Evaluating the Effectiveness of VR in Architectural Design Education: A Comparison Across Student Levels Using Pointing Out Mistakes in Design Plans

Background: Virtual reality (VR) has attracted increasing attention in architectural design education because of its potential to support spatial cognition and embodied understanding of architectural space. Compared with conventional two-dimensional (2D) drawings and screen-based three-dimensional (3D CAD) tools, VR enables learners to experience space at a realistic scale through binocular disparity and motion parallax, which may reduce cognitive load and facilitate experiential learning. However, previous studies have mainly relied on subjective evaluations, such as questionnaires and observations, and have not sufficiently examined differences in educational effectiveness among design tools or among students with different learning levels. Objective and Methods: This study aimed to identify effective teaching tools for facilitating students’ understanding at different learning levels and to propose appropriate methods for applying VR to improve educational effectiveness. To achieve this, we proposed an objective experimental method for evaluating the effectiveness of VR in architectural design education based on students’ ability to identify incorrect content in architectural design plans. The experiment compared the performance of students using 2D drawings, 3D CAD, and VR environments and examined differences according to student grade levels (higher- and lower-year students) objectively. Results: The results revealed that both higher- and lower-year students identified more incorrect content items related to “Fitting” (such as door layouts) when using 2D drawings (finding rates were 43.8%~53.3% higher than those with 3D CAD or VR), whereas more incorrect content items related to “Furniture” size were identified when using VR (finding rates were 18.8%~56.3% higher than those with 2D drawings or 3D CAD). In addition, items related to sectional and elevation design, such as “Opening,” as well as issues concerning the size of “Space,” were identified by higher-year students regardless of the tool used. In contrast, lower-year students identified approximately twice as many of these items when using VR as when using 2D drawings. Conclusions: Based on the above results, the effectiveness of VR varied depending on both the type of design knowledge and the students’ learning levels. VR improved lower-year students’ understanding of spatial dimensions, furniture and fitting compared with conventional tools. Furthermore, VR encouraged more detailed consideration of spatial and design-related issues during architectural design tasks. These findings suggest that VR can reduce the cognitive load associated with learning architectural spatial concepts and promote experiential learning close to real spatial perception. Implications: This study supports the appropriate use of VR in architectural design education. The experimental method proposed in this study can also be used to objectively evaluate the effectiveness of educational tools other than VR before their implementation in architectural design education. Applying this method in architectural education is expected to enhance students’ awareness of architectural spatial issues and promote more comprehensive spatial understanding during the design process.