Co-Created Virtual Reality (VR) Modules in Landscape Architecture Education: A Mixed Methods Study Investigating the Pedagogical Effectiveness of VR

Abstract

Extended Reality (XR), an umbrella term for Augmented Reality (AR), Mixed Reality (MR), and Virtual Reality (VR) technology, has the potential to enhance experiential learning and to close educational gaps, but the implementation of XR in higher education requires the competency of instructors, as well as guidance. In the fields of design (architecture, landscape architecture, interior design, urban planning, etc.), XR brings exciting opportunities to students for design visualization and presentation. However, how the XR-based immersive experience may supplement design learning is relatively underexplored and under-researched. This study investigates the role of co-created (with learners) VR modules in landscape architecture education, with a specific focus on landscape construction through an exercise focused on the construction detail of the iconic benches in the High Line Park (NY). This study aims to delineate the pedagogical possibilities and challenges of the implementation of XR in landscape architecture (LA) curricula, thereby offering LA educators actionable insights and frameworks for utilizing the new learning tools. Implementing a mixed methods approach, this research engaged undergraduate students (n = 16) to assess the pedagogical value of XR among five types of instructional modes—lectures, hand sketching, 2D drawing, 3D modeling, and a fully immersive co-created VR experience showcasing students’ work. A focus group discussion with graduate students (n = 7) provided additional qualitative insights. The results indicate that, while all instructional materials were received positively, the 3D modeling was rated most effective in the learning process by the students, due to its versatility as a foundation and its overlap/integration with the other instructional modes e.g., hand sketching, 2D drawing, and VR creation. Although VR-aided teaching creates an immersive learning experience allowing learners to gain a clearer understanding of the learning topics, positioning it primarily as a visualization/presentation tool may limit its utility. This study concludes that repositioning VR at different stages of the educational framework may result in enhanced engagement and, by extension, improve its pedagogical effectiveness. These findings contribute to the ongoing discourse on the optimal integration of emerging XR tools and technology in LA education and other design disciplines and afford new avenues for future research.

1. Introduction

Extended Reality (XR), the overarching term encompassing Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Mixed Reality (MR), has been steadily gaining traction in higher education. The intrinsic, immersive learning environments with gamified interactivity offered by XR allow institutions to leverage the technology to deliver complex concepts to students in a tangible manner. As XR technology provides a simulated environment replicating a real-world scenario, it can enhance the interactivity and connectivity experienced by educators and learners [1,2]. XR technology, specifically VR and MR, has been shown to improve abilities in areas like geometric analysis, creativity, and model visualization, which are beneficial for subjects that require a hands-on visualization of complex concepts [3]. This indicates that disciplines like medicine, archaeology, geography, architecture, engineering, landscape architecture, urban design, interior design, etc., could benefit from integrating XR technology within their educational framework. Furthermore, using XR technology in higher education can provide economic and environmental sustainability by reducing the environmental impact of travel [4] related to educational fieldtrips and site visits. XR for higher education, therefore, represents a paradigm shift, not just a technological enhancement in education delivery methods. This research adds to our understanding of how XR-aided methods can enhance the higher education learning experiences in landscape architecture and aims to explore the effective integration of XR in the traditional learning framework.

1.1. Extended Reality (XR)

Collectively, VR, AR, and MR technologies represent a spectrum known as the reality–virtuality spectrum, which integrates elements of both real and virtual worlds offering different levels of immersion and interaction between the two [5]. Figure 1 below shows a version of the reality–virtuality spectrum.

AR overlays digital information, such as text, images, or video, onto the physical world. It enhances the user’s perception of reality by superimposing virtual elements onto their view of the real world, enriching the user’s interaction with their environment without completely replacing it with a virtual experience [8]. MR merges real and virtual worlds to produce new environments and visualizations where physical and digital objects co-exist and interact in real-time. It covers a continuum from AR to Augmented Virtuality (AV), offering a more immersive experience than AR alone. MR enables users to see the real world while also seeing believable, virtual objects, allowing for interaction with both physical and virtual items and environments [9]. VR creates a completely immersive digital environment that replaces the user’s real-world environment. It immerses the user in a fully artificial digital environment, enabling interaction with simulated visuals and entities [10]. Hardware-wise, both VR and MR utilize immersive headsets and hand-navigating devices. AR uses cell phones, tablets, etc., with screens to show augmented scenarios to users in real time [11]. XR is seen as a new paradigm in human–computer interaction, predominantly realized through AR and VR [12], and serves as a bridge between the real and digital worlds [13].

1.2. Historical and Present Context of XR Technology in Higher Education

The evolution of VR since the 1960s went through significant advancements. Historical landmarks include the 1962 Sensorama by Morton Heilig, which offered 3D visuals and auditory, tactile, and scent stimuli [14], and the 1961 development of the first Head-Mounted Device (HMD), “The Sword of Damocles” by Ivan Sutherland [15]. These technologies have significantly progressed, offering immersive experiences that were once deemed impossible.

The research related to XR in higher education has been growing since 1997, indicating a rising interest in this technology’s potential applications and benefits [16]. Integrating XR technology in higher education began with the medical and healthcare curricula, where issues like authenticity, validity, and reliability in the assessment process were central to the early adoption of the technology [17]. However, the journey was not limited to only one discipline, and, over the past 20 years, diverse disciplines (even music education) have been facing paradigm shifts due to the integration of XR technology [18]. The academic context of XR technology shows that its advent has peaked in the last two decades (Figure 2).

A similar trend could be observed in GitHub repositories, where the number of XR-related academic and non-academic projects reached 15,000 in 2020, whereas it was only 51 in 2010 [20]. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the heightened need to integrate technological interventions into the educational framework [21]. However, the adoption of XR technology has been slower than expected, with the need for a critical review and the synthesis of prior research [22].

1.3. Challenges in Implementation

Despite recognizing the benefits of XR in experiential learning, educators face challenges in implementing these technologies. These challenges include issues related to teachers, students, and technology [23] and ethical concerns such as data privacy and misuse [24]. This indicates a need for more support and guidance in XR integration [25], showing a gap in the body of the literature:

(a)

Technological and Design Issues:

Challenges in the design of XR technology, including sensitivity issues in trigger recognition, ergonomic concerns, visual fatigue (eye strain, dizziness, and discomfort) [26], and errors in GPS, can be frustrating for students. This aspect of XR technology requires careful consideration to ensure its usability and effectiveness in educational settings [27].

(b)

Cognitive Overload:

While offering immersive learning experiences, XR technology can also lead to cognitive overload. Factors such as sound and content difficulty, as well as prolonged linear and angular motion, can significantly influence VR sickness or Virtual Reality-Induced Symptoms and Effects (VRISEs), which may result in headaches and eyestrain [28,29]. Research showed that VRISEs may cause reduced cognitive performance [30]. This issue adds to the limitation of VR usage in classroom usage for prolonged periods.

(c)

Insufficient Teacher Training:

A significant limitation in using XR effectively in education is the lack of sufficient teacher training. Educators may not possess the necessary skills or knowledge to effectively utilize these technologies, limiting the technologies’ potential benefits in enhancing educational experiences [31].

(d)

Lack of Longitudinal Data:

In terms of collaboration between different disciplines, as well as between subject topics within a discipline, for the effective implementation of XR within the classroom, longitudinal data are essential. However, the topic lacks longitudinal data. To better guide instructors, more longitudinal studies, such as Takala et al. [32], are needed to understand the long-term impact and potential challenges of integrating XR into higher education [33]. This is challenging as different disciplines use different learning methods and styles. Furthermore, collaboration between instructors to see the impact of XR integration becomes a difficult task during a running semester. This study is a small step towards a long-term iterative process, which, over time, would try to test the effectiveness of different components of XR in the discipline of landscape architecture.

1.4. Why Integrate XR in Landscape Architecture Education?

Understanding the role and potential of XR in higher education, especially in design disciplines like landscape architecture or architecture, is crucial in today’s rapidly evolving educational landscape. XR has been proven to improve various aspects of the learning process, such as engagement, retention, and skill development.

Landscape architecture learning and design development often require the complex site-specific understanding of culture, ecology, indigeneity, perception, and seasonality, which occurs outside the studio [34]. In contrast, the traditional mode of landscape architecture education has long been studio-based [35]. The discipline demands that learners understand the intricate patterns, processes, and scales that shape a landscape. With its capability to provide a comprehensive view of landscapes, XR can aid in integrating these pattern–process–scale perspectives in landscape design [36]. Sirror, Abdelsattar, Dwidar, and Derbali reviewed VR applications in various fields of architecture education, confirming that adopting VR and AR technologies advanced student learning [37]. According to their findings, incorporating VR allows for exploratory learning, where students can experiment with design solutions in a risk-free environment, and simulate real-world scenarios that might not be otherwise accessible. Research suggests that VR technology, when used in architecture education, particularly in building construction courses, enhances the learning experience by providing students with information on building construction, while mitigating risk factors, achieving enjoyment, and integrating with other courses [38]. This supports the argument for incorporating VR into architecture and landscape architecture education to foster a collaborative and immersive learning environment.

This study utilizes the immersive aspect of XR, enabling students to become immersed in design on a real scale, instead of experiencing it on a flat monitor or in print media, and investigates how this utility transforms the students’ thinking about design in terms of the details of the construction.

Studies have shown that the integration of XR in design teaching and learning can meaningfully impact learning outcomes. For example, Kerr and Lawson developed an AR prototype, “Master of Time,” to educate first-year landscape architecture students and non-designers on the foundational principles of landscape architecture [34], underscoring the potential of AR to transform learning experiences through digital storytelling and situated experiences and suggesting a new pedagogical approach in landscape architecture education. In another study, Aydın and Aktas [39] emphasize the integration of VR infrastructure in the design of architecture education, highlighting how VR-enhanced design studios can be assessed from a student-centered perspective through exploring software solutions for creating complex virtual environments, indicating that interacting with VR tools in architecture design education can be both attractive and stimulating, despite some challenges related to software complexity. Similarly, this study aims to explore the role and position of XR in teaching and learning the construction of landscape architecture.

Collaboration is an important part of landscape education skills and competencies [40]. The integration of co-created VR projects in architecture and landscape architecture education is crucial for fostering collaborative learning environments, giving students opportunities to work together in virtual spaces. This allows for enhancing the design process by facilitating collaboration and creativity [41]. El-Jarn in his study concludes that, by minimizing the constraint of distance between designers, XR technology enhances creative expression through increased opportunities for a method of co-creation. Wang and Sun [42] investigated student engagement and focused attention on VR co-created environments, finding that VR-based co-creation can significantly enhance emotional engagement. As architecture and landscape architecture education have many similarities in their teaching and learning, this study explores the role of immersive, co-created VR experiences in enhancing formal landscape architecture education and investigates whether similar student engagement can be generated by this XR integration. It also investigates the optimal approach for integrating XR technology within traditional educational frameworks, utilizing mixed methods research techniques. This approach aligns this research with five key areas for future research to enhance the universal design of XR as outlined by Simon-Liedtke et al.: (1) enhancing co-creation processes, (2) recognizing and comprehending obstacles, (3) creating strategies to overcome these challenges, (4) promoting standardization efforts, (5) formulating methods and tools for assessment [43].

2. Theoretical Framework

Integrating XR technology in educational frameworks aligns with different learning theories. These theories provide a foundation for understanding how learning and teaching in landscape architecture could be enhanced with the help of XR. The landscape architecture educational framework, as well as some critical learning theories that align with the usage of immersive technology, are discussed below.

2.1. Landscape Architecture Educational Framework

To discuss the landscape architecture educational framework, our focus will be on two pivotal components: Carl Steinitz’s six-level framework that organizes landscape design problems and the learning outcomes defined by the Landscape Architectural Accreditation Board (LAAB). These elements together furnish the structure for landscape architecture education, accentuating the seamless fusion of theoretical insights with practical skills and capabilities.

2.1.1. Carl Steinitz’s Six-Level Framework

Carl Steinitz presents a six-level framework [44], which is pivotal in landscape architecture for its systematic approach towards design and planning. This framework comprises the following:

(a)

Representation: identifying key elements within a landscape, encapsulating physical, biological, and cultural attributes.

(b)

Process Models: understanding the dynamic processes influencing landscape changes over time.

(c)

Evaluation: evaluating the landscape based on diverse criteria to ascertain its significance and potential concerns.

(d)

Change Models: forecasting the landscape’s future state through planned interventions or changes.

(e)

Impact Simulation: employing models to envisage the impact of potential changes on the landscape.

(f)

Decision Support: providing stakeholders with the analytical tools needed for informed landscape-related decisions.

Incorporating Steinitz’s framework into educational programs allows students to be equipped with an analytical and strategic skill set vital for tackling complex issues within landscape architecture. It fosters the ability to methodically deconstruct and scrutinize landscapes, paving the way for sustainable, innovative design solutions attuned to ecological, societal, and cultural considerations.

2.1.2. Learning Outcomes Defined by the LAAB

The Landscape Architectural Accreditation Board (LAAB) is an independent committee responsible for reviewing and accrediting landscape architecture programs across the United States and its territories. As a component of the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), the LAAB is acknowledged by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) as the designated accrediting authority for the first professional landscape architecture programs [45]. The LAAB outlines the learning outcomes that must be covered by landscape architecture institutions. These learning outcomes are divided into two sets: (a) knowledge, and (b) skills and competencies [40].

For knowledge, a comprehensive grasp of design principles, historical and theoretical landscape architecture foundations, ecosystems, climate science, resilience, legal frameworks, and professional practice is emphasized by the LAAB. This knowledge base enriches students’ understanding of landscape architecture’s broad spectrum, covering its artistic, scientific, and ethical realms.

Skills and competencies delineated by the LAAB encompass assessment, design and construction, effective communication, and an understanding of construction materials and methods [40]. Advanced outcomes focus on research and innovation—preparing students to creatively apply their academic knowledge to real-world dilemmas with technical adeptness.

The landscape architecture educational framework, shaped by Carl Steinitz’s insightful framework and the comprehensive learning outcomes set by the LAAB, orchestrates a robust approach to preparing students for their future professional roles.

2.1.3. Possibilities of Incorporating XR in Landscape Architecture Education

Framework

One of the primary advantages of XR is its ability to provide a comprehensive understanding of the physical, biotic, climatic, and cultural contexts of the project site. A study on integrating deep learning and XR technologies in construction engineering reported that XR facilitates an immersive experience that combines visual and audio-based classification, automated hazard detection, and context awareness [46]. Anderson et al. (2020), in their framework for developing alternative reality environments for engineering complex systems, discuss how XR can provide guidelines for implementing desired human sensory experiences [47]. This aspect is crucial in landscape architecture, where communicating complex concepts and design methodologies is essential for collaboration and client understanding.

The immersive exploration capabilities of XR technology are potentially impactful in landscape architecture. The technology allows the immersive exploration of designed objects in 3D space, integrating with screen-based tools for easier note-taking and integration [48]. The ability to manipulate virtual objects and give feedback in virtual and augmented reality environments [49] enhances this collaborative experience.

A key aspect of XR’s impact on landscape architecture is its ability to enhance training simulations and context awareness. As highlighted by Lee et al. (2022), XR technology enhances training simulations and visual and audio-based classification, automated hazard detection, and context awareness in head-mounted displays [46]. This advancement is crucial for understanding complex construction processes, enabling learners to visualize and interact with construction scenarios in a safe and controlled environment. As noted in the previous point, Misius (2021) notes that features of XR are particularly beneficial in landscape architecture construction for engaging various stakeholders in the learning process, ensuring that diverse viewpoints and expertise are considered [50].

Another critical contribution of XR technology in landscape architecture is its ability to optimize biomass density and generate comprehensive sustainability evaluations of urban landscapes. XR enables a single digital workflow to produce data-rich evaluations for assessing the environmental impact of landscape designs [51]. XR’s capability to show data in a perceptual context ensures that methods contribute positively to environmental sustainability, aiding the collaborative decision-making process [52].

In summary, the integration of XR within the landscape architecture educational framework offers a multi-dimensional tool for enhancing both the learning experience and the practical application of landscape design.

2.2. Constructivist Principles

Constructivist principles [53] highlight the importance of active engagement with the environment in the learning process. Constructivism posits that learners construct their own knowledge by interacting with the world around them, rather than by passively receiving information. This principle can be applied to XR experiences by allowing learners to actively engage with content and to explore and problem-solve within digital virtual environments. By offering dynamic, interactive experiences, XR can foster a sense of ownership over the learning process, enabling students to develop a deeper understanding of the material. The technology allows them to actively control their learning strategies, bolstering the interactivity and connectivity experienced by students and faculty [2].

Constructivist-related learning theories, such as situated cognition, activity theory, experiential learning, anchored instruction, and authentic learning, can be effectively utilized in educational technology and distance education, including XR applications [54]. These theories support learning as the active, contextualized process of constructing knowledge, rather than acquiring it. XR’s capability to simulate real-world environments and scenarios aligns well with these theories, making it a powerful tool in constructivist learning approaches. Situated cognition theory emphasizes the importance of context in learning [55]. This theory posits that knowledge is best acquired when embedded in authentic, meaningful, and relevant contexts. This theory suggests that effective XR experiences should present information in context-rich environments that promote deep understanding. Understanding and applying constructivist principles in the context of XR in higher education is crucial. It aligns with the interactive and immersive nature of XR and supports students’ active engagement for a more meaningful learning experience.

2.3. XR-ED Framework of Yang et al.

The XR-ED framework outlines the design space in six dimensions for educational XR systems [56]:

(a)

Physical Accessibility: This refers to the ease of access to XR technologies for all users, considering various physical abilities and limitations. Ensuring XR systems are physically accessible to a broad range of learners is vital for inclusive education.

(b)

Scenario: This dimension focuses on the content and context of the XR-based learning environment. It encompasses the design of virtual environments and simulations that provide realistic or imaginative scenarios for learners to explore and learn from.

(c)

Social Interactivity: This dimension emphasizes the importance of social interaction in XR learning environments. This includes learner-learner and learner–instructor collaboration and communication within the XR space.

(d)

Agency: This relates to the level of control and autonomy learners have within the XR environment. Agency allows learners to make decisions, solve problems, and direct their learning paths, which can enhance engagement and motivation.

(e)

Virtuality Degree: This dimension refers to the spectrum of virtuality in XR systems, ranging from completely immersive virtual environments to augmented overlays of the physical world. The choice of virtuality degree should align with the educational goals and learning outcomes.

(f)

Assessment: This dimension focuses on strategies and tools for evaluating learner performance and progress within XR environments. Effective assessment methods are crucial for providing feedback and guiding the learning process.

This framework helps understanding of how XR can be effectively integrated into educational settings [56]. It facilitates novel interactions between physical and digital realms, enhancing learning engagement and accessibility [57] while exploring productivity and trends in sustainable education development [58]. The framework supports the development of educational technology, considering content, pedagogy, and technology [59], and aids in understanding the educational needs of different generations [2]. It also evaluates end-user acceptability and value in XR adoption [60], promotes innovation in teaching and learning [25], and identifies collaborative learning systems for further development [61].

Additionally, it assists in building adaptive instructional guidance systems [62], improves usability and user acceptance [63], addresses research gaps in simulation-based learning, and supports sustainable development in learning and education [64]. The framework also helps educators select the appropriate tools and technology for various educational outcomes [65] and supports instruction-oriented and learner-centered activities [56]. It strengthens positive attitudes towards learning [66] and, when combined with frameworks like E3XR, helps analyze XR regarding ethical aspects and educational efficacy [67]. This multifaceted role of the XR-ED framework underscores its significance in enhancing educational experiences, promoting innovation, and addressing the evolving needs of learners and educators in the realm of XR.

2.4. Mishra and Koehler’s Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK)

This framework is crucial for the thoughtful pedagogical use of technology in teaching. It emphasizes integrating technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge, as well as their underlying complex interactions, which is essential for the effective implementation of XR in education [68,69,70]. TPCK helps student teachers develop pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) while integrating technology. This is crucial for the implementation of XR as it ensures educators can effectively blend their subject expertise with technological tools [71]. Rossi and Angeli (2018) note that TPCK guides teachers’ cognition about the integration of technology in teaching and learning. This guidance is necessary for educators to effectively incorporate XR in their teaching methodologies [39]. Research has shown that TPCK bridges the gap between educational technology and the situational educational process, promoting effective technology use and combining classical pedagogical strategies with contemporary technologies, which is essential for the seamless integration of XR in education [72].

3. Materials and Methods

This study was embedded within an undergraduate construction course in landscape architecture, specifically designed to explore the integration of Extended Reality (XR) technology in educational frameworks. The course enrolled undergraduate students, who were pivotal in experiencing and co-creating the educational intervention with a VR experience. The choice of participants aimed to capture the perspectives of those directly engaged in the learning process influenced by XR. Out of twenty-seven students present in the undergraduate construction course, sixteen students consented to be part of the research (n = 16). In justifying the small sample size of 16 participants for the experiment, it is essential to acknowledge the context of landscape architecture education within Texan universities. The Department of Landscape Architecture at institutions such as Texas Tech University, Texas A&M University, and the University of Texas in Austin typically houses between twenty to thirty undergraduate students. Considering this programmatic reality of landscape enrollment and class sizes in the region, the sample size (n = 16) was considered optimum for this research, and a qualitative component was added to collect in-depth data from this limited sample of learners.

The primary educational objective of the intervention was to enhance students’ understanding of the details of construction through a progressive, experiential learning approach. This objective was realized through the recreation and reinterpretation of a significant architectural element—the iconic bench from the famous High Line Park in New York. The unique blend of concrete, wood, and steel and the ‘peel-up’ rise/curvature of concrete made these benches ideal for teaching certain construction details in landscape architecture, especially the blend of different landscape construction materials (e.g., wood and concrete). This element served as a tangible focus for students’ learning and creative exploration. The course was structured to guide students from traditional learning methods towards a novel, co-created VR exhibition space, thereby juxtaposing conventional and technologically advanced educational paradigms.

Later, the students were given an online survey form for data collection regarding the relevance of educational materials and likeability. Alongside this, a group of graduate students (n = 7) who were not part of the co-creation process experienced the VR module and gave their feedback through a focus group study. The number of participants for the qualitative study was considered optimum allowing a diverse range of opinions and ensuring each participant had the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the discussion [73]. The research methodology diagram (Figure 3) illustrates the phases of this study and Figure 4 shows students’ works showcasing their understanding of the construction details of the iconic High Line Park benches.

3.1. Traditional Educational Modules

The course LARC2332: LA Construction and Administration II was designed to encompass a blend of traditional and innovative teaching methods, structured into four sequential phases.

(a)

Class Lectures and Reading Materials:

This phase involved comprehensive lectures focusing on the principles of construction detailing and techniques for working drawings. The lectures were supplemented with a curated selection of reading materials, including case studies directly relevant to the High Line bench project. This phase aimed to establish a solid theoretical foundation for the students.

(b)

Hand Sketching of Construction Details:

In this phase, students engaged in hand sketching, exploring their creativity through freehand and scaled drawings. This exercise was about replicating existing construction details and encouraged students to ideate and envision their own unique interpretations of how the High Line benches were built. This phase was crucial for developing students’ conceptual thinking and design skills.

(c)

2D CAD Drawing for Working Drawings:

Transitioning from hand sketches to digital formats, students used CAD software to refine their ideas into professional drawings. This phase emphasized technical skills such as layer management, spatial organization in paper space, layout, and printing in Autodesk AutoCAD. When students redrew their sketches in CAD, the accuracy of the (computer-aided) dimensions/scales contributed to their learning/understanding and removed the inaccuracies of the hand sketches. This process helped to bridge the gap between conceptual sketches and practical, executable design drawings [74].

(d)

3D Modeling for Enhanced Spatial Understanding:

The final phase in traditional modules involved the 3D modeling of the construction details using Rhinoceros 3D or Sketchup. This phase enhanced students’ spatial understanding and allowed them to visualize their designs in a three-dimensional context. The 3D models created in this phase were later integral to co-creating the VR exhibition space, providing a direct link between the traditional and XR-based educational methods.

3.2. Integration of the VR Technology

The XR intervention in this research allowed students to co-create an immersive VR exhibition space where their versions of the High Line bench construction details were showcased. This phase was designed to synthesize the skills and knowledge acquired in the previous stages, enabling them to be applied in an innovative XR environment. The exhibits consisted of detailed 3D models dissecting the High Line benches in digital space and the annotation of the construction details.

3.2.1. VR Module Development

Students were tasked with transforming their 3D models into detailed, exploded views. These models were then annotated to enhance understanding and formatted for integration into a VR environment. This process required technical skills and knowledge of the design elements to communicate their features in VR.

After the detailed preparation of the models, the next step involved exporting them into a format suitable for VR integration. The researchers strategically organized the 3D models within the virtual exhibition space in the subsequent phase following the export. This arrangement was executed to ensure egalitarian prominence among the models, negating hierarchical differentiation. To facilitate this, the exhibition space was conceived in a circular layout. To enhance the user experience and mitigate the potential monotony of the virtual environment, the exhibition was situated within a more naturalistic setting, complemented by the incorporation of ambient natural sounds—this strategic design choice aimed to foster prolonged user engagement within the space. The primary objective of this VR experience was to afford students a more tangible and interactive means of comprehending the construction details conceptualized by their peers and themselves.

3.2.2. Software Selection

The selection of software tools for this study was a critical decision driven by the need to balance versatility, user-friendliness, and compatibility with VR applications. Two primary software choices were made for the 3D modeling: Rhinoceros 3D and Trimble Sketchup. The choice of software depended on their availability and students’ familiarity with them. In addition, they worked seamlessly with the Twinmotion software, which helped create the VR experience.

Twinmotion was employed for the development of the VR environment. Twinmotion was chosen for the environmental rendering due to its real-time rendering capabilities and seamless integration with VR platforms. It enabled the creation of high-quality, immersive environments that could be easily navigated and experienced in VR. Twinmotion’s ability to handle large-scale models with realistic lighting and material effects significantly enhanced the visual quality and realism of the VR exhibition space.

3.2.3. Hardware Selection

The hardware selection focused on head-mounted displays (HMDs) for experiencing the VR environment. The Meta Quest 2’s high-resolution display and built-in audio system provided an immersive and engaging VR experience, crucial for effectively conveying the intricacies of the architectural details.

However, to further enhance the performance of the VR experience (Figure 5), a Quest Link cable was employed. This cable allowed Meta Quest 2 to connect to a computer, leveraging the computer’s processing power to run more complex and detailed VR environments. This setup was particularly beneficial for displaying the detailed 3D models and the sophisticated environmental rendering in Twinmotion. The combination of the standalone capabilities of Meta Quest 2 and the enhanced performance offered by the Quest Link cable provided a versatile and robust solution, balancing performance, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness.

3.3. Data Collection

The VR experience (Figure 6) helped students understand the ideas regarding their own and their cohort’s construction details. To comprehensively assess the impact of the VR-integrated educational framework, a mixed methods approach encompassing both quantitative and qualitative techniques was adopted for the data collection and analysis.

3.3.1. Quantitative Data Collection

The quantitative aspect of this study involved administering an online survey to the sixteen (n = 16) undergraduate students who participated in the co-creation of the VR experience. The first part of the survey questionnaire (Appendix A) was designed to gauge the students’ perceptions of the relevance and effectiveness of each educational component, ranging from traditional lectures to the VR experience. The next part of the survey included Likert scale questions, allowing a nuanced understanding of the students’ preferences and perceptions of the VR technology. A comparative analysis of these responses was instrumental in discerning the relative impact of each educational method, particularly the role of XR technology compared to traditional learning methods.

3.3.2. Qualitative Data Collection

The qualitative part of this study was twofold.

Firstly, a focus group discussion (Figure 7) was conducted with a separate cohort of seven graduate students (n = 7) who were not involved in the VR co-creation process. The number of participants was the recommended number for a focus group discussion [73]. This focus group aimed to garner unbiased feedback on the VR module from the user’s perspective, delving into navigation, scale, the user interface, optimization, and overall usability. The discussion also extended to broader themes, such as the potential of XR technologies in landscape architecture education and their role in fostering community engagement. The discussion lasted for approximately one and a half hours.

The second source of qualitative data was the open text responses from the survey administered to the undergraduate students (n = 16), where students provided detailed feedback on their experiences, highlighting areas of improvement and aspects they found particularly beneficial.

The qualitative data were subjected to thematic analysis, identifying recurring themes and insights that could inform future iterations of XR integration in educational settings.

4. Results

4.1. Assessment of the Relevance of the Learning Material

In the online survey, the participants who took part in the co-creation process of the VR experience were asked questions on the utility of different learning materials in enhancing their comprehension of construction details. The materials encompassed the overall instructional mode: class lectures and readings, sketching, 2D CAD drawing, 3D modeling, and VR experiences. The unanimous response from the students affirmed that each of these five modalities played a significant role in facilitating their understanding, thereby underscoring their relevance in the educational process (Figure 8).

The patterns showed positive traits when examining the impact of the learning materials on the students’ comprehension of the construction details in landscape architecture. When posed with positively framed questions, the students predominantly responded affirmatively, suggesting a high level of agreement with the statements. Conversely, when presented with negatively worded questions, there was a notable trend of disagreement.

Similarly, when asked about the meaningfulness of the learning steps of the process, the students mostly answered positively, highlighting the direct correlation between the structured stages of the educational process and their effectiveness in imparting knowledge of landscape architecture construction (Figure 9).

The results garnered positive feedback in response to the questions about the VR experience. Most participants attested to the user-friendliness of the VR interface, noting minimal difficulties in its operation and affirming the relevance of its design. Furthermore, the participants recognized the VR experience as an apt and effective tool for the teaching and learning of the details of landscape architecture construction, highlighting its suitability in an educational context. This consensus underscores the potential of VR technology as a valuable asset in landscape architecture education (Figure 10).

4.2. Comparative Analysis of Learning Material Preferences

Further inquiry in the survey sought to determine the students’ preferences among the learning materials. The questions evaluated enjoyment, effectiveness in understanding the construction details and sequences, and alignment with the assignment’s learning outcomes (Appendix A).

Our analysis of the responses revealed a pronounced preference for 3D modeling (Figure 11). This preference may be attributed to the versatility of 3D modeling, which allows students to seamlessly integrate forward-thinking approaches (such as presentations and VR experiences) with more traditional methods (like 2D CAD drawing and sketching). The implications of this preference and its underlying reasons call for further discussion and improvements in the integration of XR.

4.3. Understanding User Feedback from the Focus Group Study and the Open Text Responses from the Online Survey

In-vivo coding was employed to code and label the focus group transcript on the importance of the topics. This method codes the exact words or phrases used by participants, providing a more authentic and grounded approach to data analysis. Through an inductive process, the themes were systematically developed so that they reflect the core topics and corresponding responses expressed by the participants [75]. These themes served as primary indicators of the participants’ perceptions and experiences.

Further, the transcripts were assessed by categorizing responses into three distinct assessments: positive (good), negative (bad), and neutral (ambivalent). This assessment was guided by specific criteria, which included the intensity and context of the participants’ statements. Each coded segment was evaluated for its sentiment alignment before being integrated into the broader thematic structure. The complete coding framework is as follows:

Coding Framework

Category 1: Interview Topics

• Understanding of Construction Details;
• Previous Experience with XR;
• AR as an Enhancement;
• Issues with VR Navigation;
• Future Potential;
• New Ideas;
• Comparison with Traditional Learning;
• Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Application;
• Large-Scale Community Participation.

Category 2: Assessment

• Good;
• Bad;
• Ambivalent.

For an in-depth understanding, the themes and assessments were juxtaposed to provide a nuanced understanding of the respondents’ perspective on specific topics. This pairing highlighted how different responses could align with or contrast against the thematic content. Additionally, a comprehensive code line analysis was conducted (Figure 12). This analysis helped to visualize the connections between different topics and themes, revealing how certain discussions evolved and intersected throughout the focus group sessions.

The focus group aimed to elicit detailed and valuable insights that could inform the development of guidelines for future iterations. These captured the participants’ perspectives on the VR experience, any obstacle they faced in terms of the user experience of learning the details of landscape architecture construction, and their potential solutions for resolving these issues. Hence, this process painted a clear picture of the users’ experiences and thoughts, which could be crucial in addressing and resolving issues in subsequent iterations.

The outcomes derived from the open text responses in the online survey, provided by participants engaged in the VR co-creation process (n = 16), offer valuable insights into the facets of the immersive experience they found appealing, as well as the areas requiring enhancement, as detailed in

Table 1. Response to questions on what the participants (n = 16) deemed as useful and what needs improvement in terms of the VR experience.

Which Aspects of the VR Exhibition Space Do You Like the Most? Please Describe.	Which Aspects of the VR Exhibition Space Could Be Improved? Please Describe.
Being able to see everyone’s work was helpful to see how people worked through problems to get the final product.	Maybe being able to walk around with the VR. Space is limited here but it would be nice to be able to walk around and see the exhibition.
The realism and the accurate scaling of the benches, how easy it was to navigate.	Aerial movement, and a lot more options for exploring, but overall, it was a good experience.
Being able to see what constructed in a 3d space and being able to look around	Some of it can appear blurry but that’s more of an equipment issue
I liked getting to see my work in virtual space, very enjoyable.	Saad did a great Job, Well done Saad
The ability to look closely and freely at different components!	The jumpy movement when you moved forward…
Being able to see each detail up close at any angle	N/A
Being able to see all of the components that go into the bench	the way you move
The Jumping around instead of staying in one spot and looking.	The spots you could view the benches, more variations would be cool.
The ability to see Multiple working projects at the same time and in the same space. Also the ability to look closer as you would naturally.	Possibly shakiness of the headset. This is likely user error.
Seeing the super detailed exploded 3d models	N/A
The background colors and sounds enhanced the experience.	I thought everything look perfect.
Vegetation Space
I enjoyed seeing and experiencing my work in the VR space. The details showed differently in VR space than manually navigating it through my computer screen	The only thing that made the VR exhibition space not enjoyable was how it lagged some. While looking around the environment- sometime the screen would lag behind.
I liked the added noise and ambience. Was graphically compelling.	The ability to walk around would help enhance the “reality” of it all. This would of course require a decent amount of space to walk around though.

.

The qualitative data provided insights from both the user’s viewpoint and the collaborative co-creation perspective, illuminating various approaches for integrating XR technology into the landscape educational framework.

4.3.1. Understanding from the Focus Group Study

The thematic analysis of the code lines (Figure 13) that derived from the transcripts of the focus group study involving graduate students (n = 7) who did not participate in the co-creation process revealed two interrelated themes: discussion topics and assessment. The discussion topics elicited diverse perspectives regarding user feedback, providing valuable guidelines for improvement for the next iteration of the XR application development.

• Issues with Understanding Construction Details:

The participants’ responses indicated that VR integration aided clearer understanding of the construction details than conventional media with its inherent immersive capacity:

“…in the experience, we could see that very closely how they’re joined together, basically how they work, to do the actual construction”

“Compared to a 2D drawing, you have a dotted line to draw, which is inside. But if we use the 3D then that’s more easy to interpret, which is like going to be drawn like that and that clear conception of the working drawing of the construction. So that really helps”.

According to the participants, VR provided a unique spatial perspective, helping learners comprehend intricate construction details that can sometimes be lost in traditional 2D representation.

However, there was some negative feedback from the users, where they talked about how the absence of a marker or scale denominator in the VR environment created specific difficulties:

“I think ‘x’ made a really good point that having it to a realistic scale and seeing it really gives you a better understanding of how it’s exploded”.

“…understanding the scale is a bit tough. I felt like that for some reason. Maybe it’s because of different models at different heights. That’s maybe a reason”.

The participants noted that this issue led to a misunderstanding or misconception about the dimensions and the proportional relationships among different elements. The participants suggested that including clear markers and accurate scales would provide a better understanding of the construction details in the VR space.

Another concern regarding the understanding of the construction detail is that the exploded 3D lacked completeness, and a completed model showing the actual form of the bench in discussion would be helpful for a better understanding:

“I think I really like the process. That it shows the joinery detail… but if there can be an image of what it will look like completely… it could be better to understand”.

2.

Issues with VR Navigation

The users’ feedback highlighted issues in the VR exhibition space, specifically regarding navigation and movement mechanics.

“is it possible to include that with that VR experience that you can move the things and assemble them together to like learn the making?”

“I wanted to sometimes take one step back to like, and I had to turn around and click and point, and then the whole thing would fade and then come back”.

“I think you prepared the circular thing to do the whole circle, but when I am in a position, I always lose track of whether I should go left or I should go right?”

The participants sought a more natural and diverse range of movements.

There were reports of some participants experiencing disruptions like lag and shakiness:

“My head was very shaky in the yard just because I guess I have a hard time sitting still”.

Similar concerns were shown about visual and physical discomfort while using the technology:

“complained… About nausea right? They are feeling dizzy”

“Having a screen that close to your eyes causes your eyes to strain after a period of time. It’s it all has to be done in moderation”.

To address these concerns, incorporating various navigation options such as real-world walking, teleportation, or flying could be considered alongside technical enhancements to the VR system to ensure smooth rendering, a comfortable user interface, and improved visual clarity.

The discussion critiqued the design of the exhibition space:

“I think you prepared the circular thing to do the whole circle, but when I am in a position, I always lose track of whether I should go left or I should go right?”

“I could not identify that have I had seen this before or not. So there is no demarcation of it”.

This indicates that the design of the virtual exhibition space should not be circular and should be more intuitive to keep track of the journey inside the experience.

Another issue that occurred in the discussion was the connection with the real world:

“When like we are in the experience, something very virtually we, if we cannot relate the physical space with that, I think that also makes some confusion like experiencing”.

This issue could be addressed by incorporating MR technology, where virtual objects would be placed as an overlay on top of the real world. A thematic analysis of the code lines is shown in Figure 14.

3.

Issues with the Optimization of the Resource: New Ideas

The participants proposed innovative ways to incorporate XR technology into landscape architecture learning and community involvement. They highlighted that this immersive technology could facilitate collaborative learning and a deeper understanding of the construction details:

“It’s easy to communicate with craftsman or the layman, who will actually do the work, so it’s a good, communicative way to show your drawings. Show your details. It’s a good thing”.

Further, XR could engage stakeholders in design projects by offering a real-time, virtual experience of proposed design alterations. Such applications indicate the potential of XR to redefine landscape architecture teaching, supporting a more sustainable and participatory educational environment.

Some of the negative assessments that the participants provided concerned whether the usage of XR at the present state of the technology might not be feasible due to limited resources in terms of hardware and availability, indicating a need to optimize limited resources:

“I think for the construction crew, It’s useful for the construction foreman. But he’s not going to have all 30 or 40 of his guys come into his office and put on the VR so that they can look at it. But it helps him better to go along and check their progress. If he’s able to see it, you know. And so I think that’s like one of the not limitations, just an aspect of how it works in the professional field is at this point”.

The discussion further delved into where XR technology should be used, where it should be avoided, and how simpler and more conventional solutions could replace XR technology. A thematic analysis of the code lines is shown in Figure 15.

4.

Comparison of XR Technology-Aided Learning with Conventional Learning

The participants expressed positive reactions to incorporating XR technology into landscape architecture construction. The discipline of landscape architecture inherently demands an experiential learning approach, and this is precisely where XR technology can play a pivotal role. Utilizing XR to comprehend intricate construction details furnished a more hands-on experience, and some users reported a significant advantage over traditional paper-based learning, which predominantly relies on 2D drawings (as discussed in “issues with understanding construction details”). However, they also proposed that a fusion of XR with conventional methods could produce a more comprehensive understanding instead of relying solely on XR technology:

“But I think that if we can incorporate the line drawings also, so that when we are converting not only the 3D view but also the line drawing or wireframe of that, that will give them more clear conception of what they are seeing in the working drawing, more relatable with what’s going on inside the VR”.

“I don’t think you’d probably need it for every single project. What if that time that you’re spending on that is taken away from something else? So I think this just needs to be something to be more thoughtful about”.

The negative feedback within this segment was mostly centered on incorporating XR technology within existing learning tools as a supplementary tool. The comments also indicated concerns about losing precious core learning time to software skill development, which may divert learners’ attention. A thematic analysis of the code lines is shown in Figure 16.

The participants also felt that this integrated learning process was beneficial to bridge the gap between theory and application:

“I think they go and they end together”

“It’s a good supplement but I would be. careful to just balance. I don’t think you’d probably need it for every single project”

This presents significant potential in an applied field like landscape architecture and any design discipline. A thematic analysis of the code lines is shown in Figure 17.

5.

Community Participation

An exciting but related topic arose through group probing: using XR in large-scale community participation. The users had mixed feedback regarding the issue. One user who had experience with community participatory design noted that visualization does not matter in a large-scale community project:

“I think for a community development or collaboration, beauty or visual end product doesn’t matter that much because in a community. You work more on making the things together, how you influence the design decision, how you make a point of your own, how you think”.

However, the other users indicated that XR could be used in the project’s inception stage rather than visualizing the final product, which would enable the members of the community who do not have any prior knowledge of the visualization of the design to see and interact with the design firsthand. In this topic, another concern was the optimization of resources and the availability of technology:

“For larger communities, it’s going to be hard… people have to wait so many times, so much time to, like, get access to their devices”.

“In a coastal area, I designed a learning space. It’s for the kids who are orphaned at some point in their lives. It would be cool if I could show them before designing the thing. What would be the scenario of your new learning space? Kids will get excited. I mean, for working with the kids, it is kind of a good thing”.

A thematic analysis of the code lines is shown in Figure 18.

6.

Future Potential of XR Technology

The participants also came up with several innovative ideas for using XR as a learning tool in the discipline of landscape architecture, such as adding more interactivity in the learning module, adding visual weight to the virtual elements so that they feel more natural to interact with, creating sandbox-like modules with the opportunity to see the watershed/flowing water, enabling a better understanding of the landform through virtual site visits, etc.:

“…to see the end product, it can give us like understanding that OK we need to change this. We don’t have to go through that whole building process and like and demolish it and rebuild it again; we don’t have to do that type of stuff”.

“a lot of times when we do projects, we don’t have the option of going to the site that we’re going to work on, especially for, like, the Capstone, for the undergraduates. They do something in Colorado or whatever. They don’t go to those sites, so I think that gives them an opportunity to kind of go to the site, especially if they’re doing stuff with like VR or something”.

At one point of discussing the future potential, the participants delved into the technology’s usage in industry and its possibilities in practical use cases:

“…in the industry, you can also use it to explain a client’s work to a client for a client to actually see what exactly he or she is aspiring from. So I feel it’s it’s good”.

“I think it’s a very exciting communication tool both for the student and for the professional. I mean, the landscape takes time, and a much longer period of wait than architecture. So, from a client point of view, if you got the essence of what you are actually paying or going to pay, it’s a very good thing”.

All of this feedback will be valuable for the next iteration of the process. A thematic analysis of the code lines is shown in Figure 19.

4.3.2. Understanding from Qualitative Feedback from Online Survey

The participants who were part of the co-creation process (n = 16) provided helpful information through open text responses on what they saw as beneficial from the VR experience and what needed to be improved.

• What the participants liked about the VR experience:

When asked what the participants liked most about the VR experience, the responses revealed insightful nuances about their perceptions and preferences.

 a.

Immersive Experience: A recurring theme was appreciation for the immersive nature of the VR exhibition space:

“I enjoyed seeing and experiencing my work in the VR space. The details showed differently in VR space than manually navigating it through my computer screen”

“Being able to see what constructed in a 3d space and being able to look around”

“The ability to look closely and freely at different components!”

The participants often highlighted the sense of being ‘in’ the space, suggesting that the VR environment successfully created a sense of presence and engagement. This immersion appeared to be a critical factor in the effectiveness of the VR experience for learning.

 b.

Visualization of Work: Many responses emphasized the value of seeing one’s work within a virtual environment:

“Being able to see each detail up close at any angle”

“I liked getting to see my work in virtual space, very enjoyable”.

“Being able to see all of the components that go into the bench”

“Seeing the super detailed exploded 3d models”

This aspect of the VR experience not only aided students in understanding and appreciating their own work in a new dimension but also provided an opportunity to view their work from different perspectives. It is a testament to how VR technology can enhance learning by providing a more tangible and interactive way to engage with course materials.

 c.

Comparative Learning: The ability to view and compare work with peers in the VR space was frequently mentioned:

“Being able to see everyone’s work was helpful to see how people worked through problems to get the final product”.

“The ability to see multiple working projects at the same time and in the same space”.

This aspect suggested that the VR experience fostered a collaborative and comparative learning environment. The participants could benefit from this by gaining insights from others’ work, fostering a deeper understanding and possibly inspiring creativity and innovation.

 d.

Realism and Scale: The realistic scaling and representation of projects in the VR environment was another highlight:

“The realism and the accurate scaling of the benches, how easy it was to navigate”.

“I liked the added noise and ambiance. Was graphically compelling”.

“The background colors and sounds enhanced the experience”.

This feature seems to have aided participants in better understanding the real-world implications and dimensions of their designs. Such realism is crucial in architecture and landscape architecture education, where spatial awareness and proportion are essential.

Feedback and Interaction: The responses also indicated that participants valued the opportunity for interactive learning and feedback within the VR space. The VR environment might have facilitated more dynamic and immediate feedback on their work, a significant enhancement over traditional learning methods.

In conclusion, the VR experience was well received due to its immersive nature; the ability to visualize and interact with work in a more hands-on manner than traditional methods, which are usually on a computer screen or in print media; the opportunity for comparative learning, realistic scaling, and representation; and the potential for interactive feedback. These aspects collectively underscore the potential of VR as a powerful tool in landscape architecture education, offering unique and effective learning methods that traditional methods might not provide.

2.

What should be improved about the VR experience?

Addressing areas for improvement in the VR exhibition space offered insightful perspectives on how the virtual reality experience could be enhanced for participants.

 a.

Enhanced Interactivity and Mobility: A key theme was the desire for improved interactivity and mobility within the VR space. The participants expressed a need for more freedom of movement, suggesting that the current setup may feel somewhat restrictive:

“Maybe being able to walk around with the VR. Space is limited here but it would be nice to be able to walk around and see the exhibition”.

“Aerial movement, and a lot more options for exploring, but overall, it was a good experience”.

“The jumpy movement when you moved forward…”

“The way you move”

Enhancing these aspects could lead to a more immersive and engaging experience, allowing users to explore and interact with the virtual environment more naturally and intuitively.

 b.

Visual Clarity and Quality: Some responses pointed to issues with visual clarity, such as blurriness:

“Some of it can appear blurry but that’s more of an equipment issue”

This feedback highlights the importance of high-quality graphics and clear visuals in VR. Improving these elements is crucial, as visual fidelity greatly impacts the effectiveness of VR as a learning tool. More precise and detailed visuals would not only make the experience more enjoyable but also more educational, because it would allow for better examination and understanding of the work displayed.

 c.

Realistic and Life-like Experience: An underlying demand existed for a more natural or life-like virtual environment. This involved the visual aspects and the way users interacted with the space and the objects within it:

“The only thing that made the VR exhibition space not enjoyable was how it lagged some. While looking around the environment- sometimes the screen would lag behind”.

A more realistic VR experience could significantly improve the users’ ability to relate the virtual work to real-world scenarios, a critical aspect of landscape architecture education.

 d.

Additional Features and Functionalities: Mentioning “more variations” indicated a desire for a richer feature set within the VR space:

“The spots you could view the benches, more variations would be cool”.

This could include a variety of tools for interaction with the exhibits, different modes of viewing, or even gamification elements to make the experience more engaging. Expanding the range of functionalities would cater to a broader array of learning styles and preferences, potentially enhancing the educational value of the VR space.

The feedback from the participants concerning their preferences and suggestions for improvement in the VR experience provides critical insights for the subsequent phases of the development of XR applications. Additionally, it offers a strategic direction for future research endeavors, ensuring that subsequent studies and developments in XR technology are informed by user experiences and are more effectively tailored to meet educational needs. This user-centric approach to refining XR applications promises to enhance the overall efficacy and engagement of these technologies in landscape architecture education.

5. Discussion

5.1. Prevalence of 3D Modeling and Its Utilization to Increase XR Engagement

When comparing the different learning modes used for landscape architecture (lectures, hand sketches, CAD, 3D, and VR), understanding the preference of students for 3D modeling over the others (Figure 10) can shed light on how XR technology should be integrated into the educational framework. Although the participants expressed a favorable view towards the VR experience and acknowledged its contribution to enhancing the construction learning process (as seen in Section 4.2), it was 3D modeling that emerged as the most preferred modality when comparing the different learning tools (Figure 10). This preference could be attributed to its flexible nature, because 3D modeling enhances the understanding of construction by improving information utilization and reducing mistakes [76], as well as strengthening students’ awareness and ability in construction through virtual design-build projects [77].

The sequential learning process incorporating class lectures, readings, hand sketching, 2D CAD drawing, 3D modeling, and VR co-creation and experience positions VR predominantly as a presentation tool. However, VR has the potential to be integrated into different phases of the learning process [46,47,50]. Previous studies have observed that VR technology enhances learning outcomes and performance [78,79]. Examples of XR interventions in engineering education [80] and kinesiology [81] showed XR technology-related activities increased students’ creativity and motivation to learn, resulting in improvements in activities such as the 3D modeling learning process [82]. These studies indicate that a more integrated approach to using VR in landscape architecture education could yield similar benefits, which aligns with the qualitative discussions (Section 4.2) of this study, where the participants suggested that VR could potentially become an effective learning tool if it overcomes design and optimization issues and incorporates improved interaction modes. This study posits a potential guideline for the side-by-side comparison of different modes of landscape for construction learning, while evaluating the performance of XR integration, allowing for further in-depth iterations of meaningful XR applications in landscape architecture education.

Further research is necessary to validate these suggestions with evidence from longitudinal studies as well as case studies to make the results of this study robust and to explore the optimal integration method of XR technology in the landscape architecture education framework. A long-term multi-phase comparative study could provide valuable insights into how different applications of VR and other digital tools impact student learning and engagement. Such research could contribute significantly to understanding the full potential of XR technologies in landscape architecture.

5.2. Possible Mediators and Moderators

In this section, we attempted to explore the potential variables that lie on the causal pathway between the intervention (the co-created VR experience) and the outcomes (increased learning engagement) and mediate their relationship. We also discussed potential moderators—the variables that may affect the magnitude and direction of the effect of the intervention on outcomes but do not form part of the causal chain linking them. The students’ positive attitude to the VR learning module is consistent with the summary findings of a systematic review [83] of 21 articles reporting experimental findings on the use of head-mounted displays (HMDs) in higher education. This finding is also consistent with prominent previous research [84] that examined the use of VR in landscape teaching. The association between VR-based learning and learners’ motivation/engagement can be explained by several plausible mediators. VR brings gamification elements to landscape learning and gamification has various psychological mediators [85], explaining the higher engagement and enthusiasm from college students (sophomores in our case). VR can create a ‘sense of presence’ through immersion [83]. Furthermore, young people’s general enthusiasm for the latest tools and technology can mediate such behaviors and preferences. Whether such preferences are likely to be moderated by factors like age or gender is relatively unknown and was beyond the scope of our research. We did not find any other study that compared students’ preferences for different learning tools (e.g., lectures, sketches, 2D, 3D, and VR) in a learning continuum/spectrum. Our finding that students identified 3D modeling as the most effective learning tool for the details of landscape construction is likely to be mediated by the versatility of 3D modeling and its direct integration with 2D and VR as a pivotal learning module. Construction can probably be best taught by ‘constructing’, and 3D modeling gave students a hands-on building experience, replicating actual construction.

5.3. Study Limitations

This study is not without its limitations. Possible coercion [86] was a major concern in the research of the effectiveness of learning tools in a college-level classroom environment. The risk was mitigated by fulfilling the IRB requirements and clearly conveying to students that their participation in the research was completely voluntary and unrelated to their grades and the evaluations of their coursework. This study has a low sample size for its quantitative part (n = 16). However, this limitation came with the average undergraduate landscape class size in the U.S. The limited number of VR headsets and high-performance computers was also a challenge to conduct this research with a larger sample. To overcome this limitation, open-ended and in-depth questions were added to the survey and a qualitative (focus group) segment was added to the research. This study lacked experimental data. We believed that it was unethical to divide the students into experimental and control groups and to provide them with unequal instructional materials in their classroom settings. To obtain the experimental data, we plan to repeat the learning module next year with a modified sequence to compare differences between the year 1 and year 2 outcomes. It is pertinent to acknowledge that the design of our questionnaire, particularly the use of double negatives and complex question structures, may have introduced biases in the participants’ responses, potentially impacting the findings. Despite efforts to ensure clarity, the nuances in the question formulation underscore a critical methodological limitation. This challenge highlights the exploratory nature of this initial phase of our research, aimed at laying the groundwork for subsequent, more refined studies. This limitation sheds light on the challenges related to the validity and reliability of surveys as a research tool for understanding complex constructs. Future iterations of this research will benefit from a more rigorous approach to questionnaire development, incorporating pre-testing phases and expert reviews to mitigate similar issues.

6. Conclusions

This research explored the possibilities arising from integrating Extended Reality (XR) technologies within the educational framework of landscape architecture, indicating directions for future exploration. The findings suggest that students perceived the VR component as an engaging and novel approach to learning the details of landscape construction. However, it is essential to note that this positive perception does not unequivocally confirm the superiority of VR over traditional learning methods. Instead, it highlights the potential of VR (as a subset of XR) as an additional tool within a broader pedagogical framework. The impact of other XR domains, such as AR and MR, which have shown significant improvement in sectors like K-12 education, construction teaching, and learning [87], remains relatively underexplored. Similarly, this research only sheds light on the impact of the XR technology on landscape architecture construction. Finding the implementation of the technology in other landscape architecture topics remains unexplored. Thus, future research should be conducted on different landscape architecture courses to find the pragmatics of creating a common ground for the development of XR applications in landscape education.

Adopting a mixed methods research framework in this study provided a comprehensive understanding of the various parameters in the implementation and development of XR, potentially serving as a guideline for future research in XR implementation in formal education. This approach echoes Berglund’s emphasis on the opportunities and unclear transformative mechanisms of XR in landscape architecture education [88].

To our knowledge, this study represents a rare approach to incorporate both qualitative and quantitative segments in exploring the effectiveness of VR co-creation for teaching landscape construction. This study also provides new insights and thoughts regarding the situatedness of VR in a learning sequence with other conventional design teaching techniques like lectures, sketching, 2D drawing, and 3D modeling. A significant recommendation from this research is the iterative development of XR applications in landscape architecture education, informed by educational theories such as constructivist theories, TPCK, and XR-ED. In this context, the Stacey Matrix, a conceptual framework used for organizing and implementing complexity-inspired change in organizations [89], could be a valuable tool in locating the development of these applications within the broader development landscape.

This research begins a process-based development of XR applications for teaching and learning in landscape architecture, laying a foundation for future studies. The potential of XR to enhance learning experiences, foster engagement, and provide immersive environments is vast and warrants continued investigation. Future research should focus on understanding the impact of XR across the different domains of landscape architecture and developing practical applications that are grounded in educational theory and responsive to the field’s evolving needs. Research on how the interactivity of XR facilitates design decision-making for students could expand our understanding of XR integration in design education. Future research should also investigate how the levels of realistic representation in the XR immersion affect learning outcomes. This could help determine the most effective applications of XR in landscape architecture and inform best practices for its use in academic settings.