carries out comparative teaching practices according to theories. By analyzing theexperimental data of the experimental group and the control group, the research contentof this paper was explored. In order to study sub-question 1, “whether VR technologypromotes students’ understanding of knowledge”, the experiment allowed two groupsof experimental subjects to learn the same content in different ways and analyzed thecollected experimental group’s technical acceptance scale scores. Sub-question 2, “whetherVR technology improves learners learning engagement”, was based on sub-question 1 andadopted experimental research methods. The experimental group introduced virtual realitytechnology in different teaching steps, using VR software platforms and VR hardwareheadsets to assist teaching, while the control group adopted traditional teaching meth-ods. After the experiment was over, a comprehensive analysis of the collected learners’engagement and mental flow was carried out. Sub-question 3, “whether virtual reality en-vironment can affect the mental flow”, was based on the previous two studies. It analyzedthe corresponding indicators by scoring students’ works under different teaching styles.

2. Literature Review

The information and knowledge society is a recent development that has impactedhuman beings. It is defined by information technology, which allows for organizingdata into networks and allows people to access, share, and process data remotely andin real-time [11]. Furthermore, one of its characteristics is the increasing importance ofinformation communication technologies (ICTs) [12–14], which impacts every part of ourlife, including what we know and how we learn. They have also ushered in a pedagogicalshift that promotes and supports real-world experiences and activities that promote deeper,interactive learning [15,16]. Due to the widespread acceptance of virtual reality is now seenas cutting-edge technology with enormous potential for integration into the educationalsystem. Pioneers emerged in the 1960s, through their inventiveness and innovation, createdprecedents for smart glasses or other collaborative virtual gadgets, such as spectacles, whichwould later be developed with greater sophistication by businesses like Google [17,18].

Mental flow, also known as flow, was first proposed by American positive psychologistMihaly Csikszentmihalyi. It is a mental state in which a person is completely immersed inan activity for its own sake, turning a blind eye to other things around him and shieldingirrelevant thoughts and perceptions. Getting into this best state of consciousness is accom-panied by a high degree of excitement and fulfillment. As a result, people are happier andmore creative. In addition, they are more productive when they are highly focused on whatthey are doing at the moment.

Studies have shown that flow, as a positive emotional feeling, its production includescross-activity, cross-class, cross-age, and cross-cultural factors [19].

2.1. The Application of VR in Education

For domestic research, CNKI is mainly used as the data source. The visual analysissoftware CiteSpace.5.7.R2 is used for diversity analysis, including annual publicationvolume analysis, author analysis, institution cooperation network analysis, keyword co-occurrence network analysis, etc. The final retrieval time is 21 August 2021. Articles suchas conferences, newspapers, and yearbooks are excluded from obtaining data sources. Themain keywords and data statistics are shown in Table 1.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 1246 3 of 15

Table 1. Keywords citation frequency statistics table.

Word Frequency Year of Exist Keywords Word Frequency Year of Exist Keywords

882 1995 VR 40 2007 Educational games534 2000 VR Technology 37 2012 Unity3d191 1995 Teaching Reform 36 2001 Constructivism

155 2000 DistanceEducation 36 2007 Interactive

144 2004 VR Technology 36 1997 MultimediaTechnology

134 2002 Virtual RealityExperiment 34 1997 Interactivity

133 1995 VR 33 2016 Educationalapplication

124 1995 Education 33 2008 VR Tool114 1999 VRml 33 2001 The internet102 2003 Application 32 2002 Teaching Design

83 1995 EducationalTechnology 32 2005 Practical Teaching

77 2000 Virtual laboratory 30 2000 Artificial Intelligence

64 2002 Experimentalteaching 28 2012 Safety Education

61 2012 AugmentedReality 27 1995 VR virtual reality

61 1998 Medical education 27 2010 EducationalInformation

58 2002 InformationTechnology 27 2002 3D Modeling

58 2006 VocationalEducation 26 2002 Online Education

54 1999 Multimedia 25 2001 Modern EducationTechnology

49 2004 Higher VocationalEducation 24 1995 AR Augmented

Reality47 2002 Teaching mode 23 2004 Higher Education46 2008 Virtual Simulation 23 2005 Teaching Application41 2005 Teaching 23 2004 Web3d

The co-word analysis method was used to analyze the current application and devel-opment of VR in education to give a constructive direction to the research on the in-depthintegration of VR and education.

From the literature search, it can be understood that China’s VR research began in theearly 1970s, and its application in the education field started relatively late. Nowadays,VR technology has been introduced to K12, universities, vocational schools, technicalschools, scientific research institutes, and various training institutions, basically coveringthe application of various disciplines. As an efficient teaching mode, VR+ education isushering in a stage of rapid development [20].

2.2. Application of VR

Research on virtual reality technology in art teaching was mainly carried out for dif-ferent learning stages. Gao Qian put forward the goal of setting scenes in three dimensionsin art teaching: reality-oriented enrichment of experience and knowledge, perception asthe foundation to expand the imagination space, and interaction as a way to enhance emo-tional cognition [21]. Wang Jinhua proposed applying virtual reality technology to normalstudents’ sketch learning, conducting experiments through task assignments, and scoringaccording to different indicators [22]. The data shows that VR technology has effectivelyimproved the efficiency and quality of learning in terms of styling composition and shapingspace. Liu Dejian et al. pointed out that the essence of virtual reality art teaching resources

Sustainability 2022, 14, 1246 4 of 15

is not the introduction of new teaching tools but the integration of new methods and theoutput of new teaching content [23]. In researching augmented reality technology in artteaching, Lu Lingyu designed a “coloring game course” with coloring MIX software. Sheconcluded that the application of augmented reality technology in art teaching is feasible,which conforms to the law of students’ physical and mental development and has greatapplication value in teaching practice combined with the characteristics of art teaching [22].

2.2.1. Dilemma of Fine Arts Teaching

Through literature review, the main problem existing in the current art teachingprocess in primary and secondary schools is that the teaching objectives of different typesof courses do not match the actual teaching. The following will give specific examplesof mismatch problems in demonstration classes, appreciation classes, and art handicraftteaching. In addition, art teaching is also affected by problems such as the inconsistency ofteaching conditions and actual teaching [24] and the external factors in the teaching process.

In the traditional demonstration teaching of fine arts, to facilitate the students to watchand learn, the teacher is always the only subject of demonstration, and the blackboardis the most commonly used tool for demonstration. Due to the limitation of conditions,there are few physical demonstrations. This passive way of learning makes it difficultfor students to strengthen their memory [25]. Furthermore, sometimes it is impossibleto accommodate every child because of the classroom space or presentation angles [25].As a key step to cultivating students’ creativity, the lack of student participation is notconducive to stimulating learners’ sense of autonomous learning [25]. In student creation,the teacher is accustomed to oral presentation or modification based on the original work.Such a demonstration method is not conducive to students’ art creation; they are likely tolose the space for the exertion and cannot clearly understand the meaning of the teacher’sguidance [25].

Due to limited conditions in the current art appreciation teaching, it is not easy tovisit and feel immersive. The reduction degree and cost of simulation crafts more orless affect learners’ experience. Therefore, knowledge learning replaces most experientiallearning. The original intention of appreciation learning is to allow students to appreciateand understand nature from various perspectives. By appreciating the material, content,and features of works, they can mobilize their visual and auditory feelings to appreciatethe beauty of art and improve their aesthetic ability to create their works [26]. Somescholars pointed out that the biggest problem in appreciation art classes is that teachershave not yet clear course goals and cannot implement teaching according to the goalsduring the teaching process. The current teaching methods are challenging to meet theexpected goals and intentions, making the teaching steps out of touch [27]. The use ofinformation technology can enrich teaching resources and forms, create an immersiveteaching atmosphere, and help students better appreciate and feel artworks.

In the current art handicraft teaching, art handicraft class intends to exercise children’shands-on and technical abilities and enhance imagination, creativity, collaboration, andsocial skills [28]. It is a comprehensive aesthetic education for students, and Some teachersbelieve that “art handicraft course” and “manual and technological course” are almost thesame. Both of them emphasize hands-on practice. The “manual and technological course”is mainly to cultivate students’ love of labor, and it is a subject based on practice [28].Art handicraft course is to enhance students’ aesthetic ability and creativity. However,these two courses are different from other disciplines, and they are broad disciplines thatcultivate students’ hands-on ability [28].

In addition, the difference between art teaching and other conventional courses is thatdifferent types of teaching scenes and classrooms are required according to the needs ofteaching content. For example, “Design and application” courses ask for a wide variety ofmaterials according to the target requirements. Due to the limited time allocated for eachclass and the many items before and after class, it is challenging to complete such courseswithin the prescribed teaching time, which often leads to the loss of teaching content.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 1246 5 of 15

Teachers also reported not clarifying whether the relevant materials were learning tools orteaching tools, making the expenses unknown [29]. Due to the different teaching conditionsof different schools, the expenditure of funds is correspondingly different [29]. In additionto text description and teacher’s oral expression, the teaching of design requires studentsto personally feel the material and explore the meaning of art in the process of actualcreation [29]. If these conditions are not guaranteed, it is difficult to carry out activities andachieve the expected teaching effects. Different teaching scenarios can be created throughtechnology integration, allowing students to experience the mysteries of different types ofart learning in the same environment [29]. With some interactive software, students canrepeatedly try to complete the creation without considering the cost of failure [29].

2.2.2. The Application of VR in Fine Arts

According to literature retrieval, virtual reality technology in fine arts is mainly con-centrated in the following courses. Art masterpieces appreciation course is a necessarypart of art teaching to lead students to appreciate world-famous works of art such aspaintings, sculptures, and architecture. Multimedia equipment in traditional teaching ischallenging to achieve detailed and close multidimensional observation. It is difficult tobreak through the original plane observation [30]. However, the virtual space environmentcreated by virtual reality technology can take students to experience the three-dimensionalarchitectural design as if in person.

Interactive work creation practical courses. Students can use virtual reality technologyto create artistic works, such as clay sculptures, space design, and so on. Virtual realitytechnology solves the limitation of raw materials and space, opens up new creative spacefor students, expands their artistic creation imagination, and stimulates their interest inartistic creation. With the interactive features of virtual reality technology, students cancreate artworks and flip and rotate their works in open minds [31]. Later, students’ worksin virtual space can also be converted into real works through 3D printing and othertechnologies.

Innovative art learning courses. Virtual reality technology will get rid of the traditionalteaching model of indoctrination, break through the limitations of time and space, expandthe scope of art classrooms, bring students into various art museums to visit and teach,and expand students’ horizons [32]. It provides students with many creative materials,cultivates innovative thinking, and stimulates their creative inspiration.

3. Design and Implementation of the Research

This paper made an in-depth study of the theory and practice of art teaching. Itused virtual reality technology to verify the feasibility and effectiveness of introducingVR technology into art teaching by setting up experimental and control groups throughmulti-session teaching verification. It redesigned the teaching of “Mighty General” and“Southern Song Dynasty Official Kiln”, the third-grade courses of primary school fine arts.It added relevant VR software and hardware head displays in the experimental groups’teaching activities to verify the effect of virtual reality technology on primary school finearts teaching. Specifically, the two research questions are as follows:

Research Question (I): Can VR technology benefits learning? It is further crystallizedinto three sub-questions:

1. Whether Virtual Reality technology can promote learners’ understanding of knowl-edge?

2. Whether Virtual Reality technology is indirectly conducive to improving learningengagement?

3. Whether the virtual reality environment can affect mental flow?

Research Question (II): Can VR technology stimulate learners’ creativity?

Sustainability 2022, 14, 1246 6 of 15

3.1. Research Subject

According to the requirements of teaching design, the third-grade students in a schoolin Jinhua city, Zhejiang province, China, were taken as the teaching objects. The experimen-tal group and control group had 27 and 25 students, respectively. The same teacher taughteach course, and the teaching environment was adjusted according to the teaching contentand needs.

In order to ensure the reliability of the experiment, the first experiment group is Class301, was selected as the experimental group and Class 302 as the control group. The secondexperiment reversed the two groups, with Class 301 as the control group and Class 302 asthe experimental group.

3.2. Experimental Scenarios and Tools3.2.1. Experimental Measurement Tools

In order to study learners’ understanding of knowledge proposed in Question 1, andaccording to the teaching objectives, teaching content, and knowledge emphasized byteachers, the author designed the examinations of “Southern Song Dynasty Official Kiln”under the guidance of professional art teachers, which is mainly used for after-school tests.

Previous studies have studied learners’ creativity in class through a comprehensiveinvestigation of divergent thinking, distant association, insight test, and other aspects. Thepaper thought of a way to reflect the change of individual creativity indirectly through thecomprehensive expression of works. Therefore, in combination with the teaching content inthe early stage, the experiment designed the same creation task, which students themselvesplayed. The scale adopted the work creativity scale developed by David H. Cropley [33],tested for reliability by experts.

In order to investigate the mental flow and learning engagement of learners, the teach-ing experiment was completed by teachers’ speech, students’ independent creation, andcollaborative communication. In this process, learners’ engagement and mental flow wouldbe affected to varying degrees [34]. Therefore, the scale designed by Csikszentmihalyi et al.was used as a reference in this study’s mental flow state survey [35].

3.2.2. Experimental Environment and Equipment

The environment required for the experiment was an ordinary classroom. Since theexperimental subject school was equipped with a dedicated virtual reality classroom, thetwo courses of the experimental group were carried out in this classroom. In contrast, thecontrol group was carried out in an ordinary classroom. The VR classroom was equippedwith a teacher machine, 30 sets of PICO VR integrated headset displays, and the HTCVIVEseries of VR headsets connected to the teacher’s equipment. The teacher could performswitch operations, content sending, and simple equipment management on each student’sequipment (Figure 1).

Sustainability 2022, 14, 1246 7 of 15Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 14

Figure 1. Comparison table of the experimental environment.

The experimental group teaching equipment support (Figure 2) is as follows:

Figure 2. List of equipment required by the experimental group.

The G2 4K VR all-in-one machine with Pico was equipped with a motion-sensing handle, convenient for students to wear and use. The following picture shows the usage illustration (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Learning illustration of the experimental group.

Figure 1. Comparison table of the experimental environment.

The experimental group teaching equipment support (Figure 2) is as follows:

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 14

Figure 1. Comparison table of the experimental environment.

The experimental group teaching equipment support (Figure 2) is as follows:

Figure 2. List of equipment required by the experimental group.

The G2 4K VR all-in-one machine with Pico was equipped with a motion-sensing handle, convenient for students to wear and use. The following picture shows the usage illustration (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Learning illustration of the experimental group.

Figure 2. List of equipment required by the experimental group.

The G2 4K VR all-in-one machine with Pico was equipped with a motion-sensinghandle, convenient for students to wear and use. The following picture shows the usageillustration (Figure 3).

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 14

Figure 1. Comparison table of the experimental environment.

The experimental group teaching equipment support (Figure 2) is as follows:

Figure 2. List of equipment required by the experimental group.

Figure 3. Learning illustration of the experimental group. Figure 3. Learning illustration of the experimental group.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 1246 8 of 15

HTCVIVE series head display was adopted for students’ creation process, with arefresh rate of 90 Hz, accurate, clear, and suitable for human physiological structure. Thehead display was equipped with an operating handle and positioned for flexible operation.The following Figure 4 shows the usage of VR.

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14

HTCVIVE series head display was adopted for students’ creation process, with a re-fresh rate of 90 Hz, accurate, clear, and suitable for human physiological structure. The head display was equipped with an operating handle and positioned for flexible opera-tion. The following Figure 4 shows the usage of VR.

Figure 4. Equipment usage in the experimental group.

3.3.3. Software Platform The ceramic making software and teaching resources used in this course were jointly

developed with Chuanhe Technology Co., Ltd. (Hangzhou, China) The software was de-veloped based on the Unity3D engine. The software was developed and designed after carefully planning the porcelain manufacturing process. In the actual process, porcelain production requires at least the steps of smelting, drawing, printing, cutting, drying, glaz-ing, and kiln firing. In addition to restoring the above processing steps, the software plat-form also added interactive experiences in each step in order to increase the interest in learning, once again beautifying the original works. Students could experience the above processes quickly and design their works in a virtual space. They could also print the finished works as models for display through a 3D printer.

4. Results and Analysis The experiment uses virtual reality technology to verify the teaching of multiple ses-

sions and set up experimental cases to verify the feasibility and effectiveness of the intro-duction of VR technology in teaching (Figure 5).

The two courses’ relevant measurement data are shown in Table 2. From the perspec-tive of the average result, it can be revealed that the creativity of the control group is lower than that of the experimental group supported by VR technology. In comparison, no clear difference can be observed in the mental flow and learning engagement score. From the light of variance, the two groups have similar fluctuations in the four dimensions, indi-cating that individual differences may affect the learning effect.

Figure 4. Equipment usage in the experimental group.

3.2.3. Software Platform

The ceramic making software and teaching resources used in this course were jointlydeveloped with Chuanhe Technology Co., Ltd. (Hangzhou, China) The software wasdeveloped based on the Unity3D engine. The software was developed and designed aftercarefully planning the porcelain manufacturing process. In the actual process, porcelainproduction requires at least the steps of smelting, drawing, printing, cutting, drying,glazing, and kiln firing. In addition to restoring the above processing steps, the softwareplatform also added interactive experiences in each step in order to increase the interest inlearning, once again beautifying the original works. Students could experience the aboveprocesses quickly and design their works in a virtual space. They could also print thefinished works as models for display through a 3D printer.

4. Results and Analysis

The experiment uses virtual reality technology to verify the teaching of multiplesessions and set up experimental cases to verify the feasibility and effectiveness of theintroduction of VR technology in teaching (Figure 5).

The two courses’ relevant measurement data are shown in Table 2. From the per-spective of the average result, it can be revealed that the creativity of the control group islower than that of the experimental group supported by VR technology. In comparison,no clear difference can be observed in the mental flow and learning engagement score.From the light of variance, the two groups have similar fluctuations in the four dimensions,indicating that individual differences may affect the learning effect.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 1246 9 of 15Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14

Figure 5. Experimental and control group classroom activities.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of learning effect.

Descriptive Statistics N Range Mean S.D. Variance

Mental Flow Score EG 23 64 147.04 16.069 258.225 CG 23 85 134.43 19.856 394.257

Learning Engagement Score EG 23 27 134.13 7.754 60.119 CG 23 76 95.57 15.084 227.530

Academic Score EG 23 20 89.43 5.696 32.439 CG 23 29 79.87 7.701 59.300

EG: Experimental Group; CG: Control Group.

Figure 5. Experimental and control group classroom activities.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of learning effect.

Descriptive Statistics

N Range Mean S.D. Variance

Mental Flow ScoreEG 23 64 147.04 16.069 258.225

CG 23 85 134.43 19.856 394.257

Learning Engagement ScoreEG 23 27 134.13 7.754 60.119

CG 23 76 95.57 15.084 227.530

Academic ScoreEG 23 20 89.43 5.696 32.439

CG 23 29 79.87 7.701 59.300EG: Experimental Group; CG: Control Group.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 1246 10 of 15

According to the descriptive statistics, from the average data, the overall score of classb is higher than class a. The questionnaires filled out by two classes are not related. Theindependent sample T-test has been used to verify the differences between a, b classes afterusing the VR technology (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3. Independent Sample T-test.

Independent Sample Test

Levene Variance Equality Test Mean Equality T-Test

F Sig. T Degrees ofFreedom Sig. (2-Tailed)

Creativity

Equal VariancesAssumed 0.402 0.529 −3.560 44 0.001

Equal Variances NotAssumed −3.560 43.973 0.001

Mental FlowScore

Equal VariancesAssumed 0.641 0.428 −2.367 44 0.022

Equal Variances NotAssumed −2.367 42.167 0.023

Learning Score

Equal VariancesAssumed 1.992 0.165 −4.789 44 0.000

Equal Variances NotAssumed −4.789 40.526 0.000

LearningEngagement

Score

Equal VariancesAssumed 1.739 0.194 −10.905 44 0.000

Equal Variances NotAssumed −10.905 32.867 0.000

Table 4. Independent Sample Test.

Independent Sample Test

Mean Equality T-Test

Mean Deviation Standard ErrorDeviation

95% Confidence Intervalof Difference

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Creativity

Equal VariancesAssumed −7.217 2.027 −11.303 −3.131

Equal VariancesNot Assumed −7.217 2.027 −11.303 −3.131

Mental Flow Score

Equal VariancesAssumed −12.609 5.326 −23.343 −1.874

Equal VariancesNot Assumed −12.609 5.326 −23.356 −1.861

Learning Score

Equal VariancesAssumed −9.565 1.997 −13.590 −5.540

Equal VariancesNot Assumed −9.565 1.997 −13.600 −5.530

LearningEngagement Score

Equal VariancesAssumed −38.565 3.536 −45.692 −31.438

Equal VariancesNot Assumed −38.565 3.536 −45.761 −31.369

Sustainability 2022, 14, 1246 11 of 15

Hypothesis 1. H0 no significant difference can be seen in the four dimensions.

From Table 3, it is noticeable that the Levene Variance Equality Test statistic is greatlyhigher than 0.05, so the data of assumed equal variances should be considered. The figuresof the four dimensions are sig = 0.001 (creativity), sig = 0.022 (mental flow), sig = 0.222(learning score) and sig = 0.000 (learning engagement), respectively. Both are far lower than0.05, so the initial hypothesis should be turned down. It should be assumed that a and bclasses have an obvious difference in the score of the four dimensions, so VR technology candrastically influence the teaching process. Here it should be noted that the mean deviation(0.022) of mental flow is comparatively high. The underlying reason may be the shortduration of a class (40 min), so the students cannot have an immersive experience of theVR equipment. However, the difference can be made in such a short time that the positiveeffect of VR can be proved.

In exploring research question 2 (Whether Virtual Reality technology is indirectlyconducive to improving learners’ creativity?), the teachers randomly determine the selectionof experimental class or control class due to the scientificity. To ensure the experiment’seffectiveness, the two groups’ creativity was pre-tested given the last three works of thissemester, and professional teachers were invited to rate the creativity of these works.The specific representations of the work created in this study are relevance, effectiveness,novelty, superiority, and creative expression. By comparing their pretest result, there is nosignificant difference in the initial creativity between the two groups so that the follow-upresearch can be carried out (Tables 5 and 6).

Table 5. Work Creativity Pretest T-Test.

Group N Mean SD T P

WorkCreativity

Experimental Group 27 3.335 0.4250.355 0.733Control Group 25 3.323 0.433

Table 6. Work Creativity Post-test Comparison.

Group N M SD Variance

1st Experiment Experimental Class 301 27 77.00 0.355 0.733Control Class 302 25 69.78 6.961 48.451

2nd Experiment Experimental Class 301 25 75.50 6.619 48.990Control Class 302 25 71.00 6.789 47.091

In the work creation procedure of the “Southern Song Dynasty Official Kiln” course,the experimental class 301 used VR pottery software to design their works. While Thecontrol class 302 used paper and pen to complete it. Then the learners would explaintheir ideas.

To avoid the interference and limitations of VR technology on the work creation, inthe course “Terracotta Warriors and Horses”, both two groups created their work with claytools, with the intervention only implemented in the teaching procedures.

As shown in the work creativity, the creativity score of the experimental group ishigher than that of the control group, which means that the Virtual Reality technology haspromoted students’ creativity to a certain extent. It has a positive effect on the cultivationof creativity. According to teachers’ feedback, students in the experimental group have aslightly better command of the details in the creation procedures due to the more intuitiveand comprehensive impression in the immersive environment.

5. Discussion

The results of data analysis show that learners have a high acceptance of the intro-duction of VR technology in teaching and are more likely to enter the mental flow in the

Sustainability 2022, 14, 1246 12 of 15

virtual reality situation. The introduction of VR is positively correlated with the degree oflearning engagement, which is conducive to understanding knowledge. The application ofVR technology and related software is helpful to the creativity of individuals. The end ofthe paper reflects on the shortcomings in the practice process and hopes that this researchcan provide valuable references for educators.

The application of technology and the innovation of means always need to go througha long process. There is no overnight achievement, and breakthroughs must be achievedthrough continuous attempts and explorations. Virtual reality technology is still in a stateof sullenness. However, it is believed that with the continuous iteration of emergingtechnologies and the continuous optimization of experience, virtual reality technology willeventually highlight its advantages [36]. This paper mainly includes two parts of research:teaching design and practical application. The research results show that virtual realitytechnology can promote art learning. At the same time, it also brings enlightenment toteaching design and classroom teaching.

When hardware becomes popular, content production is the primary battlefield for VReducational content developers [37]. In response to the problem of resource incompatibility,two suggestions are provided: Firstly, in teaching resources development, professional R&Dteams need to be in close contact with the teachers to inform each other about the technicaldifficulty and implementation effects. From the perspective of all students, students’learning situation should be considered in material dubbing and other aspects to makethe teaching content interesting and lively and realize the optimization of teaching [38].Secondly, provide teachers with a simple and easy-to-operate creation platform that allowsteachers to carry out secondary editing and development to facilitate the implementationof personalized teaching. It is beneficial to improve teaching quality and efficiency whilereducing development costs [39].

In fact, in addition to trying to introduce virtual reality technology in art courses,the school as a research subject is also exploring the possibility of applying VR in moredisciplines. The current education is called future-oriented education. The normalizedapplication of virtual reality technology is the goal of joint efforts. However, applying newtechnologies in education does not mean that traditional media has lost its applicationvalue in teaching. There are many ways to integrate virtual reality technology into teaching.Thus, teachers should fully consider the characteristics of the media and choose differentforms of media to present according to the different emphasis of teaching.

With the advent of the 5G era, features such as low latency, large bandwidth, andcloud transmission will also become popular in schools and homes. At the same time, theintegration of AR, AI, and other technologies will bring learners a richer experience. Inthe design and development process, it should be noted that too many complex stimulimay easily cause cognitive overload. For example, VR creates an immersive experienceand often uses a variety of audio, image, and text to convey information, which leadsto redundancy [23]. Therefore, the presentation of the content should also appropriatelyrefer to the relevant design principles to avoid counterproductive effects. Technologybrings to education is the change of the learning environment or the supply and support oftechnology platforms and the generation of new teaching methods. It is believed that theapplication effect of technology in education will be significantly improved.

6. Conclusions

This paper intends to apply virtual reality technology to teaching, optimize teachingthrough effect analysis, explore the ways and strategies of integrating virtual reality intoteaching, and truly use technology to lead teaching reform. At the beginning of teachingpractice, this paper sorted out the related literature on the application of virtual realitytechnology in education and labor technology education, figured out the current problemsin classroom teaching, and analyzed the feasibility of using virtual reality technology in artteaching. Based on the characteristics of virtual reality technology and the teaching require-

Sustainability 2022, 14, 1246 13 of 15

ments of art courses, after two times classroom experiments, the following conclusionswere obtained:

First of all, as “digital natives” in the information age, primary school learners highlyaccept the application of virtual reality technology in the art classroom. They recognizeand adapt to such teaching methods, and do not have learning disabilities due to theintroduction of new technology, showing a high willingness to accept. Especially in theoperation of the software platform, students show that it is easier to get started than adultteachers.

Secondly, experimental data and interview results show that the application of virtualreality technology is favorable for improving classroom teaching effects. On the onehand, technology promotes learners’ understanding of knowledge, especially that detailedknowledge that cannot be fully considered in traditional teaching [6]. At the same time,students have a better grasp of the key content of the teaching. On the other hand, learnersin the virtual reality teaching environment can enter a deeper flow state. It allows learnersto concentrate on the learning situation in a shorter time. What is more, VR technologyenhances learners’ engagement. Different teaching resources and organizational formsmake students concentrate and highly engaged in the classroom.

Thirdly, Virtual reality technology enhances the creative performance of learners.Virtual reality technology can bring learners more inspiration and imagination, and itis more conducive to creativity in an immersive creative environment. Meanwhile, theadditional tools in the software can also provide help for learners to create works, inspirecreativity, and optimize works.

As a limitation of our work, this research was conducted on Art teaching in primaryschool, and the application of the research in other levels of studies and different teachingsubjects may have different results. This limitation will allow us to conduct additionalresearch regarding different levels of primary, secondary, and high school students. Apply-ing this research to different teaching subjects will allow comparing the improvement ofclassroom teaching and how technology promotes learners’ understanding and knowledge.The use of VR devices is quite heavy, and extended use can cause headaches and neck painfor students in primary schools, and the initial costs are extremely high. This limitation cancontinue for a decade to come until VR costs are reduced.

Author Contributions: J.H. and M.O.; Data curation, Y.Z., M.O. and S.Z.; Formal analysis, J.H., L.Z.and S.Z.; Investigation, J.H. and W.D.; Methodology, J.H.; Project administration, Y.Z. and W.D.;Resources, J.H., Y.Z. and L.Z.; Software, M.O.; Supervision, Y.Z., W.D. and L.Z.; Validation, Y.Z. andW.D.; Visualization, Y.Z.; Writing—original draft, J.H.; Writing—review & editing, Y.Z., M.O., W.D.,L.Z. and S.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was conducted in accordance with the declarationof Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of the local University’s College of TeacherEducation (Protocol code ZSRT20220020 approved in 1 June 2020).

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in thestudy and written informed consent has been obtained from the subjects to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References1. González-Zamar, M.-D.; Abad-Segura, E. Implications of Virtual Reality in Arts Education: Research Analysis in the Context of

Higher Education. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 225. [CrossRef]2. Koh, D.-Y. Immersion, Bodily, Multisensory Perception, and Eco-Art Education: VR and Soundscape Art Education Programs. J.

Res. Art Educ. 2019, 20, 101–127. [CrossRef]3. Wu, H.-K.; Lee, S.W.-Y.; Chang, H.-Y.; Liang, J.-C. Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education.

Comput. Educ. 2013, 62, 41–49. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2022, 14, 1246 14 of 15

4. Abad-Segura, E.; González-Zamar, M.-D.; López-Meneses, E.; Vázquez-Cano, E. Financial Technology: Review of Trends,Approaches and Management. Mathematics 2020, 8, 951. [CrossRef]

5. Feng, Z.; González, V.A.; Amor, R.; Lovreglio, R.; Cabrera-Guerrero, G. Immersive virtual reality serious games for evacuationtraining and research: A systematic literature review. Comput. Educ. 2018, 127, 252–266. [CrossRef]

6. Merchant, Z.; Goetz, E.T.; Cifuentes, L.; Keeney-Kennicutt, W.; Davis, T.J. Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction onstudents’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Comput. Educ. 2014, 70, 29–40. [CrossRef]

7. Xia, Z.; Hwang, A. Self-position awareness-based presence and interaction in virtual reality. Virtual Real. 2020, 24, 255–262.[CrossRef]

8. Jensen, L.; Konradsen, F. A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and training. Educ. Inf. Technol.2018, 23, 1515–1529. [CrossRef]

9. Chandrasekera, T.; Yoon, S.-Y. The Effect of Augmented and Virtual Reality Interfaces in the Creative Design Process. Int. J.Virtual Augment. Real. 2018, 2, 1–13. [CrossRef]

10. Younan, S.; Treadaway, C. Digital 3D models of heritage artefacts: Towards a digital dream space. Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult.Herit. 2015, 2, 240–247. [CrossRef]

11. Lin, C.-L.; Chen, S.-J.; Lin, R. Efficacy of Virtual Reality in Painting Art Exhibitions Appreciation. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3012.[CrossRef]

12. Tsolakidis, C.; Zouboula, N.; Fokides, E.; Vratsalis, C. Virtual Reality and Museum: An Educational Application for MuseumEducation. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2008, 3, 89–95. [CrossRef]

13. Kali, Y.; Sagy, O.; Benichou, M.; Atias, O.; Levin-Peled, R. Teaching expertise reconsidered: The Technology, Pedagogy, Contentand Space (TPeCS) knowledge framework. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 50, 2162–2177. [CrossRef]

14. Oubibi, M.; Zhao, W. Pre-service Teachers Teaching Chinese as Foreign language integration of Technological PedagogicalDidactical Social ICT Competencies. In Proceedings of the 2019 Eighth International Conference on Educational Innovationthrough Technology (EITT), Biloxi, MS, USA, 27–31 October 2019. pp. 131–136. [CrossRef]

15. Zamar, M.D.G.; Segura, E.A. La Realidad Aumentada como recurso creativo en la educación: Una revisión global. Creat. Soc. Rev.Asoc. Para Creat. 2020, 32, 164–190.

16. Mohamed, O.; Wei, Z. Motivation and Satisfaction of International Student Studying Chinese Language with Technology ofEducation. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT), Osaka,Japan, 7–9 December 2017; pp. 272–277. [CrossRef]

17. López-Meneses, E.; Vázquez-Cano, E.; González-Zamar, M.-D.; Abad-Segura, E. Socioeconomic Effects in Cyberbullying: GlobalResearch Trends in the Educational Context. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4369. [CrossRef]

18. Yu, J. A Light-Field Journey to Virtual Reality. IEEE MultiMedia 2017, 24, 104–112. [CrossRef]19. Csikszentmihalyi, M.; Csikzentmihaly, M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1990;

Volume 1990.20. Fransson, G.; Holmberg, J.; Westelius, C. The challenges of using head mounted virtual reality in K-12 schools from a teacher

perspective. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020, 25, 3383–3404. [CrossRef]21. Gao, Q. New Direction of Primary Art Teaching Resources Development Based on VR Vision. Educ. Mod. 2020, 45, 14–17.22. Wang, J.; Zhang, Q. Research on the application of virtual reality technology in art sketch teaching. Educ. Mod. 2015, 08, 60–63.23. Liu, G.P.; Wang, X. Virtual reality reshapes online education: Learning resources, teaching organization and system platform.

Chin. Educ. Technol. 2020, 11, 87–96.24. Lu, L.Y. Practical Research on Augmented Reality Technology in Primary School Art Teaching. Master’s Thesis, Ningxia

University, Ningxia, China, 2015.25. Yang, K.Z.; Zhu, Y. Application and exploration of VR technology in STEAM Education—Analysis of the lesson of Primary School

Art “Robot”. Chin. Modern Educ. Equip. 2020, 18, 58–59. Available online: https://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/periodical/zgxdjyzb202018021 (accessed on 20 December 2021).

26. Day, M.; Hurwitz, A. Children and Their Art: Art Education for Elementary and Middle Schools; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA,USA, 2012.

27. Zhang, X.; Cao, J. Development and application of evaluation tools for the “Appreciation and Comment” classes of primaryschool fine arts. Shanghai Educ. Res. 2016, 8, 70–72.

28. Zheng, S.; Tian, E. Research on primary school art teaching methods. J. Shanxi Normal Univ. 2010, 37, 143–145.29. Wang, Y.L. Proper application of multimedia Technology in primary art teaching. Contemp. Educ. Sci. 2006, 16, 64.30. Ge, Y.; Yang, X.; Wang, Y.T.; Sun, Y. The practice of virtual reality laboratory construction based on STEAM. Lab. Res. Explor. 2020,

39, 251–254.31. Zhang, X.; Chi, Y. Research on Virtual Reality Technology (VR): A review of VR+ Education: The future of visual learning. Chin. Educ.

J. 2018, 144. Available online: https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-ZJYX201808076.htm (accessed on 20 December 2021).32. Taxén, G.; Naeve, A. CyberMath: A System for Exploring Open Issues in VR-Based Education. 2001. Available online:

https://cid.nada.kth.se/pdf/CID-160.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2021).33. Cropley, D.H.; Cropley, A.J. Fostering creativity in engineering undergraduates. High Ab. Stud. 2000, 11, 207–219. [CrossRef]34. Shi, K.H. Discussion on the application of VR technology in middle school art teaching. Art Educ. Res. 2017, 24, 152.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 1246 15 of 15

35. Wang, M.-T.; Fredricks, J.A.; Ye, F.; Hofkens, T.L.; Linn, J.S. The Math and Science Engagement Scales: Scale development,validation, and psychometric properties. Learn. Instr. 2016, 43, 16–26. [CrossRef]

36. Csikszentmihalyi, M. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention; Harper Perennial: New York, NY, USA, 1997.37. Zhao, Y.M.; Hao, J.J.; Wang, H.Y.; Qiao, X.F. Visual analysis of the evolution of VR technology in education application research.

E-Educ. Res. 2016, 37, 26–33.38. Zhang, K.; Liu, S.-J. The application of virtual reality technology in physical education teaching and training. In Proceedings of

the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics (SOLI), Beijing, China, 10–12 July2016; pp. 245–248.

39. Oubibi, M.; Fute, A.; Xiao, W.; Sun, B.; Zhou, Y. Perceived Organizational Support and Career Satisfaction among ChineseTeachers: The Mediation Effects of Job Crafting and Work Engagement during COVID-19. Sustainability 2022, 14, 623. [CrossRef]