Table 5 Focus group feedback on traditional vs. VR interior design education.

Learning interest & classroom focus

1. VR environment increases students’ willingness to learn actively

2. Immersive experience enhances classroom attention

3. Students are more willing to explore different design solutions

1. ‘Operating in the virtual space is fun; I’m more willing to complete tasks”. (12)

2. ‘The immersion helps me maintain focus longer.” (11)

3. ‘I can freely explore different solutions, which boosts my motivation.” (10)

4. ‘Compared to traditional classes, I’m more engaged.” (9)

5. ‘Class participation has noticeably increased.” (8)

1. Limited interaction in traditional classes

2. Short attention span

1. ‘It’s easy to get distracted when looking at 2D drawings; long lectures are tiring.” (10)

2. ‘I’m less willing to actively participate in discussions and need teacher reminders.” (9)

3. ‘Attention is easily interrupted by classmates or the environment.” (8)

4. ‘The class pace is slow, which lowers motivation.” (7)

Spatial understanding & design thinking

1. VR allows intuitive observation of spatial proportions and layouts

2. Real-time visibility of lighting and material changes

3. 3D manipulation improves spatial comprehension

1. ‘Lighting changes help me adjust layouts.” (13)

2. ‘3D operations let me better understand spatial relationships.” (12)

3. ‘I can quickly identify problems and optimize solutions.” (11)

4. ‘Understanding of spatial logic and proportions is more accurate.” (10)

5. ‘The virtual environment helps me grasp design intent more directly.” (9)

1. Traditional teaching relies on 2D drawings

2. Limited spatial imagination

1. ‘2D drawings make it hard to judge spatial proportions.” (11)

2. ‘Layout adjustments are inefficient and require repeated reasoning.” (10)

3. ‘Lighting and material understanding is not intuitive enough.” (9)

4. ‘Spatial expression is less clear than in VR.” (8)

Classroom interaction & teacher-student communication

1. VR promotes real-time interaction

2. Students find it easier to discuss and collaborate in virtual environments

3. System feedback facilitates teacher guidance

1. ‘Teachers can guide me immediately based on my operations.” (13)

2. ‘Group discussions are more efficient and communication is smoother.” (12)

3. ‘Students are more willing to ask questions.” (10)

4. ‘Collaboration is better; responsibilities are clear.” (9)

5. ‘Design errors can be corrected instantly.” (8)

1. Limited interaction in traditional teaching

2. Low collaboration efficiency

1. ‘Teacher feedback is slow; problems cannot be solved immediately.” (10)

2. ‘Coordinating team tasks is complex and inefficient.” (9)

3. ‘Disagreements in group discussions are hard to resolve quickly.” (8)

4. ‘Communication among classmates is limited.” (7)

Teaching method satisfaction & suggestions

1. VR is convenient to operate and highly immersive

2. Platform features are well-integrated

3. Students are willing to use it again

1. ‘Operation is easy and fun; I’d recommend it to classmates.” (14)

2. ‘I hope for more operation guidance to make it smoother.” (11)

3. ‘High integration reduces repetitive operations.” (10)

4. ‘The experience is comfortable and the interface is friendly.” (9)

5. ‘Immersion makes learning more efficient.” (8)

1. Traditional teaching satisfaction is average

2. Lacks engagement and fun

1. ‘The course structure is clear, but not very interesting.” (10)

2. ‘Few interactions, easy to lose focus.” (9)

3. ‘The course is monotonous, learning experience is average.” (8)

4. ‘Low motivation to learn independently; constant teacher supervision is needed.” (7)