## 4 Results
### Pre-Test Analysis of Public Art and Environmental Literacy Issues
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Public Art Creation** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Teacher Evaluation**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Student Self-Assessment**} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Items**} & **Experimental** & **Control Group** & **Experimental** & **Control Group** \\  & **Group** & **Average Score** & **Average Score** & **Average Score** \\ \cline{2-5}  & & & & **Average Score** & **Control Group** \\ \cline{2-5}  & & & & **Average Score** & **Average Score** \\ \hline Aesthetic Composition of & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Form (Representational, Semi-representational, Abstract)} & 16.8 & 16.2 & 16.4 & 16.2 \\ \cline{2-5}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Color Application} & 26.4 & 26.2 & 26.2 & 26.0 \\ \cline{2-5}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Shape (2D, 3D)} & 18.0 & 16.6 & 18.2 & 16.6 \\ \cline{2-5}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Environmental Interaction} & 13.6 & 11.8 & 13.8 & 11.8 \\ \cline{2-5}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Spatial Perspective} & 14.6 & 11.4 & 13.6 & 11.4 \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Total} & 89.4 & 82.2 & 17.6 & 16.4 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 25: Teacher and student self-assessment for public art aesthetic composition and spatial representation—first draft. b. The rationale behind this finding is that the aesthetic presentation of public art relies more on the students' artistic expression than on the influence of VR technology. Whether through accurate representational depiction or creative abstract expression, these elements primarily depend on the students' artistic capabilities, hence VR technology did not provide a significant advantage in this area. B. Color Application:  
a. The average teacher evaluation score for the VR group was 26.4, and the self-assessment score was 26.2, indicating a minimal difference. The control group's scores for teacher evaluations and self-assessments were also very close, at 26.2 and 26.0, respectively. Consequently, color application in this category was not influenced by VR technology. b. The reasoning is that color application relies on students' aesthetic and color perception abilities, typically derived from their artistic experiences and personal perceptions, and has little correlation with the application of VR technology. Whether in a VR environment or traditional media, students' use of color is grounded in their inherent aesthetic judgment rather than technical assistance. (2) Spatial Representation in Public Art  
A. Form (2D, 3D):  
a. The teacher evaluation score for the VR group was 18.0, closely matched by the self-assessment score of 18.2, indicating that both teachers and students recognized the impact of VR technology on spatial representation. In contrast, both the control group's teacher evaluation and student self-assessment scores were 16.6, slightly lower than those of the VR group. b. The reason is that VR technology indeed aids in spatial representation from both teachers' and students' perspectives, particularly because VR provides a more immersive creative platform, enhancing students' capabilities in spatial representation. This allows students to create and adjust their work in a virtual space, improving their spatial perception and application of form. Through the virtual environment, students can intuitively grasp three-dimensional space and make real-time observations and adjustments. The control group, however, relied on traditional 2D representations for 3D spatial modeling, which somewhat limited their control over three-dimensional space, leading to lower scores from both teachers and students compared to the VR group. B. Environmental Interaction (Coherence with Surrounding Environment):  
a. The teacher evaluation score for the VR group was 13.6, with a self-assessment score of 13.8, showing minimal difference. Both the control group's teacher and student evaluations were identical at 11.8, indicating a consensus among teachers and students regarding the performance of environmental interaction.