## 4 Results
### Pre-Test Analysis of Public Art and Environmental Literacy Issues
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Item** & **Group** & **N** & **Mean** & **SD** & **t-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Knowledge} & Experimental group & 29 & 12.5000 & 2.75487 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)0.079} \\ \cline{2-4}  & Control group & 35 & 12.5714 & 4.17828 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Summary of spatial representation knowledge in public art creation. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Item** & **Group** & **N** & **Mean** & **SD** & **t-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Knowledge} & Experimental group & 29 & 7.9310 & 1.50430 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)0.495} \\ \cline{2-4}  & Control group & 35 & 8.1429 & 1.85334 & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Skills} & Experimental group & 29 & 6.8966 & 1.08874 & \\ \cline{2-4}  & Control group & 35 & 6.7857 & 1.14587 & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Attitude} & Experimental group & 29 & 5.7759 & 1.35348 & \multirow{2}{*}{1.191} \\ \cline{2-4}  & Control group & 35 & 5.2143 & 2.21720 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Summary of public art knowledge, skills, and attitudes (pre-test). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Item** & **Group** & **N** & **Mean** & **SD** & **t-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Knowledge} & Experimental group & 29 & 13.7069 & 2.55482 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(1.001\)} \\ \cline{2-4}  & Control group & 35 & 13.0714 & 2.50629 & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Skills} & Experimental group & 29 & 14.3966 & 1.58891 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-\)0.083} \\ \cline{2-4}  & Control group & 35 & 14.4286 & 1.49579 & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Attitude} & Experimental group & 29 & 12.3276 & 2.20906 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(0.176\)} \\ \cline{2-4}  & Control group & 35 & 12.2143 & 2.82917 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Summary of environmental literacy knowledge, skills, and attitude (pre-test). icance. Additionally, a detailed analysis of the knowledge, skills, and attitude items in the first learning assessment is presented in Table 7. The analysis shows that for public art knowledge, the experimental group had a higher mean score than the control group, with a t-value of 6.925 *, reaching statistical significance (\(p<0.05\)). In terms of public art skills, the experimental group again surpassed the control group, with a t-value of 4.168, achieving statistical significance. For public art attitudes, the experimental group's mean score was higher than that of the control group, with a t-value of 3.127 *, indicating statistical significance, as shown in Table 7.  
For the environmental literacy knowledge assessment results displayed in Table 8, the experimental group's mean score exceeded that of the control group, with a t-value of 0.033, which did not reach statistical significance. In the area of environmental literacy skills, the experimental group's mean score was notably higher than the control group, with a t-value of 11.424 *, achieving statistical significance. Similarly, for environmental literacy attitudes, the experimental group outperformed the control group, with a t-value of 6.235 *, indicating statistical significance, as shown in Table 8.  
2. Analysis of the Second Learning Assessment Outcomes  
The second learning assessment was conducted in the twelfth week of the experimental teaching phase, focusing on knowledge of aesthetic composition in public art and spatial performance knowledge in public art creation. The assessment results yielded a t-value of 4.831 *, achieving statistical significance. A detailed analysis of the aesthetic composition knowledge and spatial performance knowledge items in the second learning assessment is presented in Table 9. In the aesthetic composition knowledge section, the experimental group's mean score was slightly lower than that of the control group, with a t-value of \(-0.194\), which did not reach statistical significance.