Effect of Interactive Virtual Reality on the Teaching of Conceptual Design in Engineering and Architecture Fields

Abstract

This research paper explores the impact of immersive virtual reality (IVR) on the teaching of conceptual design in engineering and architecture fields, focusing on the use of interactive 3D drawing tools in virtual and augmented reality environments. The study analyzes how IVR influences spatial understanding, idea communication, and immersive 3D sketching for industrial and architectural design. Additionally, it examines user perceptions of virtual spaces prior to physical construction and evaluates the effectiveness of these technologies through surveys administered to mechanical engineering students utilizing VR/AR headsets. A structured methodology was developed for students enrolled in an industrial design course, comprising four phases: initial theoretical instruction on ephemeral architecture, immersive 3D sketching sessions using Meta Quest 2 and Microsoft HoloLens 2 VR/AR headsets, detailed CAD modeling based on conceptual sketches, and immersive virtual tours to evaluate user perception and design efficacy. Ad hoc questionnaires specifically designed for this research were employed. The results indicate a positive reception to IVR, emphasizing its ease of use, intuitive learning process, and effectiveness in improving motivation, academic performance, and student engagement during the conceptual design phase in graphic engineering education.

1. Introduction

Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technologies have experienced a remarkable surge since the COVID-19 pandemic, currently consolidating their position with emerging proposals increasingly connected to the concept of the metaverse. According to Mystakidis [1], the pandemic accelerated the adoption of immersive technologies, particularly in education and remote worker collaboration, as they offered scalable solutions for virtual interaction, which aligns with the claim that VR and AR have become increasingly connected to the concept of the metaverse. This growth is largely attributable to the accessibility and scalability of these technologies, as modern home computing equipment and mobile devices are capable of meeting the rapid graphics processing requirements. Moreover, VR and AR are complemented by other technologies such as virtual meeting environments that utilize avatars to share audio, video, and screens in real time.

In recent years, these technologies have been implemented across numerous sectors (e.g., education, gaming, entertainment, industry, e-commerce, and marketing), and they have also proven highly beneficial in the field of architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) [2]. The incorporation of VR and AR in this domain has demonstrated itself to be a powerful tool in professional practice, offering immersive and interactive capabilities that have the potential to transform the way architects design and plan urban spaces [3,4]. It is now common to see these tools integrated into project design software, providing realistic visualizations of building designs and VR-based tracking tools on construction sites [5,6]. In particular, by combining CAD tools with VR—as already available in certain software—designers can visualize and manipulate their design models within an immersive 3D environment. This not only enhances design precision and project comprehension but also facilitates collaboration and decision-making, thereby improving both the efficiency and quality of projects [7,8].

Virtual reality is revolutionizing the world of architecture and urban planning by enabling designers to create immersive and realistic environments that shape the future of design [9,10]. Although not yet a widespread practice, some architectural firms are already demonstrating to their clients what it would be like to inhabit the different spaces of an architectural project. This approach allows clients to experience the spatial relationships between walls, ceilings, and floors from their natural eye level [11]. Similarly, it is possible to simulate various lighting models at different times of the day or year, based on the actual geographic orientation of the space [12].

With VR applications, professionals can immerse themselves in their designs before they are constructed, offering a more realistic and detailed perspective of the final project [13]. This capability not only improves design precision and quality but also transforms the way professionals collaborate, allowing for real-time interaction with designs in a shared virtual space [14]. Such interaction facilitates error detection, enhances communication, and promotes collaboration among the various disciplines and stakeholders involved in a project.

In the educational field, VR and AR also open new avenues for fostering innovative learning methodologies and establishing new work processes [15]. Architectural and urban design education greatly benefits from these technologies, as they allow students and professionals to experience and design in an immersive, life-scale environment. This not only enhances their technical skills and understanding but also enables them to explore and express their ideas in a more intuitive and emotionally resonant manner [16]. The transformative effect of VR on designers’ cognitive processes and emotional connections to their work is supported by studies such as those by Banaei et al., who emphasize how immersive environments enhance creativity and user-centered design [17].

In this context, we propose implementing the conceptual design phase for architectural and urban equipment elements. During this phase, designers can sketch their ideas in a life-scale, immersive 3D environment using VR and AR technologies. This approach not only transforms the design process but also alters the designer’s cognitive processes, fostering deeper emotional connections and a more holistic understanding of the designed space. The ability to involve users in this process—allowing them to actively engage and express their impressions of the space—provides valuable feedback to the designer. This direct feedback enables adjustments and improvements in the design, ensuring that the final outcome is not only aesthetically pleasing and functional but also emotionally resonant for the users.

In the academic realm, this work promotes the teaching of novel learning processes and methodologies for project development using VR and AR technologies. The integration of 3D drawing tools within VR and AR environments, along with an understanding of the impact of design on user emotions and perceptions, are fundamental aspects that must be incorporated into the academic curriculum. These new educational trends prepare future professionals to face the challenges of contemporary design, leveraging advanced technologies that enhance creativity and innovation.

Virtual Reality for Design in Engineering and Architecture

Design is an essential activity in the training of architects and engineers, centered on decision-making to solve spatial problems [18,19]. Sullivan [20] defines decision-making as the use of various methods to solve problems or create opportunities. Engineering and architecture students engage in activities such as drawing, presenting, evaluating, and grouping sketches to develop professional skills [21]. The creative design process is key for professionals in engineering and architecture, as highlighted by Tekmen-Araci and Kuys [22], who focus on enhancing the creative process in industrial product design among mechanical engineering students to achieve innovative design solutions and better prepare them for professional practice. They suggest that enriching creativity in engineering education is not feasible unless engineering instructors comprehend and embrace the integration of creativity into the classroom. Undoubtedly, the freedom of design provided by novel tools based on interactive and immersive virtual reality (IVR) fosters creativity in design, justifying the introduction of these innovative tools and workflows not only in academic environments but also in professional practice.

Furthermore, Prit Kaur et al. [23] emphasize that students must cultivate problem-solving abilities and accumulate design knowledge, although they often encounter difficulties in representing ideas through 2D drawings or 3D models. These challenges may arise from a lack of understanding of the design problem, the application of instructional materials, or the external representation using traditional tools. Technological advances have provided IVR tools that facilitate experimentation and communication of design ideas more efficiently and realistically compared to conventional methods. In this regard, Kee, Kuys, and King [24] highlight that combining GenAI systems with VR technologies allows students to immediately refine their designs, ultimately resulting in more sophisticated and well-developed projects. This working approach fosters a deeper understanding of spatial relationships, material properties, and construction techniques, offering significant advantages that traditional, non-digital studio environments may lack.

IVR offers the sensation of “being there” rather than merely “observing the place”, thereby enhancing the design process [25]. This technology facilitates a better understanding of the design problem, deepens the materialization and experiential quality of space, and encourages a rethinking of teaching methods in architectural workshops [18]. IVR is considered a valuable tool in education, enabling learning and training in a safe environment that replicates real situations or creates novel experiences [26]. This technology is particularly useful for the repetitive practice of skills without risk, which increases its appeal in the educational sphere [27]. Currently, IVR is being widely adopted in architecture and industrial design, allowing users to immerse themselves in simulations of unbuilt projects [28] and to analyze diverse scenarios. Its application in the AEC sector has improved aspects such as safety and health in construction, team training, facility management, and the evaluation of preliminary projects [29,30]. IVR facilitates the visualization of proposals and solutions, the understanding of various design stages, and the communication inherent in the participatory design process [28,31].

Research has shown that IVR enables the exploration and expression of design ideas in a more creative and efficient manner, offering immediate feedback and simulating the feeling of presence in a realistic virtual space [32,33,34]. IVR promotes exploratory experiences and stimulates holistic design based on human experience [35].

Machuca et al. [36] propose a comprehensive framework for evaluating 3D sketching, structured into three main categories: Evaluating the 3D sketching activity, evaluating 3D sketching tools, and evaluating 3D sketching artifacts. Each category encompasses specific sub-categories tailored to assess distinct aspects of 3D sketching, emphasizing the need for evaluations aligned with research questions. The authors advocate for a shift from generic tools to task-specific solutions and highlight the necessity of thoughtful evaluation in 3D sketching research, urging researchers to move beyond novelty and adopt appropriate methodologies in conceptual design research. The work of Yildirim and Akyol [37] show and test a tool developed to create rapid sketch modeling method using hand movements in a VR environment, demonstrating its benefits during the concept design phase in architectural education [36]. However, the study acknowledges limitations, as the tool remains in its early stages and was tested with a limited participant group. The authors highlight the potential of VR-based sketching tools to enhance design processes while underscoring the need for further refinement and broader validation. For their part, Chaniaud et al. [38] underline that traditional drawing is more accessible than VR drawing, as the latter demands greater drawing skills and visuospatial abilities from novice users. They outline three key requirements for effective VR drawing: prior experience in traditional or VR drawing, high visuospatial skills, and active movement within the virtual environment to perceive depth accurately. To avoid miscommunications and better articulate design needs, they recommend that beginners supplement VR sketches with traditional hand-drawn sketches. Further elaborating on this work, the authors confirmed in a recent publication that VR sketching is a complex task: movement, spatial inspection, training, and mental rotation skills are all key to quality sketches [39], and it is strongly advised that users move around in the virtual environment during a VR sketching task to become aware of the depth of the drawing in progress, but above all, the most important thing is not to remain static.

The research into the application of VR environments and tools for drawing during the conceptual design phase remains an emerging field, with limited research currently available. A notable contribution to this area is the recent study by Zhang et al. [40], which evaluated the impact of VR sketching on novice product designers’ cognitive actions during conceptual design, comparing it to traditional and tablet sketching. Results showed that VR sketching enhanced spatial perception, fostered unexpected discoveries, and transformed thinking styles, with higher tool proficiency reducing cognitive load and improving performance. The findings highlight VR sketching’s potential in design education and its role in developing VR-based teaching environments.

In summary, immersive virtual reality serves as a significant tool in design education, particularly for students in the field of AEC, by offering an immersive experience that enhances holistic spatial understanding and expression while aiding educators in facilitating critiques and detecting hidden errors. The key innovative aspects of this work are the targeted implementation of interactive 3D drawing tools in VR and AR environments to replace traditional methods (e.g., hand sketching) during conceptual design phases in engineering and architecture, and a tailored methodology combining theoretical training, immersive VR/AR applications, CAD model development, and virtual tours to assess user and designer perceptions—contributing to immediate, efficient modifications of preliminary designs and reducing costly errors in later project stages.

2. Objective

The objective is to introduce students to an understanding of space, its use, the designer’s perceptions, and the user’s sensations through the exploration of characteristics such as scale, materials, textures, colors, and lighting. To this end, their training is based on learning through the discovery and construction of spatial ideas, allowing them to acquire knowledge from their own sensorial experiences and tangible objects materialized through graphic expression and models. From this perspective, the design proposals they have developed demonstrate their ability to perceive and interpret the principles and structures that organize a space, culminating in a simple spatial solution.

3. Methodology

The methodology involves the following stages: (i) research on the subject and context; (ii) analysis and interpretation of the information obtained; (iii) conceptualization based on an understanding of the design problem; (iv) decision-making grounded in critical reflection; (v) materialization of the object; and (vi) evaluation of the sensations evoked by the space as experienced in virtual reality.

In the specific case of this research, the assignment was to design an ephemeral architecture of a recreational and playful nature to be installed in the urban space of the gardens/plaza of the Faculty of Fine Arts at ULL. The competencies to be achieved through this experiment were as follows:

• The ability to configure a space using vertical, horizontal, or inclined elements: Students must understand and perceive the elements they are constructing, which define their space—vertical or inclined elements such as walls and columns and horizontal or inclined elements such as roofs and coverings. Together, these elements form the final space, which can be immediately reformulated when experienced in a life-scale virtual environment.
• The ability to optimize the designed space through the use of light, color, degree of enclosure, and materials: Students must grasp that the entry of light, the extent of enclosure, and the use of colors and materials impart a distinct character to a space, one that is better understood and appreciated when experienced from within.
• The ability to design a volumetric composition with unity and aesthetic coherence: Students must evaluate whether the final form of the designed space adheres to the principles of aesthetic composition and how the perception of the space at life scale changes for end users who walk, traverse, and appreciate the environment, compared to the initial impressions derived from rough sketches.

Accordingly, the design process began with an initial phase of research on the subject of ephemeral architecture. A subsequent phase involved analyzing and interpreting the established premises and the installation site. Based on this foundation, the students developed their first conceptual idea, which was expressed through 2D and 3D rough sketches, textual descriptions, and 3D models. It was at this point that the use of immersive virtual reality was proposed as a tool to implement improvements and obtain real-time feedback on the virtual design and construction process.

The experimental study aims to introduce engineering students to the conceptualization and representation of urban furniture elements within virtual environments. The practice of 2D and 3D design is regarded not only as a creative expression but also as a technical exploration of the possibilities these tools offer. Immersion in virtual and augmented reality facilitates a deeper understanding of the relationship between the proposed design and the urban context by incorporating aspects of spatial perception and ergonomics.

The participants were provided with head-mounted displays (HMDs) for virtual or augmented reality, along with access to 3D freehand drawing applications. In addition, students transferred their conceptual designs—originally developed within an immersive virtual or augmented reality environment—to 3D models created with desktop CAD tools, taking into account shapes, volumes, materials, textures, and colors that evoke the desired emotions and sensations in the user. Subsequently, the 3D models were integrated into a virtual environment (a replica of an actual architectural space) to facilitate virtual tours for users and to obtain feedback on the perceived sensations.

The experience culminated in an evaluation conducted through two surveys assessing the effectiveness of drawing directly with the assistance of HMDs. This evaluation examined the efficacy of the design process, the precision of the strokes, user interactivity, and the efficiency of visualizing the proposed design in virtual environments. In parallel, the sensations elicited by the designed space were also assessed. Through the formulation and administration of specific questionnaires and surveys, the study aims to derive rigorous conclusions that will contribute to the technical and perceptual understanding of urban furniture design within virtual and augmented reality contexts.

This experience not only delineates a novel aspect to the design process but also lays the groundwork for a deeper understanding of the intersection between emerging technology and industrial design practice in urban settings.

3.1. Participants

The experimental study was conducted with students enrolled in the Graphics Engineering course of the third year of the Mechanical Engineering program at the University of La Laguna. During student recruitment, an archetype was defined with the following characteristics: completion of all first- and second-year courses in the program; familiarity with virtual reality technologies (whether through gaming or other means); absence of color blindness or epilepsy; low susceptibility to dizziness, nausea, or migraines; and high motivation for industrial design. A total of 21 students—17 males and 4 females, with an average age of 22 years—met this profile. The students were informed that they could undertake the VR design task either individually or in groups, thereby enabling both personal and collaborative expression during the design process.

The students were assigned the task of designing urban products classified as ephemeral architecture. Prior to this, they received theoretical instruction introducing ephemeral architecture, its functions, and key design considerations including volumetrics, scale, color, and texture. Building upon this foundational knowledge, students then proceeded to design urban products through the structured experience outlined in Section 3.4.

3.2. Equipment

The study utilized virtual reality headsets (Meta Quest 2) and augmented reality headsets (Microsoft Hololens 2). The design applications employed were Figmin XR v1.43.022, Gravity Sketch v6.4 (https://gravitysketch.com/ (accessed on 9 April 2025)), and Graffiti 3D v1, all available through the Microsoft and Meta app stores. For 3D modeling, the software Solidworks was used, while VR Sketch v24.0.1 (https://vrsketch.eu/ (accessed on 9 April 2025)) facilitated virtual tours and the evaluation of the elicited sensations in the virtual environment (see Figure 1).

3.3. Evaluation Surveys

Two surveys were employed: one to capture the students’ opinions on the use of 3D sketching tools within virtual and augmented reality and another to assess the impressions elicited by the designed space or element when experienced by the user.

The questionnaire was developed using Google Forms to enable direct digital recording of responses. During the activity, the instructor administered the questions to students as they engaged in either 3D drawing tasks, or virtual tours of the designed spaces. All responses were systematically recorded by the instructor using an iPad tablet through the online form interface.

3.3.1. Survey Q1: Opinion on the Use of 3D Sketching Tools

Participants were asked to rate the following statements on a 5-point Likert scale: strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree.

“Regarding your experience using various 3D sketching tools in a virtual or augmented reality environment, please indicate your impressions:”

Q1_1.

If I were a designer (in architecture, engineering, or another field), I would like to use this tool frequently.

Q1_2.

I find this system/tool unnecessary.

Q1_3.

I believe the system is easy to use.

Q1_4.

I think I would need the assistance of a technician to operate this system.

Q1_5.

I find that the different drawing functions within the tool are well integrated.

Q1_6.

I believe that most people would learn to use this system very quickly.

Q1_7.

I think the system is uncomfortable to use.

Q1_8.

I felt secure while using the system.

Q1_9.

I had to learn many things before I could start using the system.

Q1_10.

I felt irritated, stressed, and annoyed while using the tool.

Q1_11.

Learning to sketch in 3D using virtual reality was mentally very demanding.

Q1_12.

Sketching in 3D in virtual reality was physically very demanding.

Q1_13.

Compared to sketching on paper with a pencil, this method of sketching in VR enhances the conceptual design process—I can better visualize it and redesign in real time.

Q1_14.

It was satisfying to use the tool for the proposed objective.

The formulation and selection of questions for this questionnaire were carefully based on specific criteria designed to accurately assess the user experience (UX) of sketching 3D drawings in virtual and augmented reality during the conceptual design phase. The goal is to evaluate how effectively these tools help students to achieve spatial understanding during the conceptual design phase. The questions are structured to measure the according 4 criteria:

• Criteria 1. Ease of Use and Intuitiveness of the Tool (Usability). Questions related to ease of use (Q1_3, Q1_4, Q1_5, Q1_6 and Q1_9) were created to determine whether the selected tools were intuitive from the user’s perspective. To effectively explore complex design elements such as scale, materials, and textures, it is essential that the tools do not pose additional barriers to students. These questions are crucial in determining whether the tools facilitate or hinder initial learning.
• Criteria 2. User Emotional and Psychological Experience. Questions addressing comfort (Q1_7, Q1_8), feelings of stress or irritation (Q1_10), and mental or physical demand (Q1_11, Q1_12) aim to explore the psychological and emotional dimensions experienced by students while interacting with immersive environments. As these are immersive environments, it is critical to evaluate whether the experience is emotionally positive or negative. Discomfort or stress could obstruct proper perception and exploration of the space, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the execution of the conceptual design phase.
• Criteria 3. Motivation and Technological Acceptance. Questions such as Q1_1, Q1_2, and Q1_14 directly assess the users’ motivation and willingness to employ this technology in future professional contexts. It is important to identify if students perceive the tool as valuable and relevant to their development as designers, which is vital for its effective integration into the teaching and learning process.
• Criteria 4. Comparative Effectiveness vs. Traditional Techniques. Question Q1_13 specifically explores perceptions of comparative effectiveness between traditional methods (paper sketches) and the VR tool. It is essential to evaluate whether digital tools tangibly enhance spatial visualization and real-time redesign capabilities, both critical for deepening holistic understanding of space, materials, and lighting during the conceptual design phase.

3.3.2. Survey Q2: Beliefs About the Virtual Tour

Participants were asked to rate the following statements on a 5-point Likert scale: strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree.

“Regarding the virtual tour you experienced through the ephemeral architectural spaces at the Faculty of Fine Arts, please indicate your level of agreement with the following items:”

Q2_1.

Experiencing the ephemeral space in virtual reality was valuable for comprehensively understanding its exterior and interior design.

Q2_2.

Experiencing the ephemeral space in virtual reality allowed for the perception of its visual impact on the Faculty of Fine Arts building.

Q2_3.

Experiencing the interior of the ephemeral space in virtual reality allowed for the perception of its form, colors, and materials.

Q2_4.

The virtual reality experience is a valuable tool for perceiving the interior design of a space.

Q2_5.

The perceptual experience of the ephemeral space in virtual reality was greater compared to the observation based on sketches/drawings.

Q2_6.

The use of virtual reality is a valuable tool in architectural design education.

Q2_7.

The use of virtual reality is an interesting tool for understanding the design of spaces prior to construction.

Q2_8.

I have had previous experiences with virtual reality technology.

The questions in this survey were systematically selected and formulated according to clear criteria aimed at capturing students’ perceptions of VR as a means of exploring space, carrying out an evaluation of design attributes including scale, materiality, textures, colors, and lighting. The questions are structured to measure according to 4 criteria:

• Criteria 1. Comprehensive Spatial Understanding. The questions Q2_1, Q2_2, and Q2_3 were specifically formulated to determine if VR allows students to grasp both exterior and interior dimensions of designed spaces. These questions aim to ensure that VR effectively conveys spatial relationships, scale, materials, textures, and colors, contributing to a holistic and integrated understanding of design.
• Criteria 2. Perceptual Clarity and Immersion. It was important to understand if VR improves perceptual clarity, especially compared to traditional methods (question Q2_5). The goal is to validate the enhanced sensory and perceptual realism offered by virtual immersion compared to conventional drawings or sketches, thereby supporting students’ cognitive engagement with designed environments.
• Criteria 3. Educational and Professional Value. Questions Q2_4, Q2_6, and Q2_7 seek to capture students’ perceptions regarding the educational and practical benefits of VR. These questions explore whether students value VR as a beneficial educational tool for architectural and spatial design, capable of enhancing their professional competencies, decision making, and practical understanding before actual construction.
• Criteria 4. Familiarity and Prior Experience with VR. Question Q2_8 aims to understand the baseline familiarity of students with VR technology. This criterion is essential to contextualize responses and determine whether prior experience influences perceptions of VR effectiveness.

3.4. Development of the Experience

The experimental design was developed in four phases (Figure 2). The first phase aimed to have students develop a conceptual design for ephemeral architecture with recreational and playful purposes, intended to be installed in the courtyard of the Faculty of Fine Arts at ULL. For this purpose, the design problem, the site, the definition, and examples of ephemeral architecture, as well as its utility and necessity in urban spaces, were explained in detail.

In the second phase (Figure 3a), the objective was for students to carry out the schematic design of an ephemeral space using freehand 3D drawing tools within immersive virtual and augmented reality (IVR/IAR). Prior to commencing the design with IVR/IAR, students underwent a brief fifteen-minute training session to familiarize themselves with the basic functions of the software and to adapt to the virtual environment. After a short three-minute break, each participant was asked whether they experienced any discomfort related to cybersickness. Since no student reported any such issues, the experimental phase proceeded with a 60-min session of schematic design using IVR/IAR, interspersed with a five-minute break during which participants were again queried about any symptoms or discomfort associated with the use of HMDs and virtual reality. The task involved employing freehand drawing tools, straight-line tools, and other functions for creating various forms, as well as utilizing the color palette and scaling tool.

Immersion in virtual environments enables students to assess the ease or complexity of designing with HMDs. The experience was conducted in a classroom setting rather than in the actual environment where the designs are intended to be implemented (i.e., the Faculty of Fine Arts). This approach simulated the conditions of a professional engineering office, allowing for the effective use of virtual reality tools in that context. At the end of the session, a survey was administered to the students to gather their opinions regarding the tool’s impact on the schematic design they had produced.

In the third phase (Figure 3b), students created a 3D model of the designed element using Solidworks software and developed an explanatory poster outlining the perception and sensations that, as designers, they believed the user should experience when engaging with the space (Figure 4).

Finally, the fourth phase involved a virtual tour of the urban space at the Faculty of Fine Arts, where the students’ designs had been integrated (Figure 5). In this phase, each student, assuming the role of the user, could immersively experience the newly designed urban environment. During the tour, a survey was administered to capture their sensations and perceptions regarding each of the designed architectural urban elements.

4. Results

After implementing the 3D sketching experience, a survey was conducted regarding the use of head-mounted displays (HMDs) and virtual/augmented reality tools for 3D sketching. Participants were asked about their level of experience with virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR), revealing that 90.5% had little to no previous experience with these technologies.

Descriptive Statistics

The following results were obtained for each of the questions:

• Q1_1. Interest in Using the Tool in the Future: 66.7% of the students expressed interest in frequently using these tools in their future professional work as designers.
• Q1_2. Perceived Necessity of the System–Tool: 66.7% of the participants did not consider the use of the system unnecessary, highlighting its potential utility in the design field.
• Q1_3. Ease of Use of the System: 85.7% of the participants perceived the system as easy to use.
• Q1_4. Need for Technical Assistance: 47.6% did not believe they required technical assistance to use the system, while only 14.3% felt that they would.
• Q1_5. Integration of Drawing Functions: 71.4% agreed that the drawing functions were well integrated within the system.
• Q1_6. Ease of Learning the System: 85.7% of the students felt that most people would learn to use the system quickly.
• Q1_7. Comfort of Using the System: 71.4% indicated that they did not find the system uncomfortable to use.
• Q1_8. Sense of Security When Using the System: 81% of the participants reported feeling secure while using the tool.
• Q1_9. Complexity of the Initial Learning Process: 81% believed that it was not necessary to learn a great deal before starting to use the system.
• Q1_10. Stress and Discomfort When Using the Tool: 66.7% did not experience irritation, stress, or discomfort while using the tool.
• Q1_11. Mental Demand of Learning: 81% did not consider learning to sketch in 3D via virtual reality mentally demanding.
• Q1_12: Physical Demand of 3D Sketching: 81% stated that sketching in 3D using virtual reality was not physically demanding.
• Q1_13. Comparison with Paper Sketching: 57.1% of the students considered that sketching in VR enhances the conceptual design process compared to using paper and pencil.
• Q1_14. Satisfaction with the Tool’s Use: 85.7% of the participants found the experience of using the tool for the proposed purpose to be satisfactory.

The Figure 6 illustrates the ratings for each question by the number of participants.

The second survey, “Beliefs about the Virtual Tour,” evaluated the perceptions of the Mechanical Engineering students after an immersive experience in which they virtually explored the space at the Faculty of Fine Arts, where the previously designed urban and architectural elements were installed. During this activity, participants viewed both their own designs and those of their peers in a virtual reality environment. The results obtained are presented below:

• Q2_1. Overall Comprehension of the Design: 85.7% of the students stated that virtual reality was valuable for comprehensively understanding both the exterior and interior design of the ephemeral space.
• Q2_2. Perception of the Visual Impact on the Faculty Building: 71.4% of the participants indicated that virtual reality allowed them to appreciate the visual impact of the ephemeral space on the Faculty of Fine Arts building.
• Q2_3. Perception of Form, Colors, and Materials: 81% of the students agreed that virtual reality helped them better perceive the form, colors, and materials of the ephemeral space.
• Q2_4. Value of Virtual Reality for Analyzing Interior Design: 90.5% considered virtual reality a valuable tool for analyzing and perceiving the interior design of an architectural space.
• Q2_5. Comparison with Sketches/Drawings: 85.7% of the participants perceived that the immersive virtual reality experience provided a superior understanding compared to merely observing sketches or drawings.
• Q2_6. Integration of Virtual Reality in Architectural Design Education: 85.7% positively valued the incorporation of virtual reality as a didactic tool in architectural design education.
• Q2_7. Understanding of Design Prior to Construction: 100% of the participants considered virtual reality an interesting and useful tool for understanding the design of spaces before they are constructed.
• Q2_8. Previous Experience with Virtual Reality Technology: 66.7% of the students reported having little to no significant previous experience with virtual reality technology, underscoring the novelty of the tool for many.

The Figure 7 illustrates the ratings for each question by the number of participants.

5. Analysis of Results

The analysis of the first survey on the use of 3D sketching tools reveals significant insights regarding students’ perceptions when using 3D sketching tools in virtual and augmented reality environments:

• Interest and Ease of Use: 66.7% of the students demonstrated significant interest in using these tools in the future. Furthermore, 85.7% highlighted the ease of use and the integration of drawing functions as positive aspects.
• Safety and Comfort: Participants felt safe and comfortable while using the system, with 81% reporting a sense of security and 71.4% not finding the experience irritating or stressful.
• Learning Curve: The majority did not find the initial learning process either mentally or physically demanding. Specifically, 81% did not perceive the initial learning phase as complex or mentally taxing, and 47.6% did not consider that they required extensive technical assistance.
• Comparison with Traditional Methods: Although 57.1% believed that VR tools enhance the conceptual design process compared to manual sketching, a significant portion remained indifferent, suggesting areas for improvement in the perception of these tools.
• Overall Satisfaction: Overall satisfaction with the use of these tools was high, with 85.7% of the students finding the experience satisfactory for the intended purpose.

These results reflect a positive acceptance of 3D sketching and VR tools, emphasizing aspects such as ease of use, safety, and the ability to enhance the conceptual design experience. The proposed experience appears to have a significant impact on student learning and motivation, demonstrating its potential as an innovative resource in design education.

The responses to the second survey regarding perceptions during the virtual tour—where the designed products could be visualized and experienced—reflect a predominantly positive acceptance of virtual reality as a tool for exploring and analyzing architectural designs:

• Comprehensive Understanding and Detailed Analysis: Virtual reality was recognized as a tool that facilitates a comprehensive understanding of both the exterior and interior design. This is evidenced by the high percentage (85.7%) of participants who positively valued this capability. Additionally, 81% emphasized that it allowed them to perceive specific aspects such as shapes, colors, and materials, while 90.5% highlighted its usefulness in analyzing interior design.
• Visual Impact and Comparison with Traditional Methods: 71.4% of the participants positively rated virtual reality’s ability to convey the visual impact of the design in a realistic setting, and 85.7% preferred it over analysis through traditional sketches and drawings.
• Educational Tool: Virtual reality was widely recognized as a highly promising didactic tool in architectural design education (85.7%), also allowing for a clear understanding of the design prior to construction (100%).
• Accessibility and Prior Experience: Despite the fact that most participants had little to no previous experience with virtual reality technology (66.7%), this did not negatively affect their ability to interact with the tool, suggesting that this technology can be easily introduced in educational contexts.

The immersive virtual reality experience provided students with a unique and enriching perspective on both their own designs and those of their peers. The results highlight the significant potential of this technology in architectural design education and its ability to enhance the understanding of spaces prior to construction. Moreover, the high acceptance demonstrated by the participants supports the possibility of broader integration of this tool into educational programs.

5.1. Detailed Analysis

Figure 8 illustrates the responses for question Q1_1 to Q1_14 regarding the usability of 3D sketching tools in IVR: the Likert scale ranges from value 1 for strongly disagree to value 5 for strongly agree, with the neutral grade at value 3. Figure 9 illustrates the results obtained on the second survey on participants’ experiment through the ephemeral architectural spaces at the Faculty of Fine Arts. The distribution of responses are displayed as a boxplot with whiskers. We can see that for the first survey about 3D sketching skills, the range of responses is much more distributed than for the survey about the sensations elicited by the designed space.

It is common in practice to treat Likert scale data as if it is continuous, especially when aggregated across many participants. This simplification is widely used in survey research and applying the t-test can still yield meaningful insights. Based on these data, we can analyze whether the responses significantly differ from a neutral stance using statistical tests with a one-sample t-test. In a one-sample t-test, the null hypothesis (H0) states that “The sample mean is not significantly different from the population mean”. The alternative hypothesis is that “The average response is significantly different from neutral”. The neutral stance value is 3: we test if the mean response is significantly different from the neutral value (3). The p-value is the probability of obtaining a t-statistic as extreme as the one calculated. In

Table 1. Statistic results on survey “Opinion on the Use of 3D Sketching Tools”.

Question	Mean	Std	t-Statistic	p-Value
Q1_1	3.86	1.2	3.29	0.004
Q1_2	2.48	1.21	−1.99	0.061
Q1_3	4.14	0.79	6.61	0.0
Q1_4	2.57	1.16	−1.69	0.107
Q1_5	3.86	1.06	3.7	0.001
Q1_6	4.24	0.7	8.1	0.0
Q1_7	2.33	1.32	−2.32	0.031
Q1_8	4.24	0.89	6.38	0.0
Q1_9	1.95	1.2	−3.99	0.001
Q1_10	2.1	1.3	−3.19	0.005
Q1_11	1.81	1.12	−4.86	0.0
Q1_12	1.81	1.12	−4.86	0.0
Q1_13	3.62	1.02	2.77	0.012
Q1_14	4.19	0.98	5.56	0.0

, for each question the p-values were below the significance threshold of 0.05, making the result statistically significant, except for Q1_2 (p-value = 0.061) and Q1_4 (p-value = 0.107). When the p-value is above the commonly used significance threshold of 0.05, it means the result is not statistically significant: we can conclude that the average response for Q1_2 and Q1_4 is not significantly different from neutral. The average response for each of the other questions is significantly different from neutral, likely higher (agreement) or lower (disagreement).

On the second survey, “Beliefs about the Virtual Tour,” for each question, the p-value was below the significance threshold of 0.05 (see

Table 2. Descriptive statistic on survey “Beliefs about the Virtual Tour”: all p-values are <0.05.

Question	Mean	Std	t-Statistic	p-Value
Q2_1	4.35	0.9	6.9	0.0
Q2_2	4.2	0.95	5.6	0.0
Q2_3	4.35	0.9	6.9	0.0
Q2_4	4.45	0.6	10.7	0.0
Q2_5	4.5	0.7	9.7	0.0
Q2_6	4.5	0.8	8.1	0.0
Q2_7	4.75	0.4	17.6	0.0
Q2_8	2.15	1.4	−2.7	0.013

). Since the p-values are much smaller than 0.05, we can reject the null hypothesis, meaning the responses are significantly different from the neutral value (3). Specifically, for questions Q2_1 to Q2_7, the strong positive t-statistic suggests that responses are significantly skewed towards agreement (4–5 range). For question Q2_8, the responses are significantly skewed toward disagreement because most of the participants did not have experience with VR.

Researchers frequently use t-tests to evaluate survey responses aggregated in this way, especially when comparing a sample mean to a hypothesized value. It is a pragmatic choice widely seen in applied fields like psychology, education, and usability studies. Since Likert scales are ordinal, non-parametric statistical methods are often more appropriate for analysis. Assuming the distances between responses are equal, some researchers treat Likert scale data as interval data for parametric tests. One can argue that our data are not normal, but using a non-parametric test such as the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test gives a similar result: it is a non-parametric test used to evaluate whether the median of a sample differs significantly from a specified value (in this case, 3). The median response significantly differs from neutral (3) with p-values less than 0.05 for all questions, except Q1_2 and Q1_4. For questions Q1_2 and Q1_4, there is no statistically significant difference between the sample median and the test value (3) at the 5% significance level. While the sample median for Q1_4 is lower (2), this result does not provide enough evidence to conclude that this difference is not due to chance.

5.2. Analysis of the Improvement in Academic Performance

In this section, we examined whether there was a significant difference between the grades earned by students in the Graphic Engineering course during the 2023–2024 academic year—who carried out the new design process integrating IVR technologies—and the grades earned by students in the same course during the 2022–2023 academic year, who used the traditional manual sketching methodology.

It is important to note that the grades for both groups followed a normal distribution, which implies that a t-test for independent samples could be used to compare the grades between the two groups.

Table 3. Grades by academic year on Graphic Engineering subject.

Group	Mean (Std. Desv.)
Academic Year 2023–2024 (n = 21)	7.91 (1.33)
Academic Year 2022–2023 (n = 35)	6.12 (1.04)

presents the descriptive statistics of the grades (on a 10-point scale) that each group obtained as an average in the Graphic Engineering course.

The comparative result (t = 3.152; p-value = 0.0032) indicates that there is a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p-value < 0.05). In other words, the group that employed IVR technologies during the design process achieved significantly higher grades. Consequently, we can assert that this group demonstrated higher academic performance.

6. Discussion

Third-year students have been honing their technical skills throughout their five previous semesters in the Mechanical Engineering program. In this subject (graphic engineering), spatial abilities, teamwork, creative design, and problem-solving skills are especially important. By the sixth semester (third year of Mechanical Engineering), students have achieved a comparable level of the technical skills mentioned, and of course, of knowledge. The participants who had not previously used a VR/AR headset quickly adapted during the initial minutes of use, as this new generation is accustomed to interacting with various devices and video game console systems. The touch controllers of the Oculus Quest 2 are very intuitive and user-friendly. Their ergonomic design, coupled with well-placed buttons and joysticks, enhances the immersive experience. The sensitivity of the Oculus controllers allows the system to detect finger movements merely by proximity, enabling users to see their real hand movements in the virtual environment. In AR settings using the Hololens 2, no controllers are needed; users interact directly with applications and holograms using their hands and fingers. This natural interaction with 3D elements and holograms is further enriched by voice command capabilities.

This work reveals that the use of immersive virtual reality and augmented reality tools in the conceptual design phase leads to high levels of user acceptance and satisfaction. Key findings indicate that most students found the 3D drawing tools to be intuitive, easy to learn, and effective in enhancing spatial understanding. It is evident that designing through IVR enables users to gain a more comprehensive perception of both interior and exterior design aspects compared to traditional sketching methods. Furthermore, IVR is recognized as a valuable tool for understanding designs prior to construction.

The results strongly suggest that IVR can significantly improve the design process by enabling real-time interaction, immediate feedback, and a holistic comprehension of spatial relationships. In essence, the technology not only meets the objectives of enhancing creative design processes but also aligns with another study’s research goal concerning the educational impact of interactive virtual environments [41,42,43]. Consequently, it supports the proposal to introduce a new working methodology for the development of the conceptual phase in industrial and architectural design.

The findings of this study are consistent with and extend the previous research.

Yildirim and Akyol [36] found that the contribution of IVR sketching to 3D thinking was very beneficial, with a mean score of 4.6; this characterization can be compared with the mean responses to three of our questions (Q1_1, Q1_13, Q1_14). Their average rating for gaining new perspectives in the design generation process was 3.3, which is lower than 4.75—the average score for Q2_7—in our study, where participants considered IVR a useful tool for pre-construction design. This difference is likely due to the fact that the architectural form we proposed to sketch was easier to sketch than the sleep capsule used by Yildirim and Akyol. They reported that the benefits of understanding true spatial scale through VR drawing received an average score of 4.6, which is comparable to our finding for Q2_1, with an average of 4.35. Additionally, the usability of VR sketching in the early stages of design was rated at 4.2 points by them, which is similar to the mean of Q1_3 and Q1_6 (4.18) in our study. Finally, they reported an average score of 3.5 for the practicality of obtaining models through IVR sketching, which is close to our average for Q1_5 (3.85).

Some of our findings are aligned with the work of Machuca et al. [36], who found that IVR fosters exploratory design experiences that enhance student learning and creativity. They also resonate with the findings of Tekmen-Araci and Kuys [22], who emphasize the integration of creativity in design education through interactive tools—a notion supported by the high satisfaction and ease-of-use ratings observed in this study. While Chaniaud et al. [38] note that traditional drawing may be more accessible for beginners, requiring specific visuospatial skills for VR drawing. Nevertheless, the results in our study suggest that students perceived the VR drawing tools as easy to use, in our opinion, with an accessible learning curve, even users with minimal prior experience. This may indicate that the tools used in this study (Figmin XR, Gravity Sketch, and Graffiti 3D) are particularly intuitive or that the brief training provided was effective. Moreover, the study by Zhang et al. [40] found that VR sketching improved spatial perception and transformed thinking styles, which is consistent with the positive evaluation of IVR’s capacity to enhance real-time visualization and redesign.

Studies such as Banaei et al. [44] have shown that architectural interior forms can impact the affective states of inhabitants, and that virtual reality tours may be used to study the emotional responses elicited by architectural spaces. This work further underscores that IVR can overcome the challenges that students and professionals often face when representing ideas using traditional 2D or 3D tools. The research and practical experience detailed herein not only confirm these observations but also demonstrate that even participants with minimal prior experience can quickly adapt to VR/AR environments and benefit from them, reinforcing the growing body of evidence advocating for the integration of immersive technologies in educational and professional settings.

Among the notable strengths of this study is its comprehensive methodology, which combines theoretical training, immersive VR/AR application, CAD modeling, and virtual tours to capture both quantitative and qualitative feedback. The use of specifically designed ad hoc surveys allowed for the collection of opinions on both the VR/AR drawing tools and the sensations elicited by the designed spaces. The involvement of mechanical engineering students with a defined profile adds specificity to the findings within the context of engineering education. Moreover, the inclusion of 3D drawing tools in virtual environments offered an innovative approach to teaching, effectively measuring students’ perceptions of their designs. This multi-phase approach has allowed a detailed analysis of user interaction and the efficiency of the proposed design process. However, certain limitations of this work must be acknowledged. The study sample is relatively small (although sufficient for the type of study/experiment carried out) and drawn from a specific course, which may not fully represent the broader population of engineering students, professionals from various engineering fields, architects, or design professionals. Additionally, although most participants adapted quickly to the technology due to the defined participant archetype, variability in technical skills and prior exposure to VR/AR could influence the generalizability of the results. Future studies should address these potential biases.

The implications of this research are twofold. Theoretically, the results contribute to the literature on the use of immersive technologies in education by supporting the idea that IVR can significantly enhance spatial understanding, idea communication, and student engagement during the critical conceptual design phase. These factors suggest that the cognitive processes involved when designers work in IVR environments lead to a deeper understanding of design, thereby transforming traditional methods of conceptual design in both educational and professional contexts. The distinct cognitive processes engaged may foster improvements in creative skills and problem-solving abilities, indicating that IVR not only enhances learning but also alters the way designers interact with their projects.

Practically, this work offers a viable framework for integrating VR/AR drawing tools into the curricula of engineering and architecture programs, which could benefit the conceptual design process and create more engaging and effective learning environments. The positive reception among students indicates that these technologies can be scaled and adapted for use in academic as well as professional design settings. This paves the way for innovative teaching methods that connect theoretical knowledge with practical application—for instance, visualizing and experimenting with designs before construction, early design evaluation and error detection, involving stakeholders in the design process, and obtaining valuable feedback.

Future research could explore how prior training and the level of technical competence affect the effectiveness of IVR in learning. Additionally, it would be beneficial to investigate other software and its influence on different areas of design, as well as to conduct longitudinal studies that assess the long-term impact of IVR-based education on graduates’ professional careers. Expanding the sample to include students from various educational institutions, experience levels, and genders would provide a more exhaustive and robust analysis. Similar studies could extend beyond the realm of ephemeral architecture and engineering to evaluate the applicability of IVR and AR tools in other disciplines, thereby assessing their interdisciplinary potential. In this regard, exploring the combination of IVR with emerging technologies such as generative artificial intelligence to further enhance the design process is a topic that warrants special attention.

Finally, as 3D drawing tools in VR are relatively new and continuously evolving, further investigation into specific aspects of these tools—especially for novice users—is necessary to ensure an even smoother learning experience.

7. Conclusions

The analysis of the surveys on the use of virtual reality tools in 3D sketching activities and virtual tours yields several key conclusions regarding the acceptance, perception, and utility of this technology in educational contexts:

• High Acceptance of Virtual Reality as an Educational Tool

In both surveys, a significant majority of the participants positively valued the virtual reality experience. The tools were recognized as intuitive, easy to use, and effective in enhancing the understanding of designs—both in 3D sketching and in the virtual exploration of architectural spaces. This suggests that virtual reality holds great potential for integration into educational settings.

• Enhanced Understanding and Perception of Design

Virtual reality proved to be a powerful tool for facilitating a comprehensive understanding of designs. In the case of the virtual tour, 100% of the participants noted that it helped them understand the design before its construction, while 57.1% of those involved in 3D sketching considered the technology to be superior to traditional methods such as paper sketching. Additionally, specific characteristics—such as the perception of shapes, colors, materials, and visual impact—were highly valued.

• Accessible Learning Curve

In both experiences, participants indicated that learning to use the tool was neither mentally nor physically demanding. This was reflected in the 3D sketching survey, where 81% stated that the initial learning process was straightforward. Despite the fact that many students had little or no previous experience with the technology (66.7% in the virtual tour), they were able to use it with ease, demonstrating its accessibility even for novice users.

• Benefits for Interdisciplinary Teaching

The results suggest that virtual reality can benefit students from both technical disciplines, such as Mechanical Engineering, and artistic fields, such as Fine Arts. The tool not only enhances the perception and understanding of design but also serves as a bridge between theory and practice across different areas of knowledge.

• Areas for Improvement

Although the results are overwhelmingly positive, there are aspects that could be enhanced. In the 3D sketching survey, 14.3% of the participants indicated that they might require technical assistance, suggesting that more extensive initial guidance could optimize the experience. Furthermore, in the comparison with traditional methods, 9.4% of the participants (just 2 students) did not consider virtual reality to be superior to manual sketching, pointing to the need to better demonstrate its advantages in certain contexts.

• Overall Satisfaction and Potential of VR/AR Tools

In both surveys, the satisfaction levels with the use of the tool were high. In the 3D sketching activity, 85.7% of the participants were satisfied with the system, while in the virtual tour, the same rate (85.7%) valued virtual reality as a useful tool in architectural design education. These results indicate that virtual reality is not only well accepted but is also perceived as a tool that can add significant value in educational environments.

Overall, we consider that the implementation of virtual reality tools in design activities has been perceived as both positive and promising. The results underscore their potential to enhance learning, foster innovation, and provide a more immersive and practical experience for students, with a notable learning curve that also involves and integrates other disciplines. Nevertheless, further exploration is necessary to optimize the use of this technology in both classroom and professional settings in order to maximize its impact on education and design.