105 Exploring Students’ Experiences of Virtual Learning Environment for Art History Classroom Jiyeon Park, Sooyun Sohn Hongik University, South Korea Submitted: 2022-12-19. Revised: 2023-04-03. Accepted: 2023-05-02 Abstract During the Covid 19, students and instructors experienced double-way synchronization distance classes. Recently, the metaverse was drawn much attention to the online virtual world as a chan- nel for social interaction. It has received renewed interest as a new method of surmounting the limitations of external activities after the pandemic. A few studies have focused on the usability of metaverse in a classroom, but no attention was paid to its applicability to Art History as well as to the higher level of education. In order to compensate for the limitations of two-way synchronized remote learning in university art history classes, Gather.Town was adopted as a metaverse platform in both Western modern art history classes and art history methodology classes. In this study, we surveyed and interviewed students who used both WebEx and Gather. Town. This study examines students’ experiences in accessibility, social presence, convenience of interaction, interest and immersion, and satisfaction when the students use the metaverse plat- form, Gather.Town. The examination of this study confirms that the virtual space of metaverse was more helpful in making students feel a sense of presence, interaction, and engagement than WebEx and demonstrates the possibility of this platform as a sustainable and valid tool in Art History Education. Keywords: metaverse, Gather.Town, art history education, synchronous online learning How to Cite: Park, J., & Sohn, S. (2023). Exploring Students’ Experiences of Virtual Learning Environment for Art History Classroom. Harmonia: Journal of Arts Research and Education, 23(1), 105-120 Harmonia: Journal of Arts Research and Education 23 (1) (2023), 105-120 Available online at http://journal.unnes.ac.id/nju/index.php/harmonia DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15294/harmonia.v23i1.41094 Art history education, especially for higher-education institutions, requires higher-order cognitive skills (Kali et al., 2015). According to Erickson (1983), the traditional teaching methods of art history are exposing students to artworks, presen- ting information verified by art historians, and leading them to approach art history as a process of inquiry. Teaching art his- tory has been conducted mainly through lectures and text-based methods which have retained their traditional position in the university (Black, 2015; Elkins, 2007; Simons, 2007). On the other hand, the in- INTRODUCTION During Covid-19, real-time non- face-to-face distance learning has become the main teaching method at universities. Online classes have existed before the Co- vid-19, but after the pandemic, online clas- ses were operated by a double-way and synchronous interactive learning method. However, even if the place for education transferred from physical space to online space, the slide-table lecture was main- tained as a main teaching method in art history education. Corresponding author: E-mail: gratie@hongik.ac.kr p-ISSN 2541-1683|e-ISSN 2541-2426 Harmonia: Journal of Arts Research and Education 23 (1) (2023): 105-120106 quiry of art history, teaching art historians’ thought processes to conclude artworks, encourages students to use their own ori- ginal perceptions of the works of art (Mar- tikainen, 2017). Also, an active learning approach is needed to educate students to cultivate the skills of an art historian. Digital technologies contribute to promoting active learning in art history education (Gasper-Hulvat, 2017). Recent discussions on art history education intro- duced new technologies such as digital images, Virtual Reality (VR) or Augmented Reality (AR), computer-based interactive methods, and remote learning (Di Serio et al., 2013; Donahue-Wallace, 2008; Harris & Zucker, 2016; Janet & Miles, 2009; Pitt et al., 2003; Simmons, 2008). Especially extended reality (XR) technologies were noticeable at the Museum Website, and VR was utili- zed to support self-regulated strategy lear- ning (Lee et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2021). After the lockdown due to the Covid 19 pande- mic, educators and curators attempted to search for a new online teaching method (Noble, 2021). Noble (2021) discovered the potential of virtual museum spaces for lo- cal residents for their connection, inspira- tion, and creativity. Now, scholars have focused on the possibility of XR techno- logies in teaching art or art history. Mo- reover, they experimented with blended learning, including face-to-face classes and asynchronous remote classes, by watching recorded videos or utilizing programs (Lee et al., 2021; Noble, 2021; Wu et al., 2021). As the pandemic situation prolon- ged, the pros and cons of the double-way synchronization distance classes were re- vealed. All students who attended class equipped the electronic devices, which facilitates approaching digital resources such as high-quality images and additio- nal references. On the other hand, most of the disadvantage of current distance lear- ning has been caused by video conference meeting programs. Students suffer isola- tion and loneliness because of an absence of interaction with peers and instructors (Vandenberg & Magnuson, 2021). Besides, when participants mute and turn off the camera cause fatigue because of difficulty reading their reaction or being aware of their presence (Nesher Shoshan & Weh- rt, 2022). Social interaction which is the perceived amount and frequency of stu- dents’ communication, and social presence which is the psychological feeling of other people’s existence are insufficient in dis- tance learning than face-to-face learning (Weidlich & Bastiaens, 2019). Metaverse refers to a term from Neil Stevenson’s novel, Snow Crash published in 1992 (Lee et al., 2022), and it is the spa- ce that interacted with the virtual and real world to create social activities. It has re- ceived renewed interest as a new method of surmounting the limitations of external activities after the pandemic (Park & Kim, 2022a). The metaverse was categorized as a mirror world, life-logging, virtual world, and AR (Lee et al., 2011) and it is often presented as a channel for social interac- tion (Park & Kim, 2022b). Although many studies have considered the possibility of using the metaverse platform, there is a lack of practical application of the meta- verse in a higher level of art history edu- cation. This study presents findings from a case study of synchronous online lear- ning in the higher education art history classroom after the COVID-19 pandemic. In the literature, a few studies dealt with metaverse in a classroom setting, but the- re was none of them on its applicability to art history. In particular, we will find out whether the metaverse is more suitable for students to actively inquire beyond text- based learning. This study examines stu- dents’ experiences in accessibility, social presence, the convenience of interaction, interest and immersion, and satisfaction when the students use the metaverse plat- form, Gather.Town in classes. The exami- nation of this study confirms that the virtu- al space of the metaverse was more helpful in making students feel a sense of presen- ce, interaction, and engagement than We- bEx. These results verify the applicability of the platform as a durable and valid tool for teaching art history. This research was Jiyeon Park et al., Exploring Students’ Experiences of Virtual Learning Environment for Art 107 performed in two classes, Western Early Modern Art History and Methodology of Art History classes at the H University in Seoul, South Korea, from September to De- cember 2021. Theoretical Consideration Smart-history is one of the early onli- ne Art History Educational programs that Professors Beth Harris and Steven Zucker provided as a learning experience for the public in 2005 (Goldman, 2014). Smart- history offers open access to high-quality images of the works of art in global art history. One of the purposes of Smart-his- tory is to provide an alternative to paper textbooks (Harris & Zucker, 2016) since the paper textbook has limited in size and the details of images are unreadable. Es- pecially in art history, image is a crucial source of inquiry. Scholars in art history need high-resolution images for observa- tion (McCann & Ravas, 2010) and digital images can rotate freely or be viewed at a larger magnification than seen with the na- ked eye. The digital revolution in the 1990s fa- cilitated the availability of high-resolution digital sources through digital cameras, projectors, and the internet. According to Murray (2011), these changes revolutio- nize the way of projecting images in the art history classroom. However, Murray points out that only presentation slides are mainly used in the recent art history classroom so further new exploration and collaboration of technical facilities are ne- cessary. Recently, instructors attempted to supplement varied digital resources to offer more realistic learning environments and experiences of viewing to students. Smart-history can record not only lectu- rers’ voices but also background ambient sounds such as noise in a museum, in- cluding the echo of a cathedral (Harris & Zucker, 2016). Walter Benjamin (2018) mentions that interaction with actual artworks is preferable because working with repro- duction images lacks presence in time and space. One of the methods for students to look at the work of art is to include a plan for visiting museums in the art history cur- riculum (Kali et al., 2015). However, most students and scholars who study Western, early modern art history in Asia are hard to get access to real artworks because of distance and financial problems. VR and AR could be alternatively used for impro- ved online experiences. During Covid-19, furthermore, the world has experienced a critical situation with the obstacle limi- ting visitation. Google Art & Culture with Google Street View technology enabled the public to take tours of various museums reproduced by 3D digital spaces. In addi- tion, there are multiple digital resources on the website of museums and galleries and individual developers’ sources on the Steam platform (Cecotti, 2021). However, it is still hard to say that the VR experience is a complete solution to replace the real experience due to the limitation of the re- solution of VR headsets. Gamification is also one of the at- tempts to apply digital tools in Art history education. Most games are casual games, such as answering art history quizzes, identifying famous painters and matching paintings, and taking virtual tours (Cham- pion & Foka, 2020). Games, in particular, provide users with a relevant art history ex- perience with an immersive environment for increasing motivation and encouraging active learning processes such as ThlAT- RO and ARTé: Mecenas (Hutson, 2022). Applied virtual heritage and Art history in the game clearly aroused interest and fun; however, adjusting the platform for use in Art history education seems to blur the boundaries between academic and fun (Champion & Foka, 2020). In order to be used in art history classes, each educatio- nal content needs to be designed for each individual grade level (Hutson, 2022). There are also some considerations in applying new technology to higher art history classes. For example, technology- assisted learning can stimulate the inter- est of learners, but it is questionable how helpful it is in real-world lessons where students need critical thinking (Wu et al., Harmonia: Journal of Arts Research and Education 23 (1) (2023): 105-120108 2021). Although asynchronous online lear- ning systems such as Smart-history and MOOCs (Massive Online Open Courses) were operated, a new approach is neces- sary since the Covid pandemic has made synchronous online learning the primary method of online learning rather than an asynchronous system at universities. Asynchronous online learning sys- tems such as Smart-history and MOOCs seem to be more suited to the self-learning method. For example, studying lectures by Smart-history did not need instructors and classmates at the same time. The ad- vantage of an asynchronous online class is that enables one to study in self-paced learning. In addition, most of the lectures and materials are provided in English. Ko- rean subtitles are only partially provided and even viewed with Google Translator which sometimes mistranslates art terms. Elsen (1954) argued that discussion is a useful pedagogical approach to sharing a variety of viewpoints and backgrounds when analyzing artworks. Also, in the ex- periment of Donahue-Wallace & Chanda (2005), when face-to-face interaction was not possible in art history online classes, learning was well achieved even when an alternative means called animated interac- tive activities were used, and the interacti- on between students was improved. Since the pandemic situation, we have been able to try a new method of synchronous online learning. Since the 2020 spring semester, H University has conducted synchronous online learning with the WebEx program (Cisco-WebEx). The downside of WebEx is that if there are many students, more than 40, there are some transition issues. A de- lay between the instructor and the learner frequently happened in a chatting win- dow. When the instructor wanted students to answer in the middle of a lecture, it ta- kes time for students who turned off the camera and microphone for better screen quality. Moreover, students hardly felt the presence of others, thus, not only students but also educators feel isolated to some de- gree. The metaverse was noted as an alter- native tool to compensate for this shortco- ming. Webex is also a metaverse in a broad sense. However, the original purpose of WebEx was for meetings, and WebEx in- terface focused on the meeting function, in which people existed in a grid box with camera streaming. Gather.Town is a syn- chronous video conferencing platform and web browser-based application set on a 2-D virtual environment (Najjar et al., 2022). Gather.Town enables people to en- ter the 2-D virtual space as an avatar, na- vigate through it and interact with objects. Participants could move freely and connect widgets to external software. Gather.Town is available to access via the web which is unnecessary to install any program. Ac- cording to Latulipe & De jaeger (2022), students showed strong preferences for the Gather.Town class setting than Zoom. 2-D Gather.Town environment improved students’ interaction, collaboration, and overall satisfaction with an online learning experience (Najjar et al., 2022). Further- more, Gather.Town is easier to edit sites and objects compared to other programs providing virtual space with characters like Zepeto, and Second Life. Therefore, Gather.Town is more suitable for an active learning approach in non-face-to-face art history classes. METHOD Methodological Approach The questionnaires for the survey be- gan with some simple demographic questi- ons, and the sub-factors consisted of acces- sibility, social presence, ease of interaction, interest, and immersion, and satisfaction. Most of the questions are about the diffe- rence between WebEx and Gather.Town. Table 1 shows the sub-factors, information of questions, and Cronbach’s α value. The overall Cronbach’s α was measured at 0.94 for internal consistency. This study defin- ed social presence as the psychological fee- ling of other people’s presence in the group (Bailenson et al., 2003; Weidlich et al., 2018). The survey questions were modified Jiyeon Park et al., Exploring Students’ Experiences of Virtual Learning Environment for Art 109 from Bailenson et al. (2003) and Weidlich & Bastiaens (2019). To evaluate the degree to which students felt the situational inter- est in Gather.Town rather than in WebEx, the questions were modified from Wang & Adesope (2016). We have also added our own questions assessing student satisfac- tion with using the metaverse platform in the Art History course. The response scale ranges from totally disagree (1) to total- ly agree (5). In the quizzes, we included open-ended questions that allowed stu- dents to explain their experiences in their own words. The questionnaires were con- ducted after the Western Art History cour- se discussion activities. In-depth interviews were conducted by meeting them in person other than class time, after obtaining the volunteers’ con- sent among those students who completed the survey, and the in-depth interview questions were chosen based on the sur- vey questionnaire items. In this sequential process, the two data were naturally in- tegrated and analyzed. The interview took place over WebEx and lasted approxima- tely 90 minutes. In the in-depth interview, most of the questions were analogous to the survey questions. Additionally, we as- ked them to specifically explain how they thought Gather.Town had influenced their learning of art history and if they had any suggestions for a virtual classroom in Gat- her.Town over the next semesters. Participants In this study, the survey participants were students in Western Early Modern Art History and Methodology of Art His- tory during the 2021 second semester at H University in Seoul, South Korea. Table 2 shows the participants’ characteristics, in- cluding grade, gender, and experience of the metaverse. Fifty-nine participants are from the Western Art History class and five from the Methodology of Art History class. In the Western art history class, there are eight first-year students (13.6%), 23 second-year students (39.0%), eight third- year students (13.6%), 13 fourth-year stu- dents (22%), and seven graduate students (11.9%). There were ten males (16.9%) and 49 females (83.1%) in the class, and only two students (3.4%) had previously used metaverse platforms. In the Methodology of Art History class, there were one third- year student (25%) and three fourth-year students (75%). By gender, there were two male students (50%) and two female stu- dents (50%). In this class, none of the stu- dents had used a metaverse platform be- fore. Designing Virtual Space in Gather.Town Table 1. Student Experience of Virtual Learning Questionnaires : Composition and Internal Consistency Sub-factor Summary of Questions Quantity of Questions Cronbach’s α Accessibility Questions asking if there were any inconve- niences or difficulties while using Gather. Town, and how quickly they got used to it 3 .74 Social Presence Awareness of being in the same space with other users, high social presence, and easy formation of bonds 4 .86 Ease of Interaction Easiness of communication and interaction with other participants and instructors 2 .78 Interest and Immer- sion Active participation in classes in terms of fun, immersion, and interest 4 .90 Satisfaction Satisfaction and necessity in terms of continued use 4 .64 Total 17 .94 Harmonia: Journal of Arts Research and Education 23 (1) (2023): 105-120110 Figure 1. Building, lounge, and museum in Gather.Town Figure 2. Classroom for discussion and lecture in Gather.Town Figure 3. The hall for presentation in Gather.Town dents could tour them during their break time. In the art history methodology class, each student made a presentation to inter- pret one work of art in the Rijksmuseum collection with the methodology they had learned so far. As shown in Figure 3, in a space similar to the actual space, students can interact with each other while presen- ting in front of their chosen work. Students could move and watch artwork freely whi- le listening to the other students’ presenta- tions. This is different from presentations that use only the screen-sharing function. Data Analysis The process for analyzing the results of the questionnaires is as follows. The data collected in the survey were analy- zed using the SPSS 21.0 program. First, to check the reliability of the research tool, Virtual worlds are networking envi- ronment that mimics the physical world and organizes a place for activities in the physical world (Maher, 1999). According to Luke (2021), online lectures should en- gage students by creating an informal and approachable virtual learning environ- ment. An immersive learning software must allow users to modify and customize content easily. Also, software should allow instructors to add works of art and related data (Cecotti, 2021). In Gather.Town, we designed the main building which was a replica of the art college building at Hong Ik University, as in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the interi- or of a room for discussion, which was set like an ordinary classroom with chairs and a writing board. We also made virtual mu- seums utilizing online resources provided by other museums and galleries, and stu- Jiyeon Park et al., Exploring Students’ Experiences of Virtual Learning Environment for Art 111 Cronbach’s ⍺ was calculated, the frequen- cy and the percentage were calculated for the general context, and the analysis of the results of the research subject, and the mean and the standard deviation of each sub-factor of the questionnaire tool were analyzed. The in-depth interview data collected were transcribed and analyzed by Content Analysis by Elo & Kyngäs (2008). We read the content of the scripts repeatedly and then categorized the inductive coding pat- terns, which was an open coding process (Moser & Korstjens, 2018). Subsequently, we used the highest level of abstraction through the integration of hierarchical ca- tegories. In this study, we focused on the student experience rather than the me- asurement of learning. Table 3 shows the deductively derived themes in this study. RESULT AND DISCUSSION Results of the Student Experience Survey Figure 4 illustrates the results of the student experience survey. Experience of accessibility is highest at 3.73, followed by interest and immersion (3.47), ease of inte- raction (3.44), satisfaction (3.36), and social presence (3.07). Social presence turns out to be a positive answer with 3.07 points out of 5, but the average score is the lowest among the other questions. Figure 4. Results of the student experience survey The overall average score is 3.4, sug- gesting that discussion activity in the Art History classroom using Gather.Town was Table 2. Demographic of Participants. n(%) Experi- ence of Virtual Learning Ques- tion- naires (N=59) Grade Freshman 8(13.6) Sophomore 23(39.0) Junior 8(13.6) Senior 13(22.0) Graduate Stu- dent 7(11.9) Gender Male 10(16.9) Female 49(83.1) Prior Experience of using Meta- verse Platform Yes 2(3.4) No 57(96.6) In-depth Inter- view (N=4) Grade Freshman 0(0) Sophomore 0(0) Junior 1(25.0) Senior 3(75.0) Graduate Stu- dent 0(0) Gender Male 2(50.0) Female 2(50.0) Prior Experience of using Meta- verse Yes 0(0) No 4(100) Harmonia: Journal of Arts Research and Education 23 (1) (2023): 105-120112 more effective than WebEx. In the open-ended survey, twenty- eight of fifty-nine students agreed that the Avatars interaction feature in Gather.Town was more interesting and useful than We- bEx. They talked about how the characters helped them; “Interesting” and “Fun” are the frequently mentioned words. Addi- tionally, there were endorsements such as ‘the feeling of participating in an actual classroom’, ‘revealing a presence through characters’, ‘making it easier to interact with characters by moving them’, and ‘be- coming more active in the participation’. The second question was addressed to all the students of this questionnaire, asking for reflections on the conditions of a suc- cessful group discussion in the course of art history. ‘Participation’, ‘deepening of questions’, and ‘atmosphere of freedom’ are the keywords often mentioned by stu- dents. Results of In-depth Interview This subsection discusses the results of qualitative analysis based on the in- depth interview. Use Case for Synchronous Learning Tools Most of the participants talked about the tools they mainly used for online edu- cation such as Zoom, WebEx, and Micro- soft Team. However, during Covid 19, H University used WebEx and this in-depth interview is mainly based on the students’ experience with WebEx. The limited number of student video screens and small WebEx video screens hampered student communication. One of the downsides of WebEx is that students have to ask the host to share their screen every time they want to view material on Webex. Student B noted, “WebEx is only half the size of a regular table.“ Participants reported that they could not recognize others in class without tur- Table 3. Deductively Derived Themes Theme Sub-Theme Use case for Synchro- nous Learning Tools -WebEx Digital Resources (Facility) Limited Number of Student Camera Views – Obstruction of Communication Small Video View in Big Class Inconvenience of Screen Sharing Re- quest When Needed Feeling a Sense of Pres- ence, Interaction and Engagement Low Social Presence and Interaction Difficulty in Concentration -Fatigue and tension from using the camera Experience in Using the Metaverse platform , Gather.Town for Class Visually Designed Vir- tual Space Feeling a Sense of Reality- Classroom Designed like a Real School Space can be decorated Avatars Sense of Self Consciousness and Others’ Presence Good for Interaction Good for Concentration Alleviation of Mental Burden of Presenta- tion Disadvantage Links with Expiration It takes time to enter the classroom Usability (Applicabil- ity) of the Metaverse platform in Art History Education Efficiency in Art History Education Good for Exhibition Plan 360-degree rotational viewing point of art work that is impossible in reality High-resolution artwork Requirements for the course progress Need for Adjusting Time for Metaverse Integrated Platform Needed Approprite for Small Class Suggested Metaverse class in Art History Class for Exhibition Planning Inclusion of Metarverse in Art History class Composition Jiyeon Park et al., Exploring Students’ Experiences of Virtual Learning Environment for Art 113 ning on the camera in WebEx. The uncer- tainty of the presence of others diminishes commitment. Also, turning on the camera and microphone caused fatigue. “Also, no matter how many students’ names are on the screen in WebEx, it doesn’t feel like that person exists the- re.” (Student A). “Because the audio volume comes at the same level to everyone, the micropho- nes overlap unintentionally in WebEx.” (Student B). “In WebEx, students should have to post words like ‘Can I speak?’ in the chat window and present their opinions…So many times, I just replied as quickly as possible without thinking enough and finished it.”(Student A). The second theme concerns students’ experiences using virtual spaces and ava- tars, which is the biggest difference bet- ween Gather.Town from WebEx. Students said that there were more reasons why they think Gather.Town was more suitable for synchronous online learning. Students felt like they shared the same place with one another as they were in a virtual space. In addition, students pointed out that a visual environment ma- kes them more visually focused. ”I didn’t feel like we were all connected in WebEx, but in Gather.Town I felt like we were in one space.”(Student A, from Art History Methodology Class, Dec.10, 2021). ”At the time of the presentation, I felt that our classroom was similarly imple- mented in Gather.Town like our real classroom. So it felt like we were in the same classroom together.”(Student B). ”It was good to increase the concent- ration in class because it was no more boring.”(Student C). Avatars were very effective for com- munication and social presence. They made it easier for students to recognize others in Gather.Town than in WebEx. With avatars, they were able to see others around them, which made them feel con- nected in space, although they did not have their video on. “It makes me feel like they are here, and helps to realize they did not disappear after attendance processing.” (Student D). “I think it was good because I felt like I was with the students when I went to Gather Town. […] avatars are moving and reacting… inform that everyone is there.”(Student E). Students felt avatars made it possible to participate more and express their reac- tions easily by confirming the existence of a body and physical properties in a clas- sroom. One student even mentioned that avatars alleviated her mental burden of doing presentations before others. ”It was good for me to concentrate in class because it was not boring.”(Student C). ”Compared to Webex, I think I could turn on the microphone in the class with a little less pressure.”(Student A). In this study, although students’ res- ponses to Gather.Town was more positive than WebEx, and the results for the degree of feeling social presence are the lowest compared to other factors in the survey. A previous study comparing Zoom and Gat- her.Town found that Gather.Town gave students a more social presence than Zoom did (Latulipe & De Jaeger, 2022; Najjar et al., 2022). In fact, the communication bet- ween people in Gather.Town was more ef- fective than WebEx. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it seemed that students did not feel comfor- table speaking at first in non-face-to-face classes. There were often moments of si- lence, so the discussion did not proceed smoothly. This seems to be associated with a characteristic of Asian students. Asi- an students in a big lecture tend to raise a hand and be called on by instructors for talking (Takahashi, 2019). Students reported that the expiration of links was not convenient. And unlike WebEx, one disadvantage of Gather.Town is that it took time to enter a classroom. Usability of the metaverse platform in Art History Education The third theme concerns the usabi- lity of the metaverse platform in Art His- tory Education. Students presented their opinions on improvements to the use of Harmonia: Journal of Arts Research and Education 23 (1) (2023): 105-120114 metaverse in the classroom. Many students expressed positive opinions about the virtual space desig- ned for the art history classroom and the necessity of a virtual space suitable for art history classes. Students evaluated Gat- her.Town as more useful for using digital resources in Art history classes: ”I feel that the metaverse is necessary for Art history class because there are a lot of visual elements.” “Paintings are flat, but sculptures are actually three-dimen- sional. It would be nice to have a functi- on that I can turn over the sculpture or view sideways and backward.“ (Student A, from Art History Methodology Class, Dec.10, 2021). ”The screen of Gather.Town was higher quality than that of WebEx. I could en- large the screen in WebEx too, but the picture quality was poor.” (Student B). ”In art museum, there are things I can’t see because of the person in front of me or my physical limitations. Here, I can see more details.” (Student C). Regarding the final presentation held in a virtual museum, many students responded positively about doing a pre- sentation as avatars. Most students were satisfied with the way of using the meta- verse in Art history class. ”Today the space implementation of Ri- jksmuseum is the good direction of me- taverse class.” (Student B). ”I thought that it would be good if the students have the opportunity to de- sign exhibitions in this kind of space by themselves.”(Student E). There was a student opinion that online classes cannot completely replace face-to-face classes. However, it is judged that the metaverse platform has sufficient competitiveness in the Western art history classroom in South Korea. During the pan- demic, cultural heritage institutions began to provide and develop digital resources due to restricting physical access (Sama- roudi et al., 2020). Museums in Italy are digitalizing works of art and archives to simplify museum administration with pa- perless documents, increasing social onli- ne interaction with the public (Agostino et al., 2020). In this study, students reacted positi- vely to using digital resources in Art histo- ry classes to see artwork in a virtual space that is not physically observed in reality. In other words, digital resources can sup- port investigations from multiple perspec- tives. However, digital resources are sur- rogate objects that can only reflect some of them. That restriction can force people to interpret the resource in a certain way (Stanford, 2020). Therefore, careful study is required of scholars when they utilize digital resources. When students analyze artworks, it will be helpful to find various points of view under the guidance of pro- fessors. The communication among people in Gather.Town was more effective than WebEx. To improve the student’s commu- nication and participation in the Gather. Town, student D suggested that it would be great to have means of assistance such as roulette for students to participate spon- taneously. Furthermore, this method could function as a game in which students could have time to form a bond and intimacy like the time icebreakers. This also could faci- litate participation by giving each part of the class a sequence. Adding a function like this, to a certain extent, can be an al- ternative. As Kreijins et al. (2003) argued, non-task contexts with informal and casu- al conversations foster creating social rela- tionships and group cohesion better than task context can. Therefore, additional dis- tinctive sections could increase interaction and intimacy among students in non-face- to-face synchronous online learning. They also viewed Gather.Town would be more effective for a small class rather than a big class. ”Since we had to use two platforms, We- bEx and Gather.Town, we needed mul- tiple devices. I thought that it might be a little difficult for students who are going to listen to a large lecture or do not have devices ready.” (Student C). ”It was possible because it was a small class. It would not be easy to move avatars at the same time if there were fifty students or more than twenty stu- dents… I think it is best to have less than Jiyeon Park et al., Exploring Students’ Experiences of Virtual Learning Environment for Art 115 ten people.” (Student C). The students said they would take the metaverse class again next time, not because it was a metaverse class, but be- cause it was fun and well-organized. Thus, content and activities remain the most im- portant factors in the classroom. There is a need for more creative teaching methods for metaverse classrooms. Discussions This article examined the feasibility of using a distance learning course in con- temporary art history using the metaverse platform. For this purpose, we first compa- red Webex, which was used in post-pande- mic distance education, and Gather.Town, a metaverse platform with an emphasis on visuals, to determine which platform is better and more appropriate for use in art history classes. In the first survey, the Western Modern Art History 2 students were asked about their experiences in the Metaverse platform course in the discussi- on section. The survey consists of the items that identify accessibility, social presence, the convenience of interaction, interest and immersion, and satisfaction sub-factors. In a non-face-to-face situation, many students did not encounter any technical inconveni- ence in various access environments when using Gather.Town, and they did not have much difficulty getting used to the new platform. Overall, Gather.Town is better suited for classroom use than Webex; in particular, student-student and student- lecture interactions in Gather.Town has been found to be easier than Webex; this means that Gather.Town is a better plat- form to use than Webex in lecture-style art history classes, where interaction among learners as well as between learners and instructors is important. Next, in-depth interviews were con- ducted to investigate the specific experi- ences of students regarding the experien- ce of using the Gather.Town platform in the Art History Methodology course. In the in-depth interview, we first compared Webex and Gether.Town to find out why Gather.Town is better suited for art histo- ry lessons. As a disadvantage of Webex, a student pointed out that it was difficult for students to communicate together. In particular, the difficulty in recognizing ot- hers and the communication depending on audio are the reason for this; even if the camera is in charge of the visual part, it in- creases the feeling of load and tension. On the other hand, in Gather.Town, the visual element that implements and replaces the existence of students called avatars, allows for more advanced mutual communicati- on than Webex. Being able to recognize the existence of others and being able to visu- ally check movements during class is help- ful for class participation. In the in-depth interview, we tried to understand the usefulness of Gather better.Town in the art history course. Stu- dents are aware of the importance of visu- al elements in art history lessons and the need to appreciate works of art in a spa- tial context. Compared to Webex, Gather. Town was rated suitable for using digital resources. Indeed, by linking the original or high-definition image of the correspon- ding digital resource to the object, it is possible to appreciate the work from dif- ferent angles that are not possible in reali- ty, which is possible with a resource clear digital. One can notice that the courses take place in a virtual space designed as a real museum and connected to each object and digital resource, and that students can walk around in avatars is an element that makes them feel the need during the use of the metaverse platform in art history. In particular, if students listen to a presentati- on via screen sharing, such as Webex, they only passively listen to the part shown by the presenter, whereas using Gather. Town, when listening to a presentation, the students can actively examine the digi- tal assets of the works directly connected, allowing much more active participation in class. Thus, the students thought using the metaverse platform with many visual elements in art history lessons was neces- sary. Not only the study of digitized resources but the study of the use of digi- Harmonia: Journal of Arts Research and Education 23 (1) (2023): 105-120116 tal technology is required for researchers in Art History education (Drucker, 2013). The freedom of unlimited space, sustai- nability, and ease of updates contribute to developing the possibility of digital art history (Westerby & Keegan, 2019). Digital tools are continually developing, and rese- archers have difficulty using the technolo- gy as an evolving. The field of Art history is traditionally conservative and does not follow changes quickly (Stanford, 2020). Nevertheless, the consideration of digital art history has been proceeding. Beyond the digitization of materials in art history research, attempting to use digital mate- rials is helpful in diversifying the ways where digital resources can be additionally adopted in art history education. In higher education art history cour- ses, traditional academic instruction in the form of lectures is essential. Even though it is a static lecture, the interaction between the lecturer and students is essential, so Gather.Town, which facilitates commu- nication and interaction with visual ele- ments, is more suitable in art history clas- ses than Webex. Because a strong visual element is effective in teaching art history, directly decorating a virtual space, where we cannot be visited physically and tem- porally, and moving around and checking the works greatly contributes to increasing participation and interest. Recently, it has been very difficult for Korean students studying early modern Western art history to have a real excursion opportunity, and hence then, it is almost impossible to see real works in class. The development of digital resources increases the accessibili- ty of modern Western arts to Korean stu- dents. Despite the development of digital resources, sharing the ppt screen is mainly adopted in art history courses using syn- chronous online learning tools such as Webex, and when using these tools, it has a certain limitation that the used visual materials are flat and shown via photo sli- deshows. The ability to connect, organize, and browse various digital resources in the Gather.Town virtual space makes Gather. Town more suitable for art history classes taken by Korean students who rely heavi- ly on digital resources. Also, the ability to archive as a visual element linked to digi- tal assets in Gather.Town’s virtual space is convenient for users by increasing visual intuitiveness. When the lecture takes pla- ce in the space created for the art history course, the students are allowed to explore works of art in a spatial context. In addi- tion, active participation in class and the study of art history become possible. This can allow skill training to visually analy- ze works more actively in the classroom and enable in-depth investigation. Meta- verse platforms like Gather.Town can be a powerful tool that overcomes the physi- cal and temporal limitations of art history education. CONCLUSION This study presents the results of a case study of synchronous e-learning in the Art history class in higher educati- on under the evolving situation of digital humanities accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. A few studies have focused on the usability of a metaverse in a classroom, but no attention was paid to its applicabili- ty to Art History as well as to higher levels of education. The results from this study confirm that the virtual space of metaver- se was more helpful for students to feel a sense of presence, interaction, and enga- gement than WebEx. The accessibility and convenience of digital resources were bet- ter. The feeling of reality from the similarly designed classroom space and the freedom of students to move their characters on their own are other effective advantages of the metaverse. In addition, while pro- viding learning content and the exhibition space for the museum, Gather.Town was effective for students in Art History to ac- tively participate and interact by directly attaching spaces or additional materials. These results verify the applicability of this platform as a sustainable and valid tool for Art History education. Jiyeon Park et al., Exploring Students’ Experiences of Virtual Learning Environment for Art 117 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This research was supported by the Hong Ik University Academic Research Promotion Fund for the 2021 academic year. REFERENCES Agostino, D., Arnaboldi, M., & Lampis, A. (2020). Italian state museums dur- ing the COVID-19 crisis: From onsite closure to online openness. Museum Management and Curatorship, 35(4), 362–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 9647775.2020.1790029 Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., & Loomis, J. M. (2003). Interpersonal Distance in Im- mersive Virtual Environments. Personality and Social Psychology Bul- letin, 29(7), 819–833. https://doi. org/10.1177/0146167203029007002 Benjamin, W. (2018). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. In S. Watson, A. J. Barnes, & K. Bunning (Eds.), A Museum Studies Approach to Heritage (1st ed., pp. 226–243). Rout- ledge. Black, R. A. (2015). Manifest Orientalism: Roots of the Teacher Centered Ap- proach in Canonical Art History Texts. Review of Arts and Humanities, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.15640/rah. v4n1a1 Cardinali, M. (2019). Digital Tools and Technical Views: The Intersection of Digital Art History and Technical Art History in a Digital Archive on the Painting Technique of Caravag- gio and His Followers. Visual Re- sources, 35(1–2), 52–73. https://doi. org/10.1080/01973762.2019.1555351 Cecotti, H. (2021). Great Paintings in Fully Immersive Virtual Reality. 2021 7th International Conference of the Immer- sive Learning Research Network (ILRN), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.23919/ iLRN52045.2021.9459403 Champion, E., & Foka, A. (2020). Art his- tory, heritage games, and virtual reality. In kathryn Brown (Ed.), The Routledge Companion to Digital Hu- manities and Art History (1st ed., pp. 238–253). Routledge. Di Serio, Á., Ibáñez, M. B., & Kloos, C. D. (2013). Impact of an augmented real- ity system on students’ motivation for a visual art course. Computers & Education, 68, 586–596. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.002 Donahue-Wallace, K. (2008). A tale of two courses: Instructor-driven and stu- dent-centered approaches to online art history instruction. Teaching Art History with New Technologies: Reflec- tions and Case Studies, 109–119. Donahue-Wallace, K., & Chanda, J. (2005). A case study in integrating the best practices of face-to-face art history and online teaching. Interactive Mul- timedia Electronic Journal of Computer- Enhanced Learning, 7(1). Drucker, J. (2013). Is There a “Digital” Art History? Visual Resources, 29(1–2), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/0197 3762.2013.761106 Elkins, J. (2007). Introduction: The Concept of Visual Literacy, and Its Limita- tions. In J. Elkins (Ed.), Visual Litera- cy (1st ed., pp. 1–10). Routledge. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The Quali- tative Content Analysis Process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x Elsen, A. (1954). For Better Undergraduate Teaching in Art History. College Art Journal, 13(3), 195–202. https://doi. org/10.2307/772552 Erickson, M. (1983). Teaching Art History as an Inquiry Process. Art Education, 36(5), 28–31. https://doi.org/10.108 0/00043125.1983.11654124 Gasper-Hulvat, M. (2017). Active Learning in Art History: A Review of Formal Literature. Art History Pedagogy & Practice, 2(1). https://academic- works.cuny.edu/ahpp/vol2/iss1/2 Goldman, K. R. (2014). Hashtag Learning: How Online Communities Can Trans- form Education in the Arts and Human- Harmonia: Journal of Arts Research and Education 23 (1) (2023): 105-120118 ities [Master’s thesis, Sotheby’s In- stitute of Art - New York]. Proquest Dissertations and Theses. Harris, B., & Zucker, S. (2016). Making the Absent Present: The Imperative of Teaching Art History. Art History Pedagogy & Practice, 1(1). https:// academicworks.cuny.edu/ahpp/ vol1/iss1/4 Hutson, J. L. Jr (2022). Gamification of Educa- tion and Learning: Heuristic Elements, Player Types, and Learning Outcomes for Art History Games [Master’s the- sis, Lindenwood University]. Digital Commons@Lindenwood University. https://digitalcommons.linden- wood.edu/theses/70/ Janet, J., & Miles, M. (2009). ARTE- MIS: Reinvigorating History and Theory in Art and Design Educa- tion. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 28(1), 52–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476- 8070.2009.01592.x Kali, Y., Sagy, O., Kuflik, T., Mogilevsky, O., & Maayan-Fanar, E. (2015). Harness- ing Technology for Promoting Un- dergraduate Art Education: A Novel Model that Streamlines Learning between Classroom, Museum, and Home. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 8(1), 5–17. https://doi. org/10.1109/TLT.2014.2365810 Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-sup- ported collaborative learning envi- ronments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0747-5632(02)00057-2 Latulipe, C., & De Jaeger, A. (2022). Com- paring Student Experiences of Col- laborative Learning in Synchronous CS1 Classes in Gather.Town vs. Zoom. Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Sci- ence Education V. 1, 411–417. https:// doi.org/10.1145/3478431.3499383 Lee, J., Lee, H.-K., Jeong, D., Lee, J., Kim, T., & Lee, J. (2021). Developing Muse- um Education Content: AR Blended Learning. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 40(3), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12352 Lee, L.-H., Zhou, P., Braud, T., & Hui, P. (2022). What is the Metaverse? An Im- mersive Cyberspace and Open Challeng- es (arXiv:2206.03018). arXiv. https:// doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2206.03018 Lee, S.-G., Trimi, S., Byun, W. K., & Kang, M. (2011). Innovation and imitation effects in Metaverse service adop- tion. Service Business, 5(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628- 011-0108-8 Luke, K. (2021). Twelve tips for using syn- chronous virtual classroom technol- ogies in medical education. MedEd- Publish, 10(1), Article 1. https://doi. org/10.15694/mep.2021.000066.1 Maher, M. L. (1999, December). Design- ing the Virtual Campus as a Virtual World. Proceedings of CSCL 1999. https://repository.isls.org//han- dle/1/4343 Martikainen, J. (2017). Making Pictures as a Method of Teaching Art History. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 18(Number 19). http://www. ijea.org/v18n19/index.html McCann, S., & Ravas, T. (2010). Impact of Image Quality in Online Art History Journals: A User Study. Art Docu- mentation: Journal of the Art Librar- ies Society of North America, 29(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1086/ adx.29.1.27949538 Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative re- search. Part 3: Sampling, data collec- tion and analysis. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 9–18. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.137 5091 Murray, S. (2011). The Crisis in Art His- tory. Visual Resources, 27(4), 314–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973762.2 011.622214 Najjar, N., Stubler, A., Ramaprasad, H., Lipford, H., & Wilson, D. (2022). Evaluating Students’ Perceptions of Jiyeon Park et al., Exploring Students’ Experiences of Virtual Learning Environment for Art 119 Online Learning with 2-D Virtual Spaces. Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Sci- ence Education V. 1, 112–118. https:// doi.org/10.1145/3478431.3499396 Nesher Shoshan, H., & Wehrt, W. (2022). Understanding “Zoom fatigue”: A mixed-method approach. Applied Psychology, 71(3), 827–852. https:// doi.org/10.1111/apps.12360 Noble, K. (2021). Challenges and Opportu- nities: Creative Approaches to Muse- um and Gallery Learning during the Pandemic. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 40(4), 676–689. https://doi.org/10.1111/jade.12380 Park, S., & Kim, S. (2022a). Identifying World Types to Deliver Gameful Ex- periences for Sustainable Learning in the Metaverse. Sustainability, 14(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su14031361 Park, S., & Kim, Y. (2022b). A Metaverse: Taxonomy, Components, Applica- tions, and Open Challenges. IEEE Access, 10, 4209–4251. https://doi. org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3140175 Pitt, S. P., Updike, C. B., & Guthrie, M. E. (2003). Integrating Digital Images into the Art and Art History Cur- riculum. Journal of Library Adminis- tration, 39(2–3), 29–42. https://doi. org/10.1300/J111v39n02_04 Samaroudi, M., Echavarria, K. R., & Perry, L. (2020). Heritage in lockdown: Dig- ital provision of memory institutions in the UK and US of America during the COVID-19 pandemic. Museum Management and Curatorship, 35(4), 337–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/0 9647775.2020.1810483 Simmons, G. (2008). Motivating participa- tion in online art history courses: Is- sues and Ideas. Teaching Art History with New Technologies: Reflections and Case Studies, 119–129. Simons, J. (2007). From Visual Liter- acy to Image Competence. In J. Elkins (Ed.), Visual Literacy (1st ed., pp. 77–90). Routledge. doi. org/10.4324/9780203939574 Stanford, E. (2020). A Field Guide to Digi- tal Surrogates: Evaluating and Con- textualizing a Rapidly Changing Re- source. In kathryn Brown (Ed.), The Routledge Companion to Digital Hu- manities and Art History (1st ed., pp. 203–214). Routledge. Takahashi, J. (2019). East Asian and na- tive-English-speaking students’ participation in the graduate-level American classroom. Communication Education, 68(2), 215–234. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2019.156 6963 Vandenberg, S., & Magnuson, M. (2021). A comparison of student and fac- ulty attitudes on the use of Zoom, a video conferencing platform: A mixed-methods study. Nurse Educa- tion in Practice, 54, 103138. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103138 Wang, Z., & Adesope, O. (2016). Exploring the effects of seductive details with the 4-phase model of interest. Learn- ing and Motivation, 55, 65–77. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2016.06.003 Weidlich, J., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2019). De- signing sociable online learning environments and enhancing so- cial presence: An affordance en- richment approach. Computers & Education, 142, 103622. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103622 Weidlich, J., Kreijns, K., Rajagopal, K., & Bastiaens, T. (2018). What Social Pres- ence is, what it isn’t, and how to mea- sure it: A work in progress. 2142–2150. https://www.learntechlib.org/ primary/p/184456/ Westerby, G., & Keegan, K. (2019). Digital Art History and the Museum: The Online Scholarly Collection Cata- logues at the Art Institute of Chicago. Visual Resources, 35(1–2), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973762.2 018.1553445 Wu, W.-L., Hsu, Y., Yang, Q.-F., Chen, J.- J., & Jong, M. S.-Y. (2021). Effects of the self-regulated strategy within the context of spherical video-based virtual reality on students’ learning Harmonia: Journal of Arts Research and Education 23 (1) (2023): 105-120120 performances in an art history class. Interactive Learning Environments, 0(0), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10494820.2021.1878231