Evaluating Lighting Condition of Primary Schools in 2015 (Case Study:Nahavand City of Hamadan Province, Iran)

Seyyed Alireza Mousavi, Maryam Khashij, Davood Shahbazi

Abstract


The quality of vision is essential that universally understood about the human condition in a learning environment. In this regard, lighting exceeds than standard level increased visual fatigue as reflection decrease by eye blinks. Against exposure to lower maximum allowed to involve Nystagmus, headaches and impaired vision as the most significant symptoms for students. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the total lighting condition (a combination of natural and artificial lighting) in primary schools in Nahavand city and compared it with the international standards. This study investigated average lighting using illumination meter DX200 INS in Nahavand’s primary schools. Results showed that mean lighting for whole classrooms was 415.7±166 lux. Also, ratio of window area/floor area (WA/FA) was less than the standard ratio only in 8 classes from 121 totals with the coefficient of correlation 0.56 between illuminances average and ratio of WA/FA. These findings might have practical implications for the implementation of desirable and standard lighting in schools for better practice of students.

Keywords


Lighting, Classroom, Illuminances Standard, Nahavand, Hamadan

Full Text:

PDF XML

References


ISIR. Institute of Standards and Industrial Research of Iran Primary school classroom - Specifications, 1st. Revision; No 7331, availble from: htpp://www.dres.ir, 2003.

Wurtman RJ. The effects of light on the human body. Scientific American. 1975; 233(1): 68-77.

Tanner CK. Explaining relationships among student outcomes and the school's physical environment. Journal of Advanced Academics. 2008; 19(3): 444-71.

Alrubaih M, Zain MF, Alghoul MA, Ibrahim NL, Shameri MA, Elayeb O. Research and development on aspects of daylighting fundamentals. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2013; 21(2):494-05.

Mott MS, Robinson DH, Walden A, Burnette J, Rutherford AS. Illuminating the effects of dynamic lighting on student learning. Sage Open. 2012; 21(2): 1-9.

Pulay AS. Awareness of daylighting on student learning in an educational facility [Ph. D Dissertation]. University of Nebraska; 2010.

Rasinski TV, Samuels SJ. Reading fluency: What it is and what it is not. What research has to say about reading instruction. 2011; 23(2): 94-14.

Xue P, Mak C, Cheung H. The effects of daylighting and human behavior on luminous comfort in residential buildings: A questionnaire survey. Building and Environment. 2014; 81(2): 51-59.

Parsons K. Environmental ergonomics: a review of principles, methods and models. Applied ergonomics. 2000; 31(6): 581-94.

Boyce P. Age, illuminance, visual performance and preference. Lighting Research and Technology. 1973; 5(3): 125-44.

Winterbottom M, Wilkins A. Lighting and discomfort in the classroom. Journal of environmental psychology. 2009; 29(1): 63-75.

Cheatum BA, Hammond AA. Physical activities for improving children's learning and behavior: A guide to sensory motor development. Human Kinetics. 2000

Hajibabaei M, Rasooli E. Comparison of Different Methods of Measuring Illuminance in the Indoor of Office and Educational Buildings. Jundishapur Journal of Health Sciences. 2014; 6(3): 1-6.

Smith HJ, Higgins S, Wall K, Miller J. Interactive whiteboards: boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 2005; 21(2): 91-01.

Slater A, Perry M, Carter D. Illuminance differences between desks: Limits of acceptability. Lighting Research and Technology. 1993; 25(2): 91-03.

Rea M. An overview of visual performance. Lighting Design and Application. 1982; 12(11): 35-41.

Johnson L. Teaching outside the box: How to grab your students by their brains. John Wiley & Sons. 2015.

Ulrich RS. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In Behavior and the natural environment. 1983; 1(1): 85-25.

Tennessen CM, Cimprich B. Views to nature: Effects on attention. Journal of environmental psychology. 1995; 15(1): 77-85.

Rasinski TV, Samuels SJ. Reading fluency: What it is and what it is not. International Reading Association. 2011; 4(2011): 94-14.

Werner CM, Cook S, Colby J, Lim HJ. “Lights out” in university classrooms: Brief group discussion can change behavior. Journal of environmental psychology. 2012; 32(4): 418-26.

Krüger E, Fonseca S. Evaluating daylighting potential and energy efficiency in a classroom building. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy. 2011; 3(6): 063112.

Hourani MM, Hammad RN. Impact of daylight quality on architectural space dynamics: Case study: City Mall–Amman, Jordan. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2012; 16(6): 3579-85.

Ul Haq MA, Hassan MY, Abdullah H, Rahman HA, Abdullah MP, Hussin F, Said DM. A review on lighting control technologies in commercial buildings, their performance and affecting factors. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2014; 33(1): 268-79.

Credé M, Roch SG, Kieszczynka UM. Class attendance in college a meta-analytic review of the relationship of class attendance with grades and student characteristics. Review of Educational Research. 2010; 80(2): 272-95.

Chen J, Lin TF. Class attendance and exam performance: A randomized experiment. The Journal of Economic Education. 2008; 39(3): 213-27.

Veitch JA. Psychological processes influencing lighting quality. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society. 2001; 30(1): 124-40.

Commission CE. Windows and classrooms: A study of student performance and the indoor environment, Technical Report P500-03-082-A-7. Prepared by Heschong-Mahone Group. Sacramento, Calif: California Energy Commission, 2003.

Rea MS. The IESNA lighting handbook: reference & application, 2000.

Standard, RCL. Iranian Building Code, Ministry of Building and Urban Design, Tehran, Iran, 1992.






Iranian Journal of Health, Safety and Environment e-ISSN: :2345-5535 Iran university of Medical sciences, Tehran, Iran