Next Article in Journal
Optimizing Fleet Structure for Autonomous Electric Buses: A Route-Based Analysis in Aachen, Germany
Previous Article in Journal
Unraveling the Sustainability Components of Organizational Value Statements: A Q-Sort Methodology Approach
Previous Article in Special Issue
Interactive Learning with iPads and Augmented Reality: A Sustainability-Oriented Approach to Teaching Plastics Chemistry
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 10
10.3390/su16104092
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Effects of an Immersive Virtual-Reality-Based 3D Modeling Approach on the Creativity and Problem-Solving Tendency of Elementary School Students

by
Shu-Jie Chen
1,*,
Chuang-Qi Chen
2 and
Xiao-Fen Shan
2
1
College of Teacher Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China
2
College of Education, Wenzhou University, Wenzhou 325035, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(10), 4092; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104092
Submission received: 14 April 2024 / Revised: 26 April 2024 / Accepted: 11 May 2024 / Published: 14 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Education: Innovations and Developments of Educational Technology)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Virtual-reality 3D modeling helps primary school students to develop creative thinking and problem-solving skills. Through hands-on practice, students can understand abstract concepts more intuitively, and can realize the combination of theory and practice. However, in conventional virtual 3D modeling teaching, students often lack immersive modeling experience, and the modeling method may not be in line with the cognitive way of thinking of primary school students, which, in turn, causes high cognitive load. Immersive virtual reality (IVR) environments provide students with more immersive and intuitive interactions, which can help promote students’ cognitive, emotional, and social development. Therefore, this study combined IVR with 3D virtual modeling to form an immersive virtual-reality-based 3D modeling approach (IVR-based 3D modeling) and designed a quasi-experiment to compare it with the conventional virtual reality 3D modeling approach (CVR-based 3D modeling) to explore its effectiveness. The results of the study show that the IVR-based 3D modeling approach significantly enhanced elementary school students’ creative thinking, including its sub-dimensions (e.g., challenge, imagination, and curiosity), when compared to the CVR-based 3D modeling approach. The same conclusion was reached for problem-solving skills. IVR-based 3D modeling also reduced students’ cognitive load during the learning process, especially in terms of mental effort. The results of the interviews complement the experimental results, and the learners’ perceptions of the new approach explain the experimental results to some extent.

1. Introduction

In the 21st century, in the face of various challenges from increasingly complex modern society, the development of higher-order thinking skill (HOTS) competencies in education has received increasing attention from educators and scholars [1,2,3]. In the development of higher-order thinking among elementary school students, creative thinking and problem-solving skills not only enhance their achievement in current subjects but also contribute to future personal development and professional success [4]. At the same time, the rise of digital technology has largely changed the way learning takes place [5], with technology creating a context for authentic learning that applies knowledge and skills learned in the classroom to the real world [6]. Combining the concept of “learning by doing” allows students to actively participate in and directly experience the learning task, and students are no longer passive recipients but become active knowledge builders. This approach can increase students’ engagement in the classroom and enhance their higher-order thinking skills [7]. Virtual 3D modeling, as a typical way of “learning by doing” and “authentic learning” in the digital age, has been recognized by many scholars as a way to cultivate various cognitive abilities. Its development of various cognitive abilities has been recognized by many scholars [8,9,10]. Using new media technologies such as 3D printing technology and visual programming, students’ act of visualizing their ideas through virtual 3D modeling not only improves their creativity and spatial ability but also increases their interest in and understanding of the subject material during the learning process [11].
There have been many studies demonstrating the effectiveness of virtual 3D modeling in education [9,12,13], but, at the same time, there are still some problems with this way of teaching. This is, in part, because of the lack of pedagogical effectiveness caused by virtual 3D modeling’s own hardware and modalities, such as the high cognitive load of the learning process due to students’ unfamiliarity with virtual 3D modeling software and printing equipment [14], the lack of individualized instruction during the process [15], and the lack of immediate feedback on students’ learning. Moreover, there has been less research on the use of virtual 3D modeling at the basic level of education, which is important considering that the effect of different ages on the curriculum is significant [16]. In addition, fewer studies have been conducted to improve and optimize conventional virtual 3D modeling. The use of 3D software does not take into account the habits of the human mind, so users need to use the mouse to drag and drop to observe the different angles of 3D objects on a 2D plane, which undoubtedly increases their cognitive load and restricts their creative thinking [17].
With the development of technology, highly immersive virtual reality (IVR) such as head-mounted displays (HMDs) have emerged [18]. IVR is a way to digitally simulate or replicate a realistic environment [19], and the four essential elements of IVR include virtual environments, immersion, presence, and intervening in the interactions between reality and the virtual environment [20]. In the field of education, the use of IVR brings more possibilities for spatial knowledge representation and engagement and contextual learning [21], and the IVR pedagogical basis and immersive properties can promote deep learning experiences and inspiration, which are considered ideal pedagogical goals for creativity development [20].
The IVR-based 3D modeling approach allows students to visually observe the finished modeling product during teacher–student activities and to continuously adjust the model using a joystick or with both hands, which is a more natural method of human–computer interaction [22]. This approach requires fewer mental transitions and is more in line with children’s cognitive–behavioral habits than conventional virtual 3D modeling approaches, enhancing students’ creativity and motivation to learn while reducing development time and costs [23,24,25]. To deeply investigate the impact of the method on students’ creative thinking, problem-solving tendency, and cognitive load, this study applied the IVR-based 3D modeling approach to a virtual 3D modeling course in an elementary school and posed the following research questions:
  • Can the IVR-based 3D modeling approach improve students’ creative thinking in comparison with the conventional virtual 3D modeling (CVR-based 3D modeling) approach?
  • Can the IVR-based 3D modeling approach improve students’ problem-solving tendency in comparison with the conventional virtual 3D modeling (CVR-based 3D modeling) approach?
  • Can the IVR-based 3D modeling approach reduce students’ cognitive load in comparison with the conventional virtual 3D modeling (CVR-based 3D modeling) approach?
  • What are the students’ feedback and suggestions regarding the use of the IVR-based 3D modeling approach?

2. Literature Review

2.1. Creative Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills in Basic Education

In the current 21st century context, a growing number of educators, scholars, and policy decision makers are recognizing that our education system needs to focus not only on traditional knowledge transfer and test scores but also needs to put more emphasis on the development of students’ higher-order thinking skills, such as critical thinking, problem solving, and creative thinking [2,3]. Creative thinking refers to a way of thinking that produces novel, unique, and effective ways of thinking that can generate multiple possible solutions to face complex, ambiguous situations when different or new relationships are involved [26]. Creative thinking is also a very important skill for their future life and career choices, as it can help them cope with new challenges and problems [4]. Some scholars have explored how to enhance students’ creative thinking; for example, Resnick and Rosenbaum enhanced elementary school students’ creativity through design-thinking game activities, in which students can enhance their creative thinking in the process of designing, making, and improving their own games [27]. Lin and Wang utilized virtual reality to enhance college students’ creative self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation in English writing, and the results suggested that virtual reality technology is an effective way to promote students’ creative thinking [28]. However, the results of this study lacked generalizability due to the small sample size and the lack of a control group. It is worth noting that creative craft activities are a way to enhance students’ creative thinking, and these activities provide an environment for free play, practice, and exploration of innovations, allowing students to understand and solve problems through practice [29,30].
Creative thinking and problem-solving skills are often interrelated, as students who have high levels of creative thinking can think about problems from different perspectives, break through inherited perceptions to generate unique solutions, and, thus, solve complex problems [31,32,33]. Problem solving is considered an important skill for elementary school students, and the advancement of digital technology has added many new avenues for elementary school students to develop their problem-solving skills [34]. For example, Huang found that integrating digital escape rooms into science teaching improved elementary students’ problem-solving skills and learning performance, while also increasing their motivation and satisfaction [35].

2.2. Virtual 3D Modeling in Education

Virtual 3D modeling is a way of creating a representation of any three-dimensional object (including non-solid or tangible objects) with width, height, and depth using 3D modeling software [36]. Virtual 3D modeling is widely used in STEAM education as a typical way of “learning by doing” in the information age, and its cultivation of creativity and problem-solving ability has been affirmed by many studies [37]. Virtual 3D modeling has many applications in the field of education, such as science and mathematics education [13,38], engineering and design education [39], and early childhood education [40]. For elementary school students, learning virtual 3D modeling allows them to understand the complexities within the subject, practice engagement and hands-on skills, as well as improve problem-solving skills and creative thinking [11].
In the context of creativity activities, Saorín involved engineering students in a course aimed at stimulating creativity and found that a virtual 3D modeling activity had a positive impact on students’ creativity, while this approach increased the level of creativity perceived by the students [9]. The results of a case study showed that pre-service teachers categorized “3D modeling as an art form, a tool for examining multiple perspectives on problem solving and research” [41]. For students with different backgrounds and stages, Chien and Chu found that college students outperformed high school students in creativity sub-dimensions in a virtual 3D modeling course, with no significant difference between design and engineering majors [16].
From the above studies, it can be seen that the age of the current research subjects mainly focuses on the higher education stage, such as engineering undergraduates, and there are fewer studies on education at the basic stage, while the effect of different ages on the curriculum is very much in need of research [16]. Meanwhile, research on the effects of virtual 3D design and printing on students’ academic performance and creativity, especially problem-solving skills, is still limited [42], and more research is needed to explore the effects of virtual 3D modeling on elementary school students’ higher-order thinking. In addition, current research on the use of 3D software does not take into account the habituation of modeling to human thinking, such as the need to visualize 3D objects on a 2D plane, which undoubtedly increases the cognitive load on the user. Ibrahim and Pour Rahimian pointed out that although current traditional virtual 3D modeling tools are beneficial for the representation of engineering designs [17], due to the intuitive conceptual constraints, the intangibility of I/O devices (mouse, keyboard, and monitor) in traditional modeling somewhat hinders the creativity of novice designers. With the continuous development of technology, a growing number of researchers have begun to pay attention to the role of new technologies to assist in teaching virtual 3D modeling. For example, the combination of artificial intelligence and 3D modeling can assist medical students in adapting more rapidly to the characteristics of cardiac pathology [43]. Virtual reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) provide immersive learning experiences that allow students to explore the structure of an object in a 3D interactive environment to explore the structural features of objects [44]. Lee also noted that this immersive learning approach requires fewer mental transitions and is more in line with children’s cognitive interactions compared to conventional approaches [22].

2.3. Immersive Virtual Reality in Education

Virtual reality (VR) can be defined as “the sum of hardware and software systems that are designed to perfect an all-encompassing sensory illusion that exists in another environment” [45], and immersion, presence, and interactivity are considered to be the core characteristics of VR technology [46]. The biggest difference between immersive virtual reality (IVR) and virtual reality is the level of immersion [47], where low-immersion virtual reality is generally considered to be desktop computers, and high-immersive virtual reality refers to accessing the VR experience through a head-mounted display (HMD) or in a cave automated virtual environment (CAVE). Furthermore, in terms of interactivity, desktop VR has more limited or more traditional interactions, mainly with game controllers or a mouse and keyboard, whereas IVR typically offers more natural interactions, such as through gestures and body movements [48]. IVR is an emerging technology, but it has already been widely used in industries such as tourism, healthcare, and the arts [49,50,51].
Due to their immersive and interactive nature, virtual learning resources have great potential for application in the field of education, as they enable certain types of learning behaviors to take place. A review of immersive virtual reality (IVR) in primary, secondary, and higher education states that the main advantages of immersive virtual reality seem to be related to the possibility for the user to have first-hand experiences that are not possible in the real world, while providing unique opportunities for experiential and situated learning, and promoting student motivation and engagement [52]. Ekstrand investigated the impact of IVR on knowledge acquisition and retention of neuroanatomical structures, and showed that training students in neuroanatomy with immersive and interactive virtual environments was more effective than reading a pamphlet [53]. The authors concluded that the possibility of guided interaction with structures may help in the understanding of complex spatial relationships between different structures, thus facilitating the encoding and retrieval of knowledge, which was also confirmed by Dalgarno and Lee who concluded that 3D virtual reality can be used to facilitate learning tasks and, thus, develop aspects of spatial knowledge [21]. In addition, compared to traditional teaching methods, IVR can provide a simulated environment that allows students to simulate real-life problems in a safe environment, which improves learning engagement and increases willingness to do hands-on work, which, in turn, enhances students’ problem-solving skills [21,54]. The use of VR technology in language education can increase creativity, interactivity, and problem-solving skills in early elementary school populations [55]. By incorporating VR into English education, these students can experience a more interactive and stimulating learning environment. Meanwhile, one study confirmed that virtual reality has a retention rate of more than 75% of learning outcomes, far exceeding the retention rate of traditional reading and lecture-based learning [56]. Other studies have found that the use of IVR can achieve cognitive learning goals and can increase learner engagement [57].
However, not all evidence supports that immersive virtual reality is pedagogically advantageous. According to the research review [58], there were no perceived significant advantages or disadvantages of using IVR in passive learning environments, and there was no difference in the learning achievement achieved using IVR. Parong and Mayer found that immersive virtual-reality-supported courses resulted in reduced learning effectiveness because immersive virtual reality elicits higher affective arousal [59]; that is, immersive virtual reality induces high levels of emotional and cognitive disturbances, which leads to reduced learning. Stepan found no significant difference in neuroanatomical knowledge acquisition between medical students using immersive virtual reality and traditional textbook methods [60]. The study attributed this to a learning curve with new technology; that is, there was the issue of technical acceptance of the latest technology, where the students wasted too much time familiarizing themselves with how to use the new technology, resulting in insufficient remaining time to complete the learning task. Therefore, more research is needed to verify whether new skill training methods supported by immersive virtual reality can enhance teaching and learning. As IVR continues to evolve and become more accessible, understanding its utility and limitations becomes crucial for educators, policy makers, and technologists aiming to foster engaging and effective learning environments.

2.4. Embodied Cognition and Immersive Virtual Reality

Embodied cognition theory suggests that cognitive processes are deeply rooted in the body’s interaction with the world [61]. This means that our thoughts, understandings, and perceptions are not only the result of brain activity but are also influenced by aspects of our bodies and their interactions with the environment. Esrock focused on the embodied cognitive experience of being immersed in literature and art where the boundaries of the body are extended [62], a process he describes as “translanguaging”, where one’s bodily processes act as a non-quantitative substitute for the visual–linguistic world. Embodied cognition theory suggests that learning in immersive virtual reality (IVR) environments can better enhance certain cognitive abilities, and that IVR provides a rich, immersive environment in which the user can experience the sensation of being there. This sensation can inspire more intuitive and natural interactions, which can potentially facilitate greater exploration of creative ideas [63]. Sinnamon and Miller confirmed that body movement plays an important role in cognition, and that physical interactions of the body are closer to actual handiwork, which can promote creative thinking in the user [64]. Poulsen and Thøgersen pointed out that visualization is a key factor in analysis and idea generation, and that IVR technology enables users to visualize and interact with designs in three dimensions [65]. This three-dimensional perspective facilitates a more intuitive understanding of spatial relationships, hierarchies, and structures, thus helping to solve complex problems. Virtual reality environments can also enable rapid change, iteration, and experimentation of design objects [66]. The immediate feedback provided by immersive virtual reality environments can speed up the problem-solving process as users can immediately see the results of their solutions and adjust accordingly. IVR can mimic real-world interactions, which means that users can grasp, push, or pull on virtual objects as if they were in the real world. These intuitive interactions can reduce the cognitive load required to understand and manipulate complex interfaces [67].

3. An Immersive Virtual-Reality-Based 3D Modeling Approach

Researchers have noted that applying immersive environments to design making can stimulate users’ creative performance [68,69]. In addition, interaction patterns that are more in line with cognitive thinking are more effective for cognitive development [22,64]. Therefore, this study proposes an immersive-based virtual reality 3D modeling method with reference to the theory of embodied cognition. This method consists of three parts: teacher activity, student activity, and environment setup (see Figure 1). First, the teacher demonstrates the basic operation steps of immersive virtual reality (IVR) modeling in the classroom, and students observe the teacher’s operation in the virtual helmet through the projection technology; then, after the teacher has demonstrated the classroom modeling tasks, students put on the virtual reality helmets to practice communication, and the teacher walks around to give personalized guidance (see Figure 2). In this process, the immersive virtual-reality-supported 3D modeling approach places students in a completely virtual world through head-mounted displays (HMDs), enhancing students’ sense of presence, and, thus, their emotional engagement. On the other hand, according to the theory of embodied cognition, the immersive virtual-reality-supported 3D modeling method replaces the keyboard and mouse used in traditional modeling with two joysticks, and uses the new interactive tools to change the students’ body schema and inspire their thinking.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the application and effectiveness of immersive virtual reality (IVR) in educational authoring. We used an immersive authoring system developed by Google Inc. in 2022, which can be downloaded into a virtual headset through the Pico App Marketplace. The context of this research builds on the potential of IVR as a powerful educational tool, especially in supporting multidimensional, self-directed learning environments. In the system’s environment, students can select a variety of scenarios (e.g., space, snow, night sky, etc.) and design models within them. The system provides diverse production brushes and tools that allow students to adjust the length, width, and height of their models. Students can simulate the operation of grasping objects in the virtual environment by using the right trigger to move objects to be placed around the body, while students can also view and adjust their creations by grasping objects from multiple angles (see Figure 3a).
In addition, the conventional virtual 3D modeling course is conducted in the school computer room in the club class, using the modeling software, 3D One (Education Edition V2023), which has a simple interface and is suitable for beginners. Each student controls a PC and the teacher unifies control of the student’s screen to demonstrate the operation, then gives screen control to the students to do it by themselves. In the 3D modeling system, they operate the left mouse button to select the tools in the interface for modeling, such as line and basic shape of the model; if they want to observe the object from different angles, they can hold down the right mouse button or the keyboard’s directional keys to adjust the virtual object they created (see Figure 3b).
The virtual reality teaching environment had two main screens and eight sub-screens, and the teacher’s operations were shared to each screen through screen casting technology to facilitate student observation (see Figure 4). There were 40 IVR devices in the classroom, each of which consisted of a head-mounted display, two wireless controllers, and a laptop computer, and the students used the projection technology to project the viewpoints from the IVR helmets onto the laptop computer to facilitate the teacher’s individual instruction. The IVR helmets used in the study allowed students to move freely within a certain range because they were not constrained by wires.

4. Methods

4.1. Participants

Seventy-seven sixth-grade students from an elementary school in China participated in this 3D modeling course. The students’ participation was incorporated as part of the school curriculum. The course took 7 weeks, with a 45 min class each week, and was designed to teach students the fundamentals of 3D modeling and to develop their creative thinking and problem-solving skills. Since three students did not complete the program, only 38 male and 36 female questionnaires were collected, totaling 74, and the average age of the students was 11.37 years old. All the students had no previous experience with 3D modeling or immersive virtual reality. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the affiliated institution. The students were also informed that they could stop participating in the experiment without any consequences if they experienced feelings such as nausea and dizziness during the virtual reality activities.

4.2. Procedure

Figure 5 shows the flow of the experiment. Before the start of the learning activity, both groups of students participated in a 40 min introduction about the basic activities of 3D modeling, and completed a pre-test questionnaire. During the learning activity, the students in the experimental group learnt through the immersive virtual-reality-based 3D modeling method (IVR-based 3D modeling); on the other hand, the students in the control group learnt through the conventional virtual 3D modeling method (CVR-based 3D modeling) on a computer. Both versions of the learning activity included the same tasks and content. After 5 weeks of different intervention activities, we compared the changes in creative thinking and problem-solving tendency, compared the differences in cognitive load between the two groups, and, finally, we interviewed eight students randomly selected from each of the two groups.

4.3. Experimental Tools

4.3.1. Experimental Environment

Currently, 3D modeling courses in schools are mainly conducted in the form of information technology classes or club classes. For the activities of the control group, the 3D modeling platform software used needs to meet the requirements of easy operation for beginners and low hardware requirements. After discussions between the researcher and the experts, it was found that 3D One (Education Edition V2023) best met the requirements of the current study. The software 3D One relies on the core technology of its own 3D CAD and is specifically designed for the development of innovative education 3D creative design software for young people between the ages of 8 and 18 (https://www.i3done.com/) accessed on 1 October 2023. For the experimental group, the multibrush (Edition 0.01b) platform used in this study was an immersive virtual reality painting modeling application developed and launched by Google in 2020, in which users can create a room-sized 3D space in which they can obtain positive feedback by painting using a handle.

4.3.2. Instruments

This study used the Williams Creativity Assessment Package to assess students’ creativity, and the study used a Chinese version adapted for Chinese students [70]. Considering the number of questions and existing research, the questions were rated on a 3-point Likert scale. The questionnaire consisted of 50 questions grouped into four dimensions, namely risk-taking, curiosity, imagination, and challenge. These four dimensions of the scale are important thinking traits and personality traits in the development of human creativity, and they are often used as predictors of an individual’s creative thinking and potential. The scale has good reliability (Cronbach’s α of 0.90) [71].
The Problem-Solving Tendency Questionnaire utilizes a scale revised by Lai and Hwang [72]. The scale consists of six questions on a 5-point Likert scale. The Cronbach’s coefficient was 0.89 for the original scale and 0.91 for the current test, and this questionnaire was used to assess whether there were any significant changes in the students’ problem-solving tendency before and after the experiment.
The cognitive load questionnaire utilizes the scale revised by Hwang [73]. The scale consists of eight questions, five of which assess the “mental load” and three of which assess the “mental effort” of the students during the learning process. Cronbach’s alpha values for the two dimensions were 0.86 and 0.85, respectively, and the questionnaire was used to assess the cognitive load of the students after the experiment.
The interview outline was modified with reference to Hwang and contained seven questions [74], and eight students in each group were randomly selected for semi-structured interviews. The purpose of the interviews was to understand the students’ feelings in this course, to understand the advantages and disadvantages of this teaching method from the students’ point of view, and to provide a reference basis for future research improvement.

4.4. Data Analysis Methods

Both quantitative and qualitative research data were collected, where the quantitative data included students’ creative thinking (including the four sub-dimensions of risk-taking, curiosity, imagination, and challenge), problem-solving skills tendency, and cognitive load (divided into the two aspects of mental load and mental effort) in the process of learning. First, for the analysis of differences in the research question 1: creative thinking, the study used the independent samples t test to explore whether there was a significant difference between the pre- and post-levels of the two groups of students. In order to explore the differences in the sub-dimensions of creative thinking, the study further used MANOVA and the paired samples t test to analyze the comparative results. MANOVA allows us to consider multiple dependent variables simultaneously, which helps in assessing the overall impact of IVR on students’ creative thinking, while also examining the interactions between different dimensions. Then, for the analysis of differences in the research question 2: students’ problem-solving skills tendency, the study used non-equivalent comparison group pre- and post-tests, and ANCOVA was applied to the results, with students’ problem-solving skills tendency pre-test level as the covariate, their post-test level as the dependent variable, and the experimental and control groups as fixed factors. By using ANCOVA, we can adjust these baseline scores to more accurately estimate the net effect of the IVR intervention. In addition, for research question 3: cognitive load of the two groups during the learning process, the study used the independent samples t test to compare the differences between the experimental and control groups in terms of cognitive load, mental effort, and mental load. The qualitative data consisted of qualitative interviews with students after the experiment, which were recorded using a KUDA recorder and then transcribed into text for coding and analysis, to understand the students’ perceptions and acceptance of the learning methods. For coding analysis, the coding referred to the existing coding system, and several researchers participated in the coding process to ensure reliability.

5. Results

5.1. Analysis of the Students’ Creative Thinking

Prior to the start of the experiment, creative thinking did not show a statistically significant difference between the experimental and control groups (t = 1.46, p > 0.05). In addition, no significant differences were observed in the four sub-dimensions of creative thinking (see Table 1 for details).
The results of the post-experimental t test of creative thinking showed a significant difference in creative thinking between the experimental and control groups (t = 2.78, p < 0.01). The experimental group (Mean = 2.40, SD = 0.24) scored significantly higher than the control group (Mean = 2.22, SD = 0.31). In addition, the study analyzed the differences in the sub-dimensions via MANOVA and found that the increase in the different dimensions of creative thinking varied (see Table 2). The study used a Bonferroni adjustment threshold of 0.0125 (0.05/4) to control for type I error inflation and to provide a more accurate assessment of differences. In terms of curiosity, the experimental group scored significantly better than the control group (F = 7.95, p < 0.0125, η2 = 0.099. Meanwhile, the experimental group scored significantly better than the control group on imagination (F = 7.78, p < 0.0125, η2 = 0.097). In addition, the experimental group scored significantly better than the control group on challenge (F = 8.40, p < 0.0125, η2 = 0.104). In terms of risk-taking, the experimental group was not significantly different from the control group (F = 1.41, p > 0.0125). However, the experimental group showed a significant improvement after 6 weeks, t = −3.68, p < 0.01, while the control group did not show any significant improvement (t = −1.14, p > 0.05). As for effect size, curiosity, imagination, and challenge (0.058 < η2 < 0.138), all showed moderate effect sizes [75].

5.2. Analysis of the Students’ Problem-Solving Skills Tendency

Before conducting one-way analysis of covariance, the study examined the homogeneity of variances and homogeneity of regression slopes. The results of Levene’s test showed that the homogeneity of variance satisfied the conditions (F = 3.04, p = 0.09), the variances were equal between groups, and the null hypothesis was valid. In addition, the results of the regression homogeneity test were also confirmed (F = 0.11, p = 0.74), indicating that analysis of covariance could be used.
After the exclusion of the pre-test effect of problem-solving skills tendency, the scores of the experimental (Mean = 3.9, SD = 0.4) and control (Mean = 3.62, SD = 0.62) groups showed a significant difference (F = 10.05, p < 0.01); the η2 effect size was 0.12, indicating a medium effect size [75], as shown in Table 3.

5.3. Analysis of the Students’ Cognitive Load

As shown in Table 4, the mean and standard deviation of the cognitive load scores of the experimental group were 2.60 and 0.55, respectively, while those of the control group were 3.00 and 0.69, respectively. Independent samples t tests showed that there was a significant difference between the two groups (t = −2.71, p < 0.01, d = −0.632), with a d greater than 0.5, suggesting that the effect sizes were moderate [75]. This unexpectedly indicates that the immersive virtual-reality-based 3D modeling method can effectively reduce the cognitive load of students in the learning process compared to traditional virtual 3D modeling. In addition, there were significant differences between the two groups of students in terms of mental load (t = −2.33, p < 0.05, d = −0.542) and mental effort (t = −2.77, p < 0.01, d = −0.645).

5.4. Interview

In order to further understand the role of immersive virtual reality 3D modeling methods in teaching and learning, we interviewed eight randomly selected students from each of the experimental (IVR-3D) and control (CVR-3D) groups. After the interviews, these 16 students were numbered, where E1–E8 represent the experimental group and C1–C8 represent the control group, in order to facilitate the categorization of their responses. Finally, the most common ideas were summarized by extracting keywords from the respondents’ answers, which were condensed into themes that were explained and illustrated. As shown in Table 5, the experimental group responded more positively than the control group in terms of “more intuitive and natural”, “immersion”, and “improved spatial ability”.

6. Discussion

This study examined the design of the 3D modeling method based on immersive virtual reality and its effects on the creative thinking and problem-solving skills tendency of elementary school students, and compared the cognitive load of elementary school students with different learning methods during the learning process, as well as their perceptions of the method.
In response to research question 1, the results of the experiment observed changes in students’ creative thinking, with the experimental group showing a significant increase in the total score of creative thinking compared to the control group. The 3D modeling method based on immersive virtual reality can effectively stimulate students to generate novel ideas and give timely feedback on surprising special effects. Immersive virtual reality provides realistic, intuitive, and sensory experiences that enable students to construct and explore new thoughts and ideas in a virtual environment. In the interview survey, students in the experimental group also mentioned the immersive experience and creativity enhancement brought by the method. In addition, the immersive experience allowed students to emotionally interconnect with the learning content, and this integration of emotion and cognition contributed to deeper understanding and facilitated students’ creative thinking, which is consistent with previous research on the enhancement of creative thinking in immersive virtual reality environments [52].
In addition, the study examined whether there were differences in the sub-dimensions of creative thinking, and the results showed that the two groups showed significant differences in the sub-dimensions of curiosity, challenge, and imagination, with the experimental group scoring higher than the control group. In terms of challenge, the students in the experimental group faced richer and more intuitive challenges in the immersive virtual reality environment; for example, the environment allowed them to move and manipulate freely in three dimensions. The students, therefore, had to learn to locate and manipulate objects in a complex three-dimensional space and adapt to the collaborative, emotional, and ethical challenges of the virtual world. Embodied cognition theory suggests that this direct student interaction with virtual space through the body in immersive virtual environments increases the challenge of spatial cognition and manipulation and that students must utilize more complex bodily and sensory coordination to understand and manipulate three-dimensional space [76]. In terms of curiosity, immersive virtual reality environments provide realistic audio–visual and tactile experiences that can effectively stimulate students’ sensory curiosity. Related studies have also shown that the free perspective provided by immersive virtual reality enables students to explore planning more comprehensively [77]. At the same time, according to the embodied cognition perspective, such bodily exploration not only increases perceptual challenges, but may also stimulate curious exploration of spatial, physical, and social environments, where students can make sense of new rules and phenomena through bodily sensations [78]. In terms of imagination, the multisensory experience provided by immersive virtual reality may stimulate students’ imagination of shapes, spaces, and situations, enabling them to think about expressions in a more embodied and vivid way, which is in line with the research of Tano [79]. In addition, in immersive environments for virtual objects, students can explore and understand them in a more direct way, in a way that enhances their spatial and formal understanding and further facilitates imagination in spatial construction and design. This is in line with the conclusion of Özgen’s study [80], which mentioned that immersive virtual reality environments can provide an atmosphere that stimulates students’ imagination. However, there was no significant difference between the experimental and control groups on the dimension of risk-taking, and a further paired-sample t test revealed that the experimental group presented a significant difference in the pre- and post-tests, while the control group did not. The potential of immersive virtual reality and traditional virtual 3D modeling to provide an adventurous experience may be similar, and risk-taking may be more dependent on the design and content of a particular task than on the technical means used. A study has suggested that teacher-supported independent learning strategies for students can be effective in enhancing risk-taking behaviors in the learning process [81]. This suggests that both methods may inherently offer a level of engagement or challenge that requires a degree of risk-taking but not enough to manifest as a statistically significant difference in an experimental setup. In addition, risk-taking may have more to do with students’ personal traits and attitudes rather than being entirely dependent on the technological environment, Some students may naturally be more inclined to take risks, while others are more cautious, regardless of the learning environment. This individual variance can dilute the potential effects of the learning technology on risk-taking measures. And, the differences in the risk-taking sub-dimension of creative thinking remind us that the choice of technology is not the only consideration in instructional design but that the design of the task and the content are equally critical. The adventurous measurement approach may also have contributed to the influence of significance, due to the limitations of self-report questionnaires [82], the tools and metrics used to assess risk-taking might not have been sensitive enough to detect subtle differences brought about by the use of immersive VR.
Question 2 analyzed the differences in students’ problem-solving skills tendency after an experimental intervention. The study analyzed the data using one-way covariance, and the results showed that an immersive virtual reality (IVR)-based 3D modeling approach is more effective in terms of improving students’ propensity for problem solving as compared to the traditional virtual 3D modeling approach. Immersive virtual reality encompasses essential elements such as immersion, intervening reality, and interactivity between the virtual elements [20], and, from the perspective of embodied cognition, IVR-based 3D modeling provides an immersive experience that enables students to interact and manipulate virtual objects from a first-person perspective. This immersion makes it easier for students to understand and master complex concepts such as space, geometry, and physics, thus promoting problem-solving skills. In addition, in IVR environments, students can interact with 3D models through body movements, and this embodied engagement helps deepen students’ understanding of concepts [83]. This contrasts with traditional virtual 3D modeling approaches (e.g., using a mouse and keyboard), which lack real-world sensory and intuitive feedback. At the same time, 3D modeling in IVR provides instant rendering of modeled objects without printing, helping students understand their mistakes and deficiencies more quickly. In follow-up interviews, we also found that students in the experimental group most frequently mentioned, when describing the advantages of the method, that it was a more intuitive and natural mode of operation, and that this feedback mechanism, which is similar to real-world interactions, promotes students to find ways to solve problems through continuous experimentation and adjustment.
Overall, the IVR-based 3D modeling approach enables students to gain a deeper understanding and mastery of concepts by providing a more natural, intuitive, and interactive learning environment. Compared to conventional virtual 3D modeling, it emphasizes the interaction between the body and the environment, thus better aligning with the principles of embodied cognition theory and helping to improve students’ problem-solving skills, which is consistent with previous research findings [23,84].
In response to research question 3, we found that the 3D modeling method based on immersive virtual reality can effectively reduce students’ cognitive load compared to conventional virtual 3D modeling. At the same time, the development of elementary school students’ creative thinking and the improvement in their problem-solving skills tendency are closely related to the cognitive load in the learning process [85,86], so the difference in the cognitive load of the two groups of students in the process of 3D virtual modeling is of great significance for the study.
The finding that immersive virtual reality environments effectively reduce students’ cognitive load during modeling learning by providing intuitive interactions and immersive experiences is consistent with the results of Özgen’s experiments in design education [80]. Embodied cognition theory asserts that our cognitive processes are based on our physical interactions with the environment and not just on information processing in the brain. This means that our cognition and understanding are intuitive and are closely related to our bodily experiences. When learning materials match our bodily experience, the speed and depth of our understanding may increase, thus reducing cognitive load [87]. Some scholars have argued that the immersive and engaging nature of IVRs promotes users’ attention [69], which makes them less likely to turn to irrelevant behaviors, and mitigates the extra mental effort associated with student distraction. In the interviews, some students in the experimental group mentioned that the immersive environment made it easier for them to enter into a state of mind-flow.
In cognitive load theory, extrinsic load refers to unnecessary load due to poor instructional design. When the instructional material does not match our physical experience, this may increase our extrinsic load. For example, during the learning process in the control group, if we need to switch between two-dimensional images and textual descriptions instead of directly manipulating objects in three-dimensional space, this may increase our extrinsic load. However, it has also been suggested that high immersion is prone to additional cognitive load because immersive environments cause high levels of affective and cognitive disruption [59], but the conclusions of this study were based on drawing conclusions on top of a traditional biology course, and the researchers noted that the type of course may not have the same results on the cognitive load of the students.
In response to research question 4, in terms of the benefits of virtual 3D modeling, both immersive virtual reality 3D modeling (IVR-3D) and conventional virtual reality 3D modeling (CVR-3D) mentioned the fun aspect of the modeling approach, that is, the students thought that this kind of modeling in virtual scenarios was a novel and interesting way of learning, and also both groups of students mentioned that virtual 3D modeling helped them to gain a deeper understanding of the design model. Fogarty’s study mentioned that the multi-angle observation helped students to improve their understanding of the design model [88]. Notably, more students in the IVR-3D group emphasized the intuitive and nature-conforming nature of the modeling approach compared to the CVR-3D group, “This time, when I modeled with the head-mounted virtual reality device, it felt like I was really shaping things in the air. It was like kneading clay or playdough with my real hands, very intuitive and natural. I could look at the model from various angles and also walk to the other side of the model to see” (E1). In addition, the IVR-3D team indicated that immersion was an important aspect of the experience, “The immersive 3D modeling method was like I was there, as if I had really entered a 3D world” (E2). In terms of student gains, the IVR-3D team indicated that the 3D modeling approach improved perception and understanding of 3D space, “This experience gave me a deeper understanding of the relationship between space, scale and design” (E5).
Although most students had an overall positive attitude towards virtual reality 3D modeling, they also raised some shortcomings during its use. For example, the IVR-3D group mentioned the discomfort of wearing the headset and the lack of precision in operation, as students were prone to dizziness and other discomfort after wearing the headset for a long period of time. In addition, the operation of the controller is prone to errors, and the level of modeling is not as detailed as traditional 3D modeling, which is due to the fact that head-mounted virtual reality technology is still in a developmental stage, and its hardware and software have not yet reached true maturity. The CVR-3D panel mentioned that the modeling interface is not user-friendly, “The interface of the software is sometimes not friendly to beginners like me. Some tools and commands are hidden so deeply that I need to spend a lot of time to find them” (C2), while no student in the IVR-3D group raised this issue. Notably, both groups mentioned the lack of guidance in the current modeling software, suggesting that neither IVR-3D modeling nor CVR-3D modeling can give students adequate and timely feedback. Future research could consider adding artificial intelligence to assist students in 3D modeling.

7. Conclusions

In this study, the effectiveness of the immersive virtual reality (IVR)-based learning method was verified in terms of students’ creative thinking, problem-solving skills, and cognitive load by implementing the method in a 3D modeling course for elementary school students. The study found that immersive virtual-reality-based 3D modeling significantly enhances students’ creative thinking and problem-solving abilities while reducing cognitive load. However, it falls short in improving the “adventurousness” dimension of creativity, suggesting the need for refined instructional design to achieve a comprehensive impact. This result is consistent with the theory of embodied cognition, where the cognitive process is based on physical interaction with the environment, and immersive virtual reality provides intuitive interactions and realistic sensory experiences that better assist students in organizing their learning and understanding tasks, thus reducing the cognitive load of the learning process.
There are some limitations of this study that need to be noted. First, the participants in this study were all sixth-grade students in the same elementary school in China, which means that it may not be appropriate to extrapolate the results to other subjects with different learning environments, family backgrounds, and age groups. Secondly, the study lacked procedural data to support the procedural user behavior of immersive virtual reality, which is a very worthwhile direction for future research and exploration. The measurement of this study was based on subjects’ self-reported data with some perceived bias [82]. In addition, we acknowledge that the limited duration of the experiment may not sufficiently assess the long-term development of students in creative thinking and problem-solving abilities due to some practical constraints.
In future research, we plan to extend the duration of the course to more accurately assess the impact of the IVR teaching method on students’ long-term learning outcomes. Studies can be expanded to include different schools, age groups, and social backgrounds to increase the representativeness of the sample. This will help us better understand the role of immersive virtual reality technology in different educational settings. Additionally, understanding the process-specific behaviors of students in immersive virtual reality environments will provide valuable insights into educational interventions, and collecting and analyzing process data will help to reveal underlying mechanisms that will provide a deeper understanding.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.-Q.C. and S.-J.C.; Data curation, S.-J.C.; Formal analysis, S.-J.C.; Funding acquisition, S.-J.C.; Investigation, S.-J.C. and X.-F.S.; Methodology, C.-Q.C. and X.-F.S.; Validation, X.-F.S.; Project administration, S.-J.C.; Resources, S.-J.C.; Software, C.-Q.C.; Supervision, S.-J.C.; Visualization, S.-J.C.; Writing—original draft, S.-J.C.; Writing—review and editing, C.-Q.C. and X.-F.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the philosophy and social science research program of Zhejiang Province [22NDJC140YB].

Institutional Review Board Statement

The experiment was approved by the Ethical Committee of Wenzhou University and was run in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the students, teachers, and staff who participated in this study. In addition, the authors would like to thank all the researchers who helped with data collection.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

References

  1. Ghanizadeh, A.; Al-Hoorie, A.H.; Jahedizadeh, S.; Ghanizadeh, A.; Al-Hoorie, A.H.; Jahedizadeh, S. Higher Order Thinking Skills; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  2. Looi, C.-K.; So, H.-J.; Toh, Y.; Chen, W. The Singapore experience: Synergy of national policy, classroom practice and design research. Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. 2011, 6, 9–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kong, S.C.; Chan, T.W.; Griffin, P.; Hoppe, U.; Huang, R.; Kinshuk, Looi, C.K.; Milrad, M.; Norris, C.; Nussbaum, M.; Sharples, M. E-learning in School Education in the Coming 10 Years for Developing 21st Century Skills: Critical Research Issues and Policy Implications. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2014, 17, 70–78. [Google Scholar]
  4. Beghetto, R.A.; Kaufman, J.C. Toward a broader conception of creativity: A case for ”mini-c” creativity. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 2007, 1, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Malik, R.S. Educational challenges in 21st century and sustainable development. J. Sustain. Dev. Educ. Res. 2018, 2, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Herrington, J.; Kervin, L. Authentic Learning Supported by Technology: Ten suggestions and cases of integration in classrooms. Educ. Media Int. 2007, 44, 219–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Niiranen, S. Supporting the development of students’ technological understanding in craft and technology education via the learning-by-doing approach. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2021, 31, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chaudhuri, S.; Koltun, V. Data-driven suggestions for creativity support in 3D modeling. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Asia 2010 Papers, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 15–18 December 2010; p. 183. [Google Scholar]
  9. Saorín, J.L.; Melian-Díaz, D.; Bonnet, A.; Carbonell Carrera, C.; Meier, C.; De La Torre-Cantero, J. Makerspace teaching-learning environment to enhance creative competence in engineering students. Think. Ski. Creat. 2017, 23, 188–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wu, Y.C.; Liao, W.H. Analysis of Learning Patterns and Performance—A Case Study of 3-D Modeling Lessons in the K-12 Classrooms. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 186976–186992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Preece, D.; Williams, S.B.; Lam, R.; Weller, R. “Let’s Get Physical”: Advantages of a physical model over 3D computer models and textbooks in learning imaging anatomy. Anat. Sci. Educ. 2013, 6, 216–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Carbonell-Carrera, C.; Saorin, J.L.; Melian-Diaz, D.; de la Torre-Cantero, J. Enhancing Creative Thinking in STEM with 3D CAD Modelling. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Paukstelis, P.J. MolPrint3D: Enhanced 3D Printing of Ball-and-Stick Molecular Models. J. Chem. Educ. 2018, 95, 169–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dahle, R.; Rasel, R. 3-D printing as an effective educational tool for MEMS design and fabrication. IEEE Trans. Educ. 2016, 59, 210–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Letnikova, G.; Xu, N. Academic library innovation through 3D printing services. Libr. Manag. 2017, 38, 208–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chien, Y.-H.; Chu, P.-Y. The Different Learning Outcomes of High School and College Students on a 3D-Printing STEAM Engineering Design Curriculum. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2018, 16, 1047–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ibrahim, R.; Pour Rahimian, F. Comparison of CAD and manual sketching tools for teaching architectural design. Autom. Constr. 2010, 19, 978–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bowman, D.A.; McMahan, R.P. Virtual reality: How much immersion is enough? Computer 2007, 40, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Meyer, O.A.; Omdahl, M.K.; Makransky, G. Investigating the effect of pre-training when learning through immersive virtual reality and video: A media and methods experiment. Comput. Educ. 2019, 140, 103603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bhattacharjee, D.; Paul, A.; Kim, J.H.; Karthigaikumar, P. An immersive learning model using evolutionary learning. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2018, 65, 236–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dalgarno, B.; Lee, M.J. What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2010, 41, 10–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lee, J.H.; Yang, E.K.; Sun, Z.Y. Design Cognitive Actions Stimulating Creativity in the VR Design Environment. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Creativity and Cognition, San Diego, CA, USA, 23–26 June 2019; pp. 604–611. [Google Scholar]
  23. Halabi, O. Immersive virtual reality to enforce teaching in engineering education. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2020, 79, 2987–3004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lamb, R.; Antonenko, P.; Etopio, E.; Seccia, A. Comparison of virtual reality and hands on activities in science education via functional near infrared spectroscopy. Comput. Educ. 2018, 124, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Radianti, J.; Majchrzak, T.A.; Fromm, J.; Wohlgenannt, I. A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Comput. Educ. 2020, 147, 103778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Runco, M.A.; Jaeger, G.J. The Standard Definition of Creativity. Creat. Res. J. 2012, 24, 92–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Resnick, M.; Rosenbaum, E. Designing for tinkerability. In Design, Make, Play; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 181–199. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lin, Y.-J.; Wang, H.-C. Using virtual reality to facilitate learners’ creative self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation in an EFL classroom. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 4487–4505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fan, X.; Zhong, X. Artificial intelligence-based creative thinking skill analysis model using human–computer interaction in art design teaching. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2022, 100, 107957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hsia, L.-H.; Lin, Y.-N.; Hwang, G.-J. A creative problem solving-based flipped learning strategy for promoting students’ performing creativity, skills and tendencies of creative thinking and collaboration. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 52, 1771–1787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Guaman-Quintanilla, S.; Everaert, P.; Chiluiza, K.; Valcke, M. Impact of design thinking in higher education: A multi-actor perspective on problem solving and creativity. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2023, 33, 217–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Treffinger, D.J. Creative Problem Solving: Overview and educational implications. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 1995, 7, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Xu, W.; Geng, F.; Wang, L. Relations of computational thinking to reasoning ability and creative thinking in young children: Mediating role of arithmetic fluency. Think. Ski. Creat. 2022, 44, 101041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wu, J.; Guo, R.; Wang, Z.; Zeng, R. Integrating spherical video-based virtual reality into elementary school students’ scientific inquiry instruction: Effects on their problem-solving performance. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2021, 29, 496–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Huang, S.-Y.; Kuo, Y.-H.; Chen, H.-C. Applying digital escape rooms infused with science teaching in elementary school: Learning performance, learning motivation, and problem-solving ability. Think. Ski. Creat. 2020, 37, 100681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Quan, H.; Zhang, T.; Xu, H.; Luo, S.; Nie, J.; Zhu, X. Photo-curing 3D printing technique and its challenges. Bioact. Mater. 2020, 5, 110–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Oner, A.; Nite, S.; Capraro, M.; Capraro, R. The effect of 3D design on students’ belief about “A” of STEAM. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of Southwest Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX, USA, 12–14 February 2015. [Google Scholar]
  38. Paul, S. 3D Printed Manipulatives in a Multivariable Calculus Classroom. PRIMUS 2018, 28, 821–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gao, W.; Zhang, Y.; Ramanujan, D.; Ramani, K.; Chen, Y.; Williams, C.B.; Wang, C.C.L.; Shin, Y.C.; Zhang, S.; Zavattieri, P.D. The status, challenges, and future of additive manufacturing in engineering. Comput.-Aided Des. 2015, 69, 65–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hatzigianni, M.; Stevenson, M.; Bower, M.; Falloon, G.; Forbes, A. Children’s views on making and designing. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 2020, 28, 286–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sullivan, P.; McCartney, H. Integrating 3D printing into an early childhood teacher preparation course: Reflections on practice. J. Early Child. Teach. Educ. 2017, 38, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bicer, A.; Nite, S.B.; Capraro, R.M.; Barroso, L.R.; Capraro, M.M.; Lee, Y. Moving from STEM to STEAM: The effects of informal STEM learning on students’ creativity and problem solving skills with 3D printing. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Indianapolis, IN, USA, 18–21 October 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  43. Wang, D.D.; Qian, Z.; Vukicevic, M.; Engelhardt, S.; Kheradvar, A.; Zhang, C.; Little, S.H.; Verjans, J.; Comaniciu, D.; O’Neill, W.W.; et al. 3D Printing, Computational Modeling, and Artificial Intelligence for Structural Heart Disease. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2021, 14, 41–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Guan, J.-Q.; Wang, L.-H.; Chen, Q.; Jin, K.; Hwang, G.-J. Effects of a virtual reality-based pottery making approach on junior high school students’ creativity and learning engagement. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2023, 31, 2016–2032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Biocca, F.; Delaney, B. Immersive virtual reality technology. Commun. Age Virtual Real. 1995, 15, 10–5555. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ryan, M.-L. Narrative as Virtual Reality 2: Revisiting Immersion and Interactivity in Literature and Electronic Media; JHU Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  47. Makransky, G.; Andreasen, N.K.; Baceviciute, S.; Mayer, R.E. Immersive virtual reality increases liking but not learning with a science simulation and generative learning strategies promote learning in immersive virtual reality. J. Educ. Psychol. 2021, 113, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Makransky, G.; Petersen, G.B. The Cognitive Affective Model of Immersive Learning (CAMIL): A Theoretical Research-Based Model of Learning in Immersive Virtual Reality. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2021, 33, 937–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chiu, M.C.; Hwang, G.J.; Hsia, L.H. Promoting students’ artwork appreciation: An experiential learning-based virtual reality approach. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2023, 54, 603–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ghaednia, H.; Fourman, M.S.; Lans, A.; Detels, K.; Dijkstra, H.; Lloyd, S.; Sweeney, A.; Oosterhoff, J.H.; Schwab, J.H. Augmented and virtual reality in spine surgery, current applications and future potentials. Spine J. 2021, 21, 1617–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Schiopu, A.F.; Hornoiu, R.I.; Padurean, A.M.; Nica, A.-M. Constrained and virtually traveling? Exploring the effect of travel constraints on intention to use virtual reality in tourism. Technol. Soc. 2022, 71, 102091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Di Natale, A.F.; Repetto, C.; Riva, G.; Villani, D. Immersive virtual reality in K-12 and higher education: A 10-year systematic review of empirical research. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2020, 51, 2006–2033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ekstrand, C.; Jamal, A.; Nguyen, R.; Kudryk, A.; Mann, J.; Mendez, I. Immersive and interactive virtual reality to improve learning and retention of neuroanatomy in medical students: A randomized controlled study. CMAJ Open 2018, 6, E103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Merchant, Z.; Goetz, E.T.; Cifuentes, L.; Keeney-Kennicutt, W.; Davis, T.J. Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Comput. Educ. 2014, 70, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chang, H.; Park, J.; Suh, J. Virtual reality as a pedagogical tool: An experimental study of English learner in lower elementary grades. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2024, 29, 4809–4842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Baukal, C.E.; Ausburn, F.B.; Ausburn, L.J. A proposed multimedia cone of abstraction: Updating a classic instructional design theory. J. Educ. Technol. 2013, 9, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Concannon, B.J.; Esmail, S.; Roduta Roberts, M. Head-mounted display virtual reality in post-secondary education and skill training. Proc. Front. Educ. 2019, 4, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Conrad, M.; Kablitz, D.; Schumann, S. Learning effectiveness of immersive virtual reality in education and training: A systematic review of findings. Comput. Educ. X Real. 2024, 4, 100053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Parong, J.; Mayer, R.E. Cognitive and affective processes for learning science in immersive virtual reality. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2021, 37, 226–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Stepan, K.; Zeiger, J.; Hanchuk, S.; Del Signore, A.; Shrivastava, R.; Govindaraj, S.; Iloreta, A. Immersive virtual reality as a teaching tool for neuroanatomy. Proc. Int. Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2017, 7, 1006–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Wilson, M. Six views of embodied cognition. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2002, 9, 625–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Esrock, E.J. Embodying art: The spectator and the inner body. Poet. Today 2010, 31, 217–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Repetto, C.; Serino, S.; Macedonia, M.; Riva, G. Virtual Reality as an Embodied Tool to Enhance Episodic Memory in Elderly. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 1839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sinnamon, C.; Miller, E. Architectural concept design process impacted by body and movement. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2022, 32, 1079–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Poulsen, S.B.; Thøgersen, U. Embodied design thinking: A phenomenological perspective. CoDesign 2011, 7, 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kang, S.; Norooz, L.; Bonsignore, E.; Byrne, V.; Clegg, T.; Froehlich, J.E. Prototypar: Prototyping and simulating complex systems with paper craft and augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, Boise, ID, USA, 12–15 June 2019; pp. 253–266. [Google Scholar]
  67. Ratcliffe, J.; Tokarchuk, L. Evidence for embodied cognition in immersive virtual environments using a second language learning environment. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG), Osaka, Japan, 24–27 August 2020; pp. 471–478. [Google Scholar]
  68. Chang, Y.-S.; Kao, J.-Y.; Wang, Y.-Y. Influences of virtual reality on design creativity and design thinking. Think. Ski. Creat. 2022, 46, 101127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Yang, X.; Lin, L.; Cheng, P.-Y.; Yang, X.; Ren, Y.; Huang, Y.-M. Examining creativity through a virtual reality support system. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2018, 66, 1231–1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lin, C.; Wang, M. The Creativity Assessment Packet; Psychological Publishing: Taipei, Taiwan, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  71. Chen, S.; Wang, Q.; Wang, X.; Huang, L.; Zhang, D.; Shi, B. Self-determination in Physical Exercise Predicts Creative Personality of College Students: The Moderating Role of Positive Affect. Front. Sports Act. Living 2022, 4, 926243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lai, C.L.; Hwang, G.J. Effects of mobile learning time on students’ conception of collaboration, communication, complex problem–solving, meta–cognitive awareness and creativity. Int. J. Mob. Learn. Organ. 2014, 8, 276–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hwang, G.-J.; Yang, L.-H.; Wang, S.-Y. A concept map-embedded educational computer game for improving students’ learning performance in natural science courses. Comput. Educ. 2013, 69, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hwang, G.-J.; Yang, T.-C.; Tsai, C.-C.; Yang, S.J. A context-aware ubiquitous learning environment for conducting complex science experiments. Comput. Educ. 2009, 53, 402–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  76. Alatta, R.A.; Freewan, A. Investigating the effect of employing immersive virtual environment on enhancing spatial perception within design process. ArchNet-IJAR Int. J. Archit. Res. 2017, 11, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Scurati, G.W.; Bertoni, M.; Graziosi, S.; Ferrise, F. Exploring the Use of Virtual Reality to Support Environmentally Sustainable Behavior: A Framework to Design Experiences. Sustainability 2021, 13, 943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Liu, H.; Wang, Z.; Mazumdar, A.; Mousas, C. Virtual reality game level layout design for real environment constraints. Graph. Vis. Comput. 2021, 4, 200020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tano, S.; Kodera, T.; Nakashima, T.; Kawano, I.; Nakanishi, K.; Hamagishi, G.; Inoue, M.; Watanabe, A.; Okamoto, T.; Kawagoe, K. Godzilla: Seamless 2D and 3D sketch environment for reflective and creative design work. In Proceedings of the INTERACT’03, Zurich, Switzerland, 1–5 September 2003; pp. 311–318. [Google Scholar]
  80. Özgen, D.S.; Afacan, Y.; Sürer, E. Usability of virtual reality for basic design education: A comparative study with paper-based design. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 2021, 31, 357–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Stefanou, C.R.; Perencevich, K.C.; DiCintio, M.; Turner, J.C. Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educ. Psychol. 2004, 39, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Richman, W.L.; Kiesler, S.; Weisband, S.; Drasgow, F. A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. J. Appl. Psychol. 1999, 84, 754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Tastan, H.; Tuker, C.; Tong, T. Using handheld user interface and direct manipulation for architectural modeling in immersive virtual reality: An exploratory study. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2022, 30, 415–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Makransky, G.; Borre-Gude, S.; Mayer, R.E. Motivational and cognitive benefits of training in immersive virtual reality based on multiple assessments. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2019, 35, 691–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Chen, Y.-C.; Chang, Y.-S.; Chuang, M.-J. Virtual reality application influences cognitive load-mediated creativity components and creative performance in engineering design. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2022, 38, 6–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Larmuseau, C.; Cornelis, J.; Lancieri, L.; Desmet, P.; Depaepe, F. Multimodal learning analytics to investigate cognitive load during online problem solving. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2020, 51, 1548–1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Pouw, W.T.J.L.; van Gog, T.; Paas, F. An Embedded and Embodied Cognition Review of Instructional Manipulatives. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2014, 26, 51–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Fogarty, J.; McCormick, J.; El-Tawil, S. Improving student understanding of complex spatial arrangements with virtual reality. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2018, 144, 04017013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 04092 g001
Figure 1. 3D modeling approach based on immersive virtual reality.
Figure 1. 3D modeling approach based on immersive virtual reality.
Sustainability 16 04092 g001
Sustainability 16 04092 g002
Figure 2. Teacher demonstration (a) and student practice (b).
Figure 2. Teacher demonstration (a) and student practice (b).
Sustainability 16 04092 g002
Sustainability 16 04092 g003
Figure 3. IVR-based 3D modeling interface (a); virtual 3D modeling interface (b).
Figure 3. IVR-based 3D modeling interface (a); virtual 3D modeling interface (b).
Sustainability 16 04092 g003
Sustainability 16 04092 g004
Figure 4. Classroom environment settings.
Figure 4. Classroom environment settings.
Sustainability 16 04092 g004
Sustainability 16 04092 g005
Figure 5. Experimental flowchart.
Figure 5. Experimental flowchart.
Sustainability 16 04092 g005
Table 1. t test result of the creative thinking of the two groups.
Table 1. t test result of the creative thinking of the two groups.
DimensionGroupNMeanSDt
Risk TakingExperimental group352.030.33−0.12
Control group392.040.31
CuriosityExperimental group352.180.331.88
Control group392.030.35
ImaginationExperimental group352.050.341.66
Control group391.930.29
ChallengeExperimental group352.130.301.32
Control group392.030.37
Table 2. Comparison of the two groups’ creative thinking sub-dimensions.
Table 2. Comparison of the two groups’ creative thinking sub-dimensions.
Sub-DimensionsGroupNMeanSDFpη2
Risk TakingExperimental352.190.281.410.2390.02
Control392.100.33
CuriosityExperimental352.420.267.950.006 *0.099
Control392.200.39
ImaginationExperimental352.570.357.780.007 *0.097
Control392.350.34
ChallengeExperimental352.430.298.400.005 *0.104
Control392.230.31
* p < 0.0125.
Table 3. Outcomes of ANCOVA for problem-solving tendency.
Table 3. Outcomes of ANCOVA for problem-solving tendency.
GroupNMeanSDAdjusted MeanF(1,71)η2
Experimental group353.940.403.9010.05 **0.124
Control group393.580.623.62
** p < 0.01.
Table 4. t test result of the cognitive load of the two groups.
Table 4. t test result of the cognitive load of the two groups.
DimensionGroupNMeanSDtd
Cognitive loadExperimental group352.600.55−2.71 **−0.632
Control group393.000.69
Mental loadExperimental group352.330.55−2.33 *−0.542
Control group392.670.67
Mental effortsExperimental group352.870.60−2.77 **−0.645
Control group393.320.80
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table 5. The analysis of the interview results.
Table 5. The analysis of the interview results.
ThemeTheme CodeThe Number of Occurrences
IVR-3DCVR-3D
AdvantagesMore intuitive and natural6·3
Interesting and amusing65
Immersive52
Understanding design shapes34
DrawbacksDiscomfort50
Lack of operational precision62
Lack of guidance44
Unfriendly interface06
Student GainsProblem-solving skills45
Creative expression42
Spatial capability72
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, S.-J.; Chen, C.-Q.; Shan, X.-F. The Effects of an Immersive Virtual-Reality-Based 3D Modeling Approach on the Creativity and Problem-Solving Tendency of Elementary School Students. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4092. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104092

AMA Style

Chen S-J, Chen C-Q, Shan X-F. The Effects of an Immersive Virtual-Reality-Based 3D Modeling Approach on the Creativity and Problem-Solving Tendency of Elementary School Students. Sustainability. 2024; 16(10):4092. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104092

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Shu-Jie, Chuang-Qi Chen, and Xiao-Fen Shan. 2024. "The Effects of an Immersive Virtual-Reality-Based 3D Modeling Approach on the Creativity and Problem-Solving Tendency of Elementary School Students" Sustainability 16, no. 10: 4092. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16104092

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop