Usability of virtual reality for basic design education: a comparative study with paper-based design

  • Dilay Seda Özgen
  • Yasemin AfacanEmail author
  • Elif Sürer


Virtual reality (VR) is an emerging technology that is being used in a wide range of fields such as medicine, gaming, psychology and sociology. The use of VR is promising in the field of education and requires investigation, but research on the use of VR in education is still limited. This enables the exploration of new territories, and design education is one of them. Design education, an important part of the curriculum of architecture students who aim to conceptualize problem-solving, is still taught using traditional methodologies with touches of digital technologies. Thus, there is limited research into the implementation of VR. This study proposes using VR in basic design education and focuses on the usability of VR, especially for problem-solving activities. It presents the literature on basic design education of digital approaches, VR technologies, usability criteria and the technology acceptance model. In order to analyse the usability of VR, we conducted an experimental study with 20 first-year interior architecture and architecture students. We found that, statistically, there is a significant difference in terms of ‘the intention to use’ and ‘the perceived enjoyment’ between the VR group and the paper-based group. Moreover, there is, statistically, a difference in effectiveness within the paper-based group and the VR-based group when one compares the success of two types of design problems in the same group. Thus, one can summarize that using VR can strongly enhance problem-solving activities in interior architecture and for architecture students and that one can consider it to be a promising and complementary tool in basic design education.


Basic design education Technology acceptance model Usability Virtual reality 



This work was supported by the Grant of Science Academy’s Young Scientist Awards Program 2017 (BAGEP), Turkey. The authors would also like to thank the participants of the experiments for their contribution.


  1. Abu-Dalbouh, H., Al-Buhairy, M., & Al-Motiry, I. (2017). Applied the technology acceptance model in designing a questionnaire for mobile reminder system. Computer and Information Science,10(2), 15–24. Scholar
  2. Akbulut, D. (2010). The effects of different student backgrounds in basic design education. Procedia Behavioral and Social Sciences,2, 5331–5338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akin, S., Ergun, O., Surer, E., & Dino, I. G. (2018). An immersive design environment for performance-based architectural design: A BIM-based approach. In Proceedings of the 4th EAI international conference on smart objects and technologies for social good (pp. 306–307). ACM 2018.Google Scholar
  4. Balog, A., & Pribeanu, C. (2009). Developing a measurement scale for the evaluation of AR-based educational systems. Studies in Informatics and Control,18(2), 137–148.Google Scholar
  5. Berg, L., & Vance, J. (2016). Industry use of virtual reality in product design and manufacturing: A survey. Virtual Reality,21(1), 1–17. Scholar
  6. Beşgen, A., Kuloğlu, N., & Fathalizadehalemdari, S. (2015). Teaching/learning strategies through art: Art and basic design education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,182, 428–432. Scholar
  7. Bower, M., Howe, C., McCredie, N., Robinson, A., & Grover, D. (2014). Augmented reality in education—Cases, places and potentials. Educational Media International,51(1), 1–15. Scholar
  8. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & A. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189–191). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  9. Burry, M. (2011). Scripting cultures: Architectural design and programming. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Burton-Jones, A., & Hubona, G. S. (2005). Individual differences and usage behavior: Revisiting a technology acceptance model assumption. Database for Advances Information Systems,36, 58–77. Scholar
  11. Casakin, H. P. (2007). Metaphors in design problem-solving: Implications for creativity. International Journal of Design,1(2), 21–33.Google Scholar
  12. Casakin, H., & Goldschmidt, G. (1999). Expertise and the use of visual analogy: Implications for design education. Design Studies,20, 153–175. Scholar
  13. Çetinkaya, Ç. (2011). Analysis of design and concept and its impact on basic design education. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Ankara: Hacettepe University.Google Scholar
  14. Chesney, T. (2006). An acceptance model for useful and fun information systems. Human Technology,2(2), 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chi, H.-L., Kang, S.-C., & Wang, X. (2013). Research trends and opportunities of augmented reality applications in architecture, engineering, and construction. Automation in Construction,33(2013), 116–122. Scholar
  16. Company, P., Contero, M., Varley, P., Aleixos, N., & Naya, F. (2009). Computer-aided sketching as a tool to promote innovation in the new product development process. Computers in Industry,60, 592–603. Scholar
  17. Costalli, F., Marucci, L., Mori, G., & Partenò, F. (2001). Design criteria for usable web accessible virtual environments. In: Proceedings of international cultural heritage informatics meeting: ICHIM’01 (pp. 413–26). Milan.Google Scholar
  18. Coxon, M., Kelly, N., & Page, S. (2016). Individual differences in virtual reality: Are spatial presence and spatial ability linked? Virtual Reality,20(4), 203–212. Scholar
  19. Cummings, J., & Bailenson, J. (2015). How immersive is enough? A meta-analysis of the effect of immersive technology on user presence. Media Psychology,19(2), 272–309. Scholar
  20. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly,13(3), 319–339. Scholar
  21. Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal Man-Machine Studies,38(3), 475–487. Scholar
  22. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science,35(8), 982–1003. Scholar
  23. Davis, S., Nesbitt, K., & Nalivaiko, E. (2014). A systematic review of cybersickness. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on interactive entertainment (pp. 1–9). ACM 2014.Google Scholar
  24. Denel, B. (1981). Basic design and creative thinking. Ankara: METU Architecture Faculty Press.Google Scholar
  25. Ding, L., Liew, P., Maher, M., L., Gero, J., S., & Drogemuller, R. (2003). Integrating CAD and 3D virtual worlds using agents and EDM. In M. L. Chiu (Ed.), Proceedings 10th international conference on computer aided architectural design futures (CAAD Futures 2003) (pp. 301–312). Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  26. Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies,22(5), 425–437. Scholar
  27. Dufva, T., & Dufva, M. (2019). Grasping the future of the digital society. Futures,107, 17–28. Scholar
  28. Erdoğan-Ford, S. (2017). More than meets the eye: What can virtual reality reveal to architects? Journal of Architectural Education,71(1), 100–102. Scholar
  29. Gallagher, M., & Ferr, E. R. (2018). Cybersickness: A multisensory integration perspective. Multisensory Research,31(7), 645–674. Scholar
  30. Google Blocks. (2018).
  31. Google Poly. (2018).
  32. Güngör, I. H. (2005). Basic design. İstanbul: Patates Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Heydarian, A., Pantazis, E., Gerber, D., & Becerik-Gerber, B. (2015). Use of immersive virtual environments to understand human-building interactions and improve building design. In Conference: Human computer interaction international 2015, Los Angeles, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  34. Hou, L., Wang, X., Bernold, L., & Love, P. E. (2013). Using animated augmented reality to cognitively guide assembly. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering,27(5), 439–451. Scholar
  35. Howitt, D., & Cramer, D. (1999). A guide to computing statistics with SPSS release 8 for windows. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  36. Hsu, C. L., & Lu, H. P. (2004). Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Information & Management,41(7), 853–868. Scholar
  37. Ji, X., Fang, X., & Shim, S. H. (2018). Design and development of a maintenance and virtual training system for ancient Chinese architecture. Multimedia Tools and Applications,77, 29367–29382. Scholar
  38. Jones, P. L. (1969). The failure of basic design. Leonardo,2(2), 155–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kim, M. J., Wang, X., Love, P., Li, H., & Kang, S. -C. (2013) Virtual reality for the built environment: A critical review of recent advances. Journal of Information Technology and Construction, 18(2), 279–305.
  40. Kuloğlu, N., & Asasoğlu, A. O. (2010). Indirect expression as an approach to improving creativity in design education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,9, 1674–1686. Scholar
  41. Lang, J. (1987). Creating architectural theory: The role of the behavioral sciences in environmental design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  42. Lanier, J. (1992). Virtual reality: The promise of the future. Interactive Learning International,8(4), 275–279.Google Scholar
  43. Lee, K. M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory,14, 27–50. Scholar
  44. Lewis, J. R. (1990). Psychometric evaluation of a post-study system usability questionnaire: The PSSUQ (Tech. Report 54.535). Boca Raton, FL: International Business Machines Corp.Google Scholar
  45. Li, X., Yi, W., Chi, H.-L., Wang, X., & Chan, A. P. C. (2018). A critical review of virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) applications in construction safety. Automation in Construction,86, 150–162. Scholar
  46. Makaklı, E. S., & Özker, S. (2015). Basic design in architectural education in Turkey. In Paper presented at the ERPA International Congresses on Education, Athens, Greece.
  47. McCullough, M., Mitchell, W., & Purcell, P. (Eds.). (1990). The electronic design studio: Architecture, media and knowledge in the computer era. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Moon, J., & Kim, Y. (2001). Extending the tam for a world-wide-web context. Information & Management,38(4), 217–230. Scholar
  49. Neves, A. G., & Duarte, E. (2015). Using virtual environments in basic design education. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference senses and sensibility 2015 (pp. 1–9). Lisbon, Portugal 5–7 October 2015.Google Scholar
  50. Norman, D. (2004). Emotional design. New York: Basic Books Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. O’Brien, C., Kelly, J., Lehane, E., Livingstone, V., Cotter, B., & Butt, A. (2015). Validation and assessment of a technology familiarity score in patients attending a symptomatic breast clinic. World Journal of Surgery,39(10), 2441–2449. Scholar
  52. Oman, C. M. (1990). Motion sickness: A synthesis and evaluation of the sensory conflict theory. Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology,68(2), 294–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Oxman, R. (2004). Think-maps: Teaching design thinking in design education. Design Studies,25(1), 63–91. Scholar
  54. Oxman, R. (2008). Digital architecture as a challenge for design pedagogy: theory, knowledge, models and medium. Design Studies,29(2), 99–120. Scholar
  55. Oxman, R. (2017). Thinking difference: Theories and models of parametric design thinking. Design Studies,52, 4–39. Scholar
  56. Oxman, R., & Gero, J. S. (1987). Using an Expert system for design diagnosis and design synthesis. Expert Systems, 4(1), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Oxman, R. E., & Oxman, R. M. (1992). Refinement and adaptation in design cognition. Design Studies,13(2), 117–134. Scholar
  58. Ozsoy, V. (2003). History of fine arts education. Ankara: Gündüz Egitim Publication.Google Scholar
  59. Paravizo, E., & Braatz, D. (2019). Using a game engine for simulation in ergonomics analysis, design and education: An exploratory study. Applied Ergonomics,77, 22–28. Scholar
  60. Portman, M., Natapov, A., & Fisher-Gewirtzman, D. (2015). To go where no man has gone before: Virtual reality in architecture, landscape architecture and environmental planning. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems,54, 376–384. Scholar
  61. Rahimian, F., & Ibrahim, R. (2011). Impacts of VR 3D sketching on novice designers’ spatial cognition in collaborative conceptual architectural design. Design Studies,32(3), 255–291. Scholar
  62. Reas, C., & Fry, B. (2014). Processing: A programming handbook for visual designers and artists. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  63. Rieuf, V., Bouchard, C., Meyrueis, V., & Omhover, J. (2017). Emotional activity in early immersive design: Sketches and moodboards in virtual reality. Design Studies,48, 43–75. Scholar
  64. Salama, A. M., & Wilkinson, N. (2007). Design studio pedagogy: Horizons for the future. United Kingdom: The Urban International Press.Google Scholar
  65. Sanchez, A., Barreiro, J. M., & Maojo, V. (2000). Design of virtual reality systems for education: A cognitive approach. Education and Information Technologies,5, 345–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schon, D. A. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA Publications Limited.Google Scholar
  67. Sigitov, A., Hinkenjann, A., & Roth, T. (2013). Towards VR-based systems for school experiments. Procedia Computer Science Journal,25, 201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Somak, A., Humar, I., Hossain, M. S., Alhamid, F. M., Hossain, M. A., & Guna, J. (2018). Estimating VR sickness and user experience using different HMD technologies: An evaluation study. Future Generation Computer Systems,94, 302–316. Scholar
  69. Sopher, H., Gewirtzman, D. F., & Kalay, Y. E. (2018) Use of immersive virtual environment in the design studio. In Proceedings of eCAADe 201836th annual conference 17th–21st September 2018, Lodz Poland (pp. 853–862).Google Scholar
  70. Tenemaza, M., Ramirez, J., & de Antonio, A. (2016). Acceptability of an A2R application: Analysis of correlations between factors in a TAM. In IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality adjunct proceedings. (Online).
  71. UEQ. (2018). (Online)
  72. Van Raaij, E., & Schepers, J. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Computers & Education,50(3), 838–852. Scholar
  73. Varınlıoğlu, G., Halıcı, S., & Alaçam, S. (2015). Computational approaches for basic design education: Pedagogical notes based on an intense student workshop. In XIX congresso da sociedade ibero Americana de Gráfica Digital 2015. Florianopolis.
  74. Venkatesh, V. (1999). Creation of favorable user perceptions: Exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Quarterly,23, 239–260. Scholar
  75. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research,11(4), 342–365. Scholar
  76. Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly,24, 115–139. Scholar
  77. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly,27(3), 425–478. Scholar
  78. Vuletic, T., Duffy, A., Hay, L., McTeague, C., Pidgeon, L., & Grealy, M. (2018). The challenges in computer supported conceptual engineering design. Computers in Industry,95, 22–37. Scholar
  79. Wirth, W., Hartmann, T., Böcking, S., Vorderer, P., Klimmt, C., & Schramm, H. (2007). A process model of the formation of spatial presence experiences. Media Psychology,9(3), 493–525. Scholar
  80. Witmer, B., & Singer, M. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments,7(3), 225–240. Scholar
  81. Wong, W. (1993). Principles of form and design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  82. Ye, J., Campbell, R., Page, T., & Badni, K. (2006). An investigation into the implementation of virtual reality technologies in support of conceptual design. Design Studies,27, 77–97. Scholar
  83. Zelanski, P., & Fisher, M. P. (1996). Design principles and problems. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  84. Zhi-qiang, W. (2017). Virtual package design and realization based on 3D visualization technology. Procedia Engineering,174, 1336–1339. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design, Faculty of Art, Design and ArchitectureBilkent UniversityBilkent, AnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Modeling and Simulation, Graduate School of InformaticsMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations