## 4 Results
### Pre-Test Analysis of Public Art and Environmental Literacy Issues
However, in the area of spatial performance knowledge in public art creation, the experimental group had a higher mean score than the control group by 18.67 points, with a t-value of 6.178 *, achieving statis \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Item** & **Group** & **N** & **Mean** & **SD** & **t-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Knowledge} & Experimental group & 29 & 26.4828 & 4.94701 & \multirow{2}{*}{6.925 *} \\ \cline{2-5}  & Control group & 35 & 15.4286 & 7.31753 & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Skills} & Experimental group & 29 & 19.0345 & 2.80920 & \multirow{2}{*}{4.168 *} \\ \cline{2-5}  & Control group & 35 & 14.2286 & 5.65210 & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Attitude} & Experimental group & 29 & 17.3793 & 4.63229 & \multirow{2}{*}{3.127 *} \\ \cline{2-5}  & Control group & 35 & 13.3714 & 5.46155 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 7: Summary of public art knowledge, skills, and attitude. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Item** & **Group** & **N** & **Mean** & **SD** & **t-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Knowledge} & Experimental group & 29 & 8.8966 & 4.73848 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.033} \\ \cline{2-5}  & Control group & 35 & 8.8571 & 4.73499 & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Skills} & Experimental group & 29 & 12.0000 & 0.00000 & \multirow{2}{*}{11.424 *} \\ \cline{2-5}  & Control group & 35 & 6.5143 & 2.58242 & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Attitude} & Experimental group & 29 & 8.0000 & 0.00000 & \multirow{2}{*}{6.235 *} \\ \cline{2-5}  & Control group & 35 & 5.5429 & 2.11914 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 8: Summary of environmental literacy knowledge, skills, and attitude. tical significance. These data indicate that the experimental group performed significantly better than the control group in the assessment of spatial performance knowledge related to public art creation, while there was no significant difference in the assessment of aesthetic composition knowledge in public art, as shown in Table 9.  
Analysis of the Differences in Learning Outcomes on Public Art and Environmental Literacy Topics Under Different Teaching Strategies  
1. Overall Learning Outcome Analysis  
(1) Test of Homogeneity of Regression Slopes for Overall Learning Outcomes  
As shown in Table 10, the test for homogeneity of regression slopes for overall learning outcomes yielded an F value of 0.548, which was not statistically significant. This result indicates that it is appropriate to proceed with a one-way ANCOVA (analysis of covariance). Table 12 presents the descriptive statistics summary for the overall learning effectiveness regarding public art and environmental literacy. It shows that the adjusted mean for the experimental group is higher than that of the control group, suggesting that the introduction of virtual reality teaching strategies in public art courses has a positive impact on overall learning effectiveness. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Source** & **Type III Sum** & _df_ & **Mean** & **F** \\  & **of Squares** & & **Square** & **F** \\ \hline Different Teaching Strategies * Electromechanical & & & & \\ Drafting Practicum Semester Scores & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Homogeneity test of intra-group regression coefficients for overall learning effectiveness. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Item** & **Group** & **N** & **Mean** & **SD** & **t-Value** \\ \hline Public Art Aesthetic & Experimental group & 29 & 22.4828 & 9.03414 & \(-\)0.194 \\ \cline{2-5} Composition Knowledge & Control group & 35 & 22.8571 & 6.40378 & \\ \hline Public Art Creation—Spatial & Experimental group & 29 & 38.8966 & 6.33778 & \\ \cline{2-5} Performance Knowledge & Control group & 35 & 20.2286 & 15.19885 & 6.178 * \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Summary of aesthetic composition knowledge and spatial representation in public art creation. 2.