Evaluating the Usability and Engagement of a Gamified, Desktop, Virtual Art Appreciation Module

Abstract

Traditional art appreciation instruction relies heavily on textbooks, slides, or videos, limiting student engagement and immersion. To address this issue, this study proposes a desktop VR (GDVR) art appreciation module based on a gamification approach. Unlike traditional VR art learning environments, the GDVR module combines real-time feedback and gamification elements to increase students’ motivation and understanding of information. This study used focus group interviews to evaluate the usability of the GDVR module, as well as student engagement. In addition, on-screen observations have been adopted to capture student interaction behavior and navigation patterns, providing greater insight into usability. Forty Chinese middle school students participated, and the data were analyzed thematically. The results show that the GDVR module demonstrates stable technical performance, intuitive navigation, and a high level of immersion. Moreover, most students find it more engaging than traditional methods, noting that the real-time feedback system significantly enhanced their engagement with and understanding of the material. Furthermore, this study highlights the practical application potential of utilizing low-cost, desktop-based virtual reality systems in the context of middle school art appreciation. Finally, the study acknowledges its limitations and provides recommendations for future research to further refine and expand the application of GDVR in the field of art education.

1. Introduction

The term “virtual reality” first appeared in the 1960s, and since then, it has become increasingly popular. Virtual reality is often defined as a collection of software and hardware used to create computer-mediated simulations [1,2]. It establishes a relationship with the computer system that allows the user to interact directly with the artificially generated environment. Due to the immersive and interactive features of virtual reality, it has been rapidly applied to various fields, such as education [3], the military [4], medicine [5], and tourism [6].

VR has been increasingly used in education and training [7]. This technology enables learners to easily understand learning topics or concepts [8]. In addition, it can be combined with various teaching methods and styles to allow students to actively construct their own knowledge [9]. The outcomes of using VR in teaching include increased motivation and immersion [10], learning efficiency [11], and spatial thinking skills [12].

Art appreciation is an effective way to improve artistic literacy and is an important part of aesthetic education in schools [13]. The teaching of art appreciation is an educational activity centered on artworks, analyzing them from different perspectives, such as emotion, art, and imagination. It applies not only to painting, but also to sculpture, architecture, and calligraphy. At the basic education level, through the study of art appreciation, students can not only appreciate famous national and international artworks but also stimulate their associations with the artworks, gain spiritual resonance from them, and better understand the expressive intent of the artworks [14].

Art appreciation teaching is an important means of developing students’ art appreciation ability, but there are some challenges. Traditional art appreciation activities are often limited by time, distance, and cost, with teachers typically introducing famous artworks through textbooks, slides, or videos, which results in a lack of immersion for students [15]. Moreover, relying solely on pictures and slides for instruction deprives students of a comprehensive art appreciation experience, which can eventually diminish their motivation to learn [16]. Virtual reality is a potential teaching tool that can immerse learners in rich, interactive virtual environments and increase students’ motivation and understanding of the arts.

In addition, gamification is one of the educational methods for increasing learners’ motivation and engagement [17]. Manzano-León et al. (2021) define gamified learning as the integration of game elements into non-game contexts to enhance learner engagement, motivation, and learning outcomes [18]. There are many similarities between gamification and virtual reality, and it is possible to use them together, especially in educational environments. Not only does this combination help to meet changing educational needs, but it also improves learning outcomes and drives the digital transformation of education [19].

Close examination has shown that there has been some research on the use of virtual reality in art appreciation. For example, Wu et al. (2023) applied virtual reality technology to the teaching of art appreciation and used self-regulation strategies to improve the effectiveness of learning [20]. Xu and He (2021) comprehensively used literature analysis, data collection, model reconstruction, and questionnaire surveys to discuss how virtual reality technology affects students’ art appreciation ability [21]. Over the past decade, there has been an increase in research combining VR with art appreciation.

However, most studies on the application of virtual reality (VR) in art appreciation have primarily focused on pilot programs in key universities and higher vocational institutions, while its implementation in Chinese middle school art education remains limited. Middle school is a critical stage for cognitive and aesthetic development, making it an essential period for cultivating art appreciation skills [22]. Moreover, existing research has largely treated VR as a passive medium, offering limited interaction, minimal control over the learning process, and delayed feedback that is typically provided only after task completion [23]. Notably, there is a significant gap in the integration of gamification with low-cost desktop VR in Chinese middle schools. Most current VR-based art appreciation projects require large-scale systems and substantial technological investments, making them difficult to implement in resource-constrained educational settings [24]. In contrast, this study adopts a low-cost desktop VR platform enhanced with gamified elements, allowing students to engage with the content at their own pace and receive immediate feedback. This approach not only increases learner engagement but also offers a practical, affordable, and replicable model for incorporating VR into middle school art education.

Furthermore, while self-report methods such as questionnaires and interviews have been widely used in assessing virtual reality-based learning experiences, there are fewer studies that combine these subjective insights with behavioral observations in the context of VR art appreciation. Therefore, this study combines qualitative interviews with behavioral observations with the aim of capturing learners’ perceived and actual performance in a gamified desktop virtual reality environment.

This study introduces a gamified desktop virtual reality (GDVR) art appreciation module for middle school students and evaluates its usability and pedagogical effectiveness, focusing on engagement. Accordingly, the following three research questions were formulated:

(1) How do students perceive the technical stability and performance of the GDVR art appreciation module?

(2) How do students experience the intuitiveness of navigation and the level of immersion in the GDVR art appreciation module?

(3) How does the integration of gamification in the GDVR module influence students’ engagement with and understanding of art?

The urgency of addressing these research questions stems from three key reasons. Firstly, applying VR technology and a gamification approach to art appreciation represents a significant step forward in educational innovation, particularly within the context of art education in China. Secondly, the study offers direct benefits to middle school students by enhancing their engagement with and understanding of art through immersive learning experiences. Lastly, the findings have the potential to shape the future development of VR learning modules, offering valuable insights to educators, instructional designers, and technologists.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Categories of VR

Virtual reality mainly falls into two main categories [25]. The first category is fully immersive virtual reality, which relies heavily on head-mounted devices to complete immersion. The second category is desktop virtual reality. Users do not need to wear a headset to interact with computer-generated images.

Both types of VR systems have their respective advantages and disadvantages. Fully immersive VR provides a high level of interaction and immersion; however, the equipment is often expensive and not easily accessible for most educational institutions [26]. In contrast, desktop VR offers lower levels of immersion but is more affordable and easier to implement in educational settings.

This study focuses on a desktop-based virtual reality (VR) learning module. Desktop VR enables students to interact with realistic, computer-generated environments presented on a standard monitor [27]. Learners can explore these environments from a first-person perspective using a mouse and keyboard. Specifically, the keyboard keys W, A, S, and D, along with the space bar, are used to navigate and jump, while the mouse and scroll wheel control the viewing direction and rotation.

2.2. Gamification Approach

Gamification can be defined as the application of game design elements to non-game activities, which are used to address learner distraction and stimulate student engagement in lessons [28]. In the field of education, gamification is not a fully developed game but rather the integration of game elements within an educational context to motivate learners to participate more actively [29]. One of the main design criteria for gamification is the incorporation of relevant and purposeful game elements into learning content by setting goals [30]. These elements include levels, points, badges, leaderboards, avatars, quests, social interaction, or certificates [31]. Such game elements are used to address non-game problems, transforming traditional learning activities into experiences that resemble playing a game [32]. More specifically, Caponetto et al. (2014) define gamification as a concept that utilizes game-based mechanics, aesthetics, and game thinking to engage people, inspire action, and facilitate learning and problem-solving [33]. In this module, the main elements of gamification are the integration of levels, competition (blood bars), timely feedback, points, and badges.

(1) Levels: The module is divided into two main levels—Exhibition Hall and Ceramic Art Gallery. Learners must complete all the tasks in the first level to unlock the second level, which stimulates a sense of forward momentum.

(2) Performance feedback and competition mechanism: A dynamic life value bar (also known as a blood bar) visually changes based on correct and incorrect answers, decreasing in life value for incorrect answers and increasing for correct answers. This provides immediate and visual feedback and creates a sense of challenge.

(3) Points and badges: Learners accumulate points throughout the module based on their task performance. At the end of the study, they are awarded badges as a form of recognition for their achievements.

(4) Real-time feedback: Learners receive immediate feedback after each interaction, which helps to reinforce understanding and maintain engagement.

These elements fit with Deterding et al.’s (2011) gamification framework, which emphasizes mechanisms such as progression, feedback, rewards, and challenges to enhance learner motivation and sustained interest [34]. The use of these features in our GDVR module has been carefully designed to support engagement in immersive art appreciation contexts.

Currently, interest and research in the educational applications of virtual reality and gamification are increasing [35,36,37]. However, its integration with art appreciation remains largely unexplored. This study primarily employs gamification by integrating gamification elements into the VR art appreciation module to enhance students’ engagement.

2.3. Immersion

Jennett et al. (2008) described the sense of immersion as a decline in the perception of the real world and a feeling of forgetting time [38]. In a virtual environment, immersion is defined as the feeling of being surrounded by virtual reality, where virtual reality “surrounds the individual in terms of perception” [38]. Furthermore, the researchers also distinguished between physical immersion and psychological immersion [39]. Physical immersion is triggered by visual, auditory, and tactile cues in the virtual environment, such as high-quality 3D modeling, stereoscopic sound effects, and interactive interfaces.

In contrast, psychological immersion refers to the subjective feelings of learners during the learning process, including the concentration of attention, emotional investment, and the experience of flow. Psychological immersion is related to the attractiveness of the content, the challenge of the task, and the coherence of the story [40]. This study combines physical immersion with psychological immersion, aiming to enhance students’ active participation and deep perception while improving the technical experience.

2.4. Self-Determination Theory

Self-determination theory was proposed by Deci and Ryan (1985) and is a widely applied motivation theory in contemporary educational psychology [41]. This theory emphasizes that an individual’s learning motivation can be divided into intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation is regarded as the most ideal driving force for learning. SDT suggests that during the learning and development process, people have three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When these three demands are met, individuals will demonstrate greater initiative and engagement.

This study focuses on the mechanisms that stimulate autonomy, competence, and relationships in virtual reality learning environments, as well as how they promote learners’ deep engagement and sustained participation. This theory provides strong support for understanding students’ learning motivation in virtual reality and gamified learning environments.

2.5. Flow Theory

The flow theory aims to explain the optimal experience state that individuals reach when fully concentrating on a certain activity. This theory holds that the flow experience usually has the following characteristics: the high concentration of attention, clear goals, immediate feedback, balance between challenge and skills, the integration of action and consciousness, the distortion of time perception, and deep inner satisfaction [42]. In the field of education, the flow theory is widely used to analyze the sense of participation and motivation mechanisms of learners in different environments.

Therefore, by integrating the flow theory, this study focused on exploring the mechanisms by which challenges and skill balance, immediate feedback, and immersive environments affect students’ learning engagement and the quality of their learning experience.

2.6. Usability

Usability refers to the extent to which a computer system enables a user to effectively and efficiently achieve a specific goal in a given context of use, while also promoting satisfaction [43]. ISO 9241 defines usability as the effectiveness with which a specific user can utilize a product to achieve a particular goal in a specific context of use, considering efficiency and satisfaction [44]. Nayebi et al. (2012) conceptualized the term “usability” through three key aspects: more effective use, easier learning, and increased user satisfaction [45].

Usability evaluation is essential to ensuring that newly developed products are easy to use, efficient, and effective in achieving their intended goals while satisfying users [46]. If the usability of an e-learning system is inadequate, it can hinder student learning [47]. There are already usability evaluation for VR applications in education, such as geography [48], medicine [49]. However, the usability evaluation of VR art appreciation is lacking.

Moreover, usability takes on an additional dimension in an educational setting. It is not sufficient to ensure that an e-learning system is merely accessible, it must also effectively support teaching objectives [50]. Therefore, this study employs the TUP model to evaluate the gamified virtual reality (GDVR) art appreciation learning module.

The TUP model is not only intended for the expert evaluation of educational software tools by reviewers and teachers, but can also be effectively applied as a framework for assessing students’ perspectives [51,52]. In addition, Bednarik et al. (2004) highlight that the TUP model is an evaluation framework focusing on three core aspects of the educational environment: technology, usability, and pedagogy [53]. This model was chosen because it evaluates not only the technical performance and usability of the learning module but also its pedagogical effectiveness.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. The GDVR Art Appreciation Learning Module

In this study, a gamified virtual reality (GDVR) art appreciation learning module is developed using Unity engine. The module seamlessly integrates gamification elements in a VR environment, allowing students to actively explore and engage with artwork. The GDVR module consists of two interactive virtual scenes (levels): (1) Virtual Exhibition Hall: a digital gallery where students can freely browse art works, as shown in Figure 1. (2) Ceramic Art Gallery: a ceramic art workshop where students can carefully observe pottery, as shown in Figure 2.

During the modeling process, high resolution images and physical materials are fully referenced, and realistic texture mapping and material settings are used to realistically reproduce the luster, glaze, and stylistic features of the ceramic pieces. While it may not be possible to fully replicate the actual texture of the artwork, the quality of the image meets the educational standards required for appreciation. Additionally, to enhance the interactive effect, students can zoom in, rotate, and view the artwork from multiple angles, which helps them scrutinize the subtleties of the piece (Figure 3). This visual realism and interactivity contributes to a sense of physical and psychological immersion, which is a key element of an immersive framework that allows learners to feel more engaged and as if they are “in” the virtual world [39].

In addition, non-player characters (NPCs) act as virtual guides, introducing tasks and providing relevant information. This ensures a structured and goal-directed learning process, which is in line with the core principle of flow theory that learners need clear goals and continuous guidance to enter and stay in the flow [42].

At the end of each level, students participate in a quiz challenge and receive real-time feedback. A game-like “life bar” is used to visualize the player’s performance. A wrong answer lowers the life bar and a right answer keeps it the same. This introduces challenge and consequence into the game, supports fluency by maintaining a balance between task difficulty and player ability, and ensures an action–feedback loop, as shown in Figure 4. In addition, this performance feedback system provides immediate information about the outcome, which is essential for maintaining concentration (i.e., being in a state of “flow”), as well as reinforcing the self-determination theory of self-efficacy and motivation (competence).

Furthermore, the module automatically tracks key engagement metrics, including scores, the time spent on each scene, and the number of interactions with the artwork. This data is compiled into a league table for teachers to use, providing insights into students’ engagement and learning progress, as shown in Figure 5.

3.2. Flowchart

Figure 6 shows the flow chart of the GDVR art appreciation module, ensuring a balance between teaching and interactive exploration. The process begins with students entering their information on the login screen, after which they are led to level 1—the Exhibition Hall. In this virtual space, a non-playable character (NPC) presents learning objectives and guides students through the gallery. Students can interact with the artwork by zooming in and examining details. To enhance understanding, NPC directs students to watch videos related to the paintings, providing background information to support their observations. After completing the video, the students took an interactive quiz. Successful completion of the test will open Scene 2—Ceramic Art Gallery, where students will participate in a similarly structured learning experience.

3.3. Research Design

In order to evaluate the proposed gamified desktop virtual reality (GDVR) learning module, a qualitative methodology was used to collect data, specifically through focus group interviews and screen observation. A distinctive feature of focus group interviews is the group dynamic. Therefore, the type and depth of data generated through social interaction tend to be richer and more insightful than those obtained from one-to-one interviews [54]. Additionally, screen observation allowed for the direct examination of students’ interactions with the VR module, capturing real-time engagement, navigation patterns, and points of difficulty or confusion. This combined approach enables us to gain a deeper understanding of students’ overall perceptions of the module, both through their discussions and their actual behaviors during use.

3.4. Research Participants

Guest et al. (2017) suggested that three to six focus groups can identify 90% of themes [55]. Likewise, Krueger and Casey (2014) recommend a group size of four to eight participants [56]. In this study, students were divided into eight groups of five. The study site was a middle school in Shantou, China, which had three grades, each with six classes. As there is no art appreciation class in the third grade, it was excluded from consideration. A purposive sampling method was used to select 40 middle school students from two grades, the first (7th grade, approximately 13 years old) and the second (8th grade, approximately 14 years old), based on four key characteristics: grade level, gender, proficiency in VR use, and interest in art.

The selection process was designed to ensure a comprehensive understanding of students’ perceptions of the GDVR learning module. To achieve a balanced representation of art interest and VR proficiency levels, a purposive sampling approach was employed. First, participants were selected through a brief survey, followed by the creation of a subgroup matrix considering four factors: gender, grade level, art interest (high, medium, low), and VR proficiency (high, medium, low). Finally, samples were actively selected from the matrix to balance the groups.

The art interest and VR proficiency levels were self-reported by the students in the initial survey. For each dimension, the students were asked to choose one of three levels that best described themselves: high, medium, or low. This self-assessment allowed the students to subjectively reflect on their interest in art and familiarity with VR technology.

The study population consisted of 40 middle school students, evenly distributed by gender (52.5% male, 47.5% female) and grade level (50% from Year 7 and 50% from Year 8). Their interest in art varied, with 37.5% showing high interest, 37.5% medium interest, and 25% low interest. In terms of VR proficiency, 37.5% of students had high proficiency, 25% had medium proficiency, and 37.5% had low proficiency. This diverse sample ensures a balanced representation of students with different backgrounds, interests, and levels of familiarity with VR technology, making it well-suited for evaluating the usability of the GDVR learning module, as shown in

Table 1. Students’ profile.

Item	Category	Category	Percentage
Gender	Male Female	21 19	52.5% 47.5%
Grade	7 Grade 8 Grade	20 20	50% 50%
Interest in art	High Medium Low	15 15 10	37.5% 37.5% 25%
Proficiency in VR technology	High Medium Low	15 10 15	37.5% 25% 37.5%

.

3.5. Research Instruments

The tools used in this study are focus group interview guides and observation checklists. The focus group interview guide was adapted from the TUP model by [57], alongside additional questions aligned with the research objectives. Firstly, the interview protocols were validated by experts in arts and pedagogy to ensure their relevance and consistency with the research objectives. Subsequently, based on feedback from the pilot group, some interview questions were revised and merged to enhance the flow and coherence of the discussion. Finally, the interview guide comprises 12 questions, as shown in Appendix A.

The observation checklists are mainly adapted from [58,59], as well as other questions in the research objectives. The list includes four main items, namely technical issues, navigation, interaction, and completion, as shown in Appendix B.

3.6. Data Collection Procedure

This study was conducted in a middle school in Shantou, China. Prior to the interviews, permission was obtained from the school and classroom teachers. At the same time, the researchers provided a detailed explanation of the study’s purpose, content, and data collection methods to the participants, emphasizing that the data would be used solely for this study and that strict confidentiality would be maintained. The participants were fully informed that their participation was entirely voluntary and signed informed consent forms.

Throughout the study, the researchers implemented measures to safeguard data confidentiality and adhered to a rigorous ethical code to ensure compliance in data handling. Additionally, the findings were reported truthfully and accurately, with no manipulation or falsification of results. The study strictly followed the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, ensuring the full protection of the participants’ rights and maintaining the integrity of the data.

The focus group discussions were organized into eight groups of five participants each, with each session lasting between 20 and 30 min. Each group of students first experienced the GDVR learning module and then participated in focus group interviews. Screen capture software was used to record the observed data. With the participants’ consent, all the interviews were audio-recorded to ensure that their responses were accurately captured, providing reliable transcription and facilitating the subsequent data analysis. In addition, the researcher took notes during the interviews to enhance the completeness and accuracy of the data.

To ensure credibility, the researcher conducted a member check after the interviews, allowing the participants to review the data and confirm its accuracy. Furthermore, the research team held a peer debriefing with an education specialist to discuss the research process, coding strategies, and data interpretation, thereby further strengthening the study’s reliability.

3.7. Data Analysis

In this study, a thematic analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data. This approach effectively identifies similarities and differences, explores participants’ perspectives, and reveals potential findings [60]. A hybrid coding approach was adopted, combining inductive and deductive methods [61]. The theme extraction was based on the participants’ inductive feedback combined with the researcher’s understanding of the literature and research objectives.

Based on the TUP model and the research objectives, the themes were grouped into three categories: technology, usability, and pedagogy. Afterwards, the sub-themes were inductively coded from bottom to top. This inductive and deductive approach ensured the richness of the themes. To protect the participants’ privacy, codes such as G1-P1 and G1-P2 were used to report the data.

4. Results

4.1. Findings from Focus Group Interviews

Table 2. Theme matrix.

Theme	Sub-Themes
Technology	Technical performance
	Physical comfort
Usability	Navigation
	Interaction
	Degree of simulation of reality
	Presence
Pedagogy	Engagement and enjoyment
	Gamification elements increase stickiness
	Learning and understanding

summarizes the key themes and sub-themes identified during the analysis of the data. The findings are presented based on the three components.

4.1.1. Technology

Table 3. The frequency and percentage of student feedback under the theme of technology.

Sub-Theme	Specific Feedback	Frequency (n = 40)	Percentage (%)
Technical Performance Grade	Module ran smoothly and without lag	39	97.5%
	Minor lag/collision issues encountered	7	17.5%
Physical Comfort Proficiency in VR technology	No physical discomfort experienced	39	97.5%
	Mild 3D-related dizziness reported	1	2.5%

summarizes the frequency and percentage of student feedback under the theme of technology. As shown in the table, the coding revealed that students identified two key aspects of usability within this theme: technical performance and physical comfort.

Regarding technical performance, nearly all the students (97.5%) reported no major issues while using the module. They stated that the system ran smoothly and that the screens and buttons were responsive. However, some of the students (17.5%) mentioned a slight collision issue, which could be resolved by moving or jumping. Two students commented on this:

G6-P1: In the first level, when climbing the stairs, sometimes you get stuck, and it feels like there’s a wall of air in the way.

G2-P2: It’s at that stairway, the part where you go to watch the video. It suddenly gets stuck. G2-P4: You can just jump.

Physical comfort was another important factor. When asked about any symptoms of discomfort while using the module, almost all the students (97.5%) reported no issues, except for one student, who experienced mild dizziness:

G5-P2: I’m a little bit dizzy, just a little bit 3D dizzy.

4.1.2. Usability

The second theme identified in the interviews was usability, which is primarily divided into four sub-themes: navigation, interaction, the degree of the simulation of reality, and the sense of presence.

Table 4. The frequency and percentage of student feedback under the theme of usability.

Sub-Theme	Specific Feedback	Frequency (n = 40)	Percentage (%)
Navigation	Students found the navigation intuitive and easy to control	40	100%
	Reported high sensitivity; suggested smoother control	2	5%
	Students understood what to do due to NPC hints and visual cues	38	95%
	Proposed adding mini-maps, arrows, or clearer indicators	4	10%
Interaction	Found it easy to manipulate and rotate/magnify objects	38	95%
	Reported confusion with direction and scroll behavior during rotation	2	5%
Degree of simulation of reality	Praised realistic modeling, textures, and lighting	26	65%
Presence	Felt immersed and unaware of time passing	33	82.5%
	Wanted longer duration or more levels	4	10%
	Found the module more engaging and realistic than traditional textbooks	10	25%

presents the frequency and percentage of student feedback corresponding to each sub-theme under usability.

In this context, navigation is primarily defined by control and clarity. All the students (100%) reported that they could navigate easily. As two students explained,

G4-P3: It’s so easy to do, it’s a no-brainer.

G3-P2: The operation is very simple. As long as you have played a game before, you know how to operate it.

However, two students observed that the mouse sensitivity was slightly high and suggested adjusting it for smoother control.

G2-P2: I think the sensitivity is a bit high. Sometimes the viewpoint turns suddenly.

G6-P3: Maybe because it’s too sensitive, it slides around. It kind of feels like going in circles.

In addition, 95% of the students stated that the module was easy to navigate and that they always knew what to do next. The NPCs in the module act as guides, providing students with tips. Two students elaborated as follows:

G8-P4: You just need to follow the NPC. Wherever the NPC goes, you go directly to him along the line.

G4-P1: We can find our own way and we know what to do next because there are hints in the game that tell us where to go, and we just follow them.

Although most of the students did not feel lost in the module, four suggested adding a mini-map or arrows to improve navigation clarity. They shared the following responses:

G4-P4: I’m not going to get lost, but I suggest adding a small map in the top right corner, like on the Netflix platform.

G1-P2: I suggest adding an indicator arrow that points to the location of the object. This would make it clearer and easier for us to find things.

Regarding interaction, most of the students (95%) found it easy to manipulate objects and interact with the environment, such as rotating and magnifying ceramics. However, two students struggled with rotating ceramics, finding it difficult to distinguish between positive and negative directions.

G3-P2: When you move the ceramic, I don’t know if it’s my manipulation or something else, but it moves in the opposite direction. It makes me feel a little sick.

G7-P4: I have a problem with the rotation. That’s the one thing I don’t understand. It’s the wheel in the middle of the mouse—whether it will zoom in or out.

Furthermore, the students expressed appreciation for the module’s realistic elements. Many (65%) noted that the visual components, including modeling, texturing, and lighting, significantly enhanced the sense of realism. Below are some of their perspectives:

G7-P3: The simulation here is like… It’s like a game from Shake Shack. It’s like the real world. It’s realistic.

G2-P3: I think the objects there are very realistic. Sometimes I go too fast and hit an NPC, and I get bounced back.

G2-P2: It’s quite realistic. The stairs are realistic, and the artworks on the wall are realistic.

Some students also made suggestions. For example, G8-P3 felt that the NPC modeling needs to be strengthened: “When entering the game, it is best to choose the gender of the character. Then there is the NPC, it is best to give him a beautiful design, NPC he that action is a little strange”. (G8-P3). G1-P2 and G8-P2 also mentioned that the floor in the scene is too smooth to feel realistic: “The ground one is too smooth, and the real ground is probably not so smooth”. (G1-P2); “Add light and shadow. For example, the floor can be textured, the kind of material that looks like plastic”. (G8-P2).

Moreover, G3-P4 recommended adding a few more things to the scene: “You can add some plants or something. It’s a little empty. Like a potted plant or something, in the corner. Or add some fences and surround the painting. Or a trash can, or a clock on the wall”. (G3-P4).

Students felt that the interactive features, such as zooming and rotating within the module, enhanced their engagement by allowing them to examine textures, shapes, and details more closely. Some students noted the following:

G7-P4: This is a good feature. The zoom function enables us to see things in greater detail, while rotation allows us to view different angles and discover finer details.

G6-P2: It is clearer than those art textbooks.

G6-P4: That ceramic is three-dimensional and showcases its style in a very unique way.

The majority of the students (82.5%) also stated that they completely lost track of time and became immersed while interacting with the module. Their responses were as follows:

G1-P3: I feel like I am just playing and got completely absorbed in it, without thinking about anything else. I only realise when you said it is over in five minutes, so I quickly pick up the pace.

G3-P1: When you are really engaged, you become eager to find out the answer, and then you concentrate so hard that you forget about time—then suddenly, it’s over, just like now.

However, four students suggested extending the overall experience, as they felt it was too short.

G5-P3: The game is too short. I didn’t get to play enough. I think I would have been more immersed if it had lasted longer.

G8-P3: Since there are only two levels, I think adding more levels could enhance the sense of immersion.

Additionally, some students (25%) compared the module to traditional textbooks, suggesting that it was more engaging and provided a depth and sense of reality that textbooks could not. Several students commented as follows:

G1-P4: It creates a sense of immersion that allows us to fully engage with the context. It is not as mechanical as a textbook and helps us develop a deeper understanding.

G2-P3: Compared to textbooks, this game is far more realistic. When you see artworks through VR, they come to life before your eyes.

4.1.3. Pedagogy

The final theme is pedagogy, which has been coded into three sub-themes: engagement and enjoyment; gamification elements increasing stickiness; real-time feedback and learning and understanding.

Table 5. The frequency and percentage of student feedback under the theme of pedagogy.

Sub-Theme	Specific Feedback	Frequency (n = 40)	Percentage (%)
Engagement and enjoyment	GDVR is more engaging than textbooks	37	92.5%
Gamification elements increase stickiness	Competition enhances engagement	18	45%
	Interactive viewing increases interest	12	30%
	Timely feedback enhances engagement	29	73.5%
Learning and understanding	Improved understanding and retention	38	95%

presents the frequency and percentage of student feedback corresponding to each sub-theme under usability.

Almost all of the students (92.5%) agreed that the gamified virtual reality (GDVR) module was more engaging than a traditional textbook. This is reflected in the following interview excerpts:

G1-P3: It changes the old, monotonous way of learning and makes it much more enjoyable.

G4-P4: This kind of learning through play is like acquiring knowledge while having fun, so it is very interesting. If you are just looking at the artwork, you might get bored. But this is different—it is interactive and engaging.

However, some of the students expressed a more neutral stance. For example, G1-P2 stated the following:

G1-P2: This may be immersive, and books can be dull, but the content in books is still there. If you do not play the game, you might forget that knowledge.

In addition, gamification elements enhance student engagement, particularly through interaction, competition, and feedback.

With regard to the competitive aspect, the students (45%) mentioned that it stimulated their competitive spirit, especially the “bloodstain” mechanism. As the following two students explained:

G5-P2: The desire to win, you must win, you cannot lose any health points. If you lose too many, you have to start again.

G8-P5: I just feel more nervous about making the wrong choice. If I make a mistake, I lose points, and then it’s over.

Some of the students (30%) preferred the interactive features in the module, such as zooming in and rotating the ceramics, which made viewing more engaging.

G2-P1: The ceramic looks three-dimensional, it’s fun, and you can rotate it.

Moreover, timely feedback not only supports learning but also enhances engagement. The students (73.5%) appreciated the module’s feedback system:

G1-P5: The hint shows us where we went wrong and explains the correct answer. It’s quite useful.

G1-P2: It gives you the feeling of Yellowknife (a game), where if you make a wrong choice, it immediately helps you correct the mistake. Then, when you face the problem again in the future, you won’t get it wrong.

G3-P4: I think it will make me more interested compared to my previous studies. because I’ll know right away if I’m doing something wrong. It keeps me interested and motivated.

However, some of the students also mentioned that the time for feedback is too short. G8-P2: Sometimes, feedback comes in so quickly that I don’t have time to process what I did wrong before moving on to the next section.

Finally, the students (95%) indicated that the GDVR module helped them to understand and retain knowledge more effectively than traditional methods, making their learning experience more engaging and motivating.

G3-P3: I used to feel that art was distant from my everyday life, and learning it on my own was quite dull. However, in a game, as he said, it naturally instils knowledge in me, making it easier to understand.

G3-P2: This game is excellent. It makes it easy to grasp the key points of triangle composition, much better than learning from books.

The students also gave some suggestions for the module; for example, G2-P4 mentioned that some exploratory features should be added: “I’d like to add that kind of puzzle solving feature, like the kind that is, let’s say inside that map, and then you have to achieve certain conditions before you can answer the questions, and then you can only go to the next level after you’ve answered the questions”. (G2-P4). G4-P2 and G6-P2 suggested adding online features. G4-P2: “You can also add some features that can be online, that is, two people form a pair and then come to compete, that is, come to compete in a knowledge contest”.

4.2. Findings from Screen Observation

This section presents the results of the on-screen observations, focusing on the qualitative analysis of 40 screen recordings across four key themes: task completion, technical performance, navigation, and interaction. In order to ensure the confidentiality of the participants, the following transcripts were recorded and written by the researcher in the form of a people (P) + serial number.

The analysis showed that all 40 students successfully completed the task within the allotted time (20 min). The observation of technical performance showed that 36 students (90%) did not experience technical problems. However, three students experienced collision issues and one student experienced a delayed button response. But these technical challenges were usually solved without major disruption to the learning process. The following are examples of our observations:

At 5:14, when P2 interacts with the artwork at layer 1, the exit button in the upper right corner is delayed, as shown in Figure 7. According to the on-screen observations, there was a delay of about 2 to 3 s when the student tried to close the appreciation interface through the exit button in the upper right corner.

P8 and P12 encountered collision problems at 7:01 and 4:50 respectively at the stairs in level 1. As shown in Figure 8. Specifically, according to the screen, when they follow the expected path up the stairs, they get stuck for a moment at the end of the staircase, and they have to adjust their position to align correctly with the surface of the staircase.

In terms of navigation and interaction, 38 students (95%) demonstrated effective control and navigation in the modules. The students moved and navigated seamlessly between tasks and scenarios, interacting with elements of the module. Most people became used to the navigation interface quickly, with little additional guidance. However, we also observed some examples of backtracking or pausing. The following are examples of our observations:

A backtracking operation was observed at 7:08. After viewing the artwork, participant P6 did not interact with NPC (non-player characters) as expected. Instead, he chose to continue watching the video upstairs, seemingly bypassing the scheduled interaction steps. This deviation from the intended navigation indicates that he may have misunderstood the flow of the module or be more inclined to access something before completing the assigned task. After watching the video, P6 returned to its original position and successfully completed its interaction with the NPC. This backtracking behavior is highlighted in Figure 9.

At 6:39, participant P35 showed signs of confusion as they were unsure whether to answer the question or open the door next. The uncertainty caused him to pause for seven seconds before making a decision. This confusion may stem from a lack of clear guidance about the sequence of actions, or from vagueness in the visual or auditory cues of the modules. As shown in Figure 10.

4.3. The Statistical Performance of the GDVR System

As shown in Figure 11, the average student score in the GDVR module was 10.25 out of 14 with a standard deviation of 1.78, indicating an overall good performance but with some variation. The average operation time was 709 s and the average number of clicks was 5.2, indicating a variable level of student participation. The shortest and longest operation times were 320 s and 1108 s, respectively, and the number of clicks ranged from 0 to 20, reflecting a wide variation in interaction behavior. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the number of clicks and the score was 0.35, showing a moderate positive correlation, indicating that the students who were more actively involved in the interaction tended to achieve better results.

5. Discussion

This section discusses the findings through the lens of three main themes: technology, usability, and pedagogy. Each of these aspects is considered in light of relevant studies and theoretical perspectives, allowing the results to be placed within a broader conversation on the use of virtual reality in education. The goal is to offer both practical insights for improving classroom practice and theoretical reflections that contribute to ongoing research in VR-based learning.

The results of this study indicate that the module operates smoothly without any major technical issues. In particular, the students did not experience any physical discomfort when using this module, which laid the foundation for wider promotion. This positive outcome may stem from the design of the desktop VR system, which minimizes the motion sickness and latency issues associated with head-mounted displays to the greatest extent. This is consistent with the research of Srivastava et al. (2019), who compared the effects of head-mounted VR and desktop VR on spatial learning under restricted movement [62]. The study found that the motion discomfort caused by desktop virtual reality was less, while HMD, although providing better visual effects, exhibited comparable or inferior performance.

However, the results of the focus groups and the screen observations revealed that some students encountered issues with button delays and collisions. These minor technical problems occasionally disrupted the interaction process, causing students to experience brief periods of frustration. Optimizing and improving these issues will enhance the overall user experience and ensure a smoother learning process.

The focus group interviews and on-screen observations revealed that most of the students found the navigation in the modules easy to control and clear. This helps to enhance the sense of immersion in the virtual space, allowing learners to explore at their own pace. As emphasized by [63], navigation in virtual scenarios, often facilitated through physical movement in the real world, is a cornerstone of the VR experience. But there were also examples of backtracking and pausing. In addition, the students suggested adding small maps or pointing arrows. These findings indicate that while the navigation system is generally effective, some students may struggle with spatial orientation within the module.

Furthermore, one student experienced a mild and brief sensation of discomfort while rotating the ceramic objects. However, this motion sickness was not severe and appeared to be related to the control scheme for object manipulation. Specifically, the rotational behavior did not align with the student’s intuitive expectations (e.g., dragging left caused the object to rotate right), which may have led to a minor visual–motor mismatch. These inconsistencies may disrupt the immersive experience. Therefore, to maintain the continuity of immersion, adjustments to the control scheme should be made to better align with users’ intuitive expectations. Most of the students appreciated the high degree of visual realism, including precise modeling, textured surfaces, and lighting effects. This realistic effect helps to create an immersive experience. According to the immersion framework by Slater and Wilbur (1997), it conforms to the concept of physical immersion, where the realism of the perceptual input (such as vision, spatial layout) strengthens the illusion of presence in the virtual environment [64].

Furthermore, the students emphasized that interactive functions, such as object rotation and scaling, are effective tools for exploring artistic details. These functions allow learners to freely manipulate virtual objects, thereby creating an interactive immersive experience. From a cognitive perspective, this interaction promotes autonomy, which is crucial for learning motivation.

Over 80% of the students indicated that they would forget the passage of time when using this module, which is another key dimension of immersion (psychological immersion). This is not only consistent with the framework of Slater and Wilber (1997) but also aligns with the Chikstemmiyai’s (1990) flow theory, which posits that when learners are fully immersed in the task, a state of deep engagement is generated [42,64]. In this situation, the balance between visual richness, intuitive interaction, and task challenge helps to produce an immersive learning state.

Some of the students also suggested that the experience should be extended to make them more immersed. This is consistent with the study by [65]. Their research features a virtual reality module that shows the sample collection process of the Mars Rover. In interviews afterwards, some students reported that the limited time prevented them from fully immersing themselves in the experience, noting that they had not even been able to see the rock in its entirety. Therefore, extending the duration of VR activities may be a key factor in increasing user immersion and engagement.

From an engagement perspective, the students reported that the VR module is more interesting and interactive than traditional teaching methods. This can be attributed to the fact that this module is capable of breaking the monotony of passive teaching and transforming learning into an active and exploratory experience. This aligns with the Deci and Ryan (1985) self-determination theory, which posits that supporting learners’ autonomy can enhance their intrinsic motivation [41]. Moreover, incorporating gamification elements helps maintain students’ engagement and encourages their continuous participation throughout the learning process. This positive evaluation is consistent with the findings of [66]. This study reviewed the existing literature on gamified virtual reality learning environments and discovered that combining gamification with virtual reality can enhance the interest and effectiveness of learning a second language.

However, if gamification elements lose their novelty, the VR gaming experience can become repetitive, a phenomenon known as “reward fatigue” [67,68]. To prevent this, designers must adopt a user-centered approach to ensure that modules remain engaging and relevant. Regularly updating game elements can help sustain users’ interest and prevent the experience from becoming monotonous.

Feedback plays an important role in the module, which informs learners of their progress and areas for improvement [69]. In this study, the students highlighted the effectiveness of gamification elements, such as “blood strips”, that provide immediate feedback. Not only do they provide progress tracking, but they also add competitiveness and excitement to the learning experience. This is consistent with Deci’s (1971) assertion that intrinsic motivation increases when learners receive verbal reinforcement and positive feedback [70]. Furthermore, this aligns with Chikstemmiyai’s (1990) flow theory, which emphasizes that clearly defined goals and immediate feedback are essential for sustaining an optimal state of learning [42]. Such conditions can significantly enhance students’ motivation and engagement.

Finally, most of the students reported that the content of the VR module was easier to understand, which also heightened their sense of participation. This can be explained by Constructivist Learning Theory, which posits that learners construct knowledge more effectively through active participation and contextualized experiences [71]. The immersive nature of virtual reality allows students to engage directly with artistic content in a situated context, bridging the gap between abstract concepts and personal understanding—something that traditional textbooks often fail to achieve. Furthermore, this learning model aligns with Deci and Ryan’s (1985) self-determination theory, particularly the dimension of competence, which plays a critical role in sustaining motivation [41]. When students perceive the learning material as accessible and feel confident in mastering it, their intrinsic motivation increases, leading to greater engagement.

The statistical results of this study show that the students achieved high average scores in the GDVR module, indicating strong pedagogical effectiveness. Moreover, a moderate positive correlation was found between the number of interactive clicks and the students’ scores, suggesting that frequent interaction may positively influence learning outcomes. This finding highlights the educational value of interactivity in VR-based teaching and learning.

Based on these results, this study offers valuable suggestions for the future development of GDVR modules for middle school students. To improve immersion and operational comfort, the GDVR art appreciation module should prioritize technical stability and user-friendly interfaces, while optimizing navigation guidance to prevent dizziness and disorientation. Additionally, detailed and realistic scene design, along with the inclusion of guiding elements, can further enhance the user experience. In terms of instructional strategies, gamification mechanisms and interactive features effectively stimulate students’ interest and motivation. It is recommended to integrate real-time feedback and competitive systems to increase engagement and enjoyment, ultimately achieving the goal of learning through play.

5.1. Research Contributions

This study makes both practical and methodological contributions to the field of educational technology and art education:

Application Contribution: The study developed and evaluated a low-cost desktop VR art appreciation module specifically designed for Chinese middle school students. This not only demonstrated the module’s practical feasibility in real classroom settings but also addressed a key research gap by contributing an affordable solution for implementing VR in art education.

Methodological Contribution: By integrating qualitative interviews with behavioral observation data, this study offers a novel, multidimensional approach to evaluating gamified virtual reality (GDVR) learning modules. This mixed-method strategy allows for a more comprehensive understanding of user experience and learning engagement.

5.2. Limitations of the Study

Firstly, this study involved 40 middle school students from one school, which might limit the general applicability of the research results.

Secondly, the focus group interviews provided rich qualitative data, but these data were derived from the self-reported perceptions of the participants and may contain potential biases.

5.3. Future Research

Expanding the participant pool is also essential. A larger and more diverse sample would help mitigate the biases associated with smaller or more homogeneous groups, resulting in more generalizable outcomes.

Another valuable approach is a longitudinal study, in which researchers track the same group of students over time. This would provide deeper insights into how students’ perceptions of GDVR evolve and its long-term impact on learning and engagement.

6. Conclusions

This study applied focus group interviews and screen observations to examine middle school students’ perceptions of the GDVR art appreciation module, focusing on usability, immersion, and pedagogy. The findings indicated that the module runs smoothly, without major technical problems. The students reported little physical discomfort and that the interaction and navigation are intuitive and user-friendly. The students praised the realistic simulations and strong sense of immersion, particularly appreciating the ability to zoom and rotate objects. From a pedagogical perspective, the module was more engaging and enjoyable than traditional learning methods. Gamification elements and real-time feedback enhanced motivation and comprehension. However, the students suggested improvements such as adding a mini-map or directional arrows, refining NPC design, and incorporating more environmental details.

This study developed and evaluated a low-cost desktop VR art appreciation module, and through the integration of interviews and behavioral observations, proposed a multidimensional method for evaluating GDVR learning experiences. Future research should expand the participant pool and conduct longitudinal studies to improve generalizability and assess the long-term impact of GDVR on learning.