A Correlational Study of the Predefined Conditions and Students Perceptions of

the Physical Learning Environment in Public Secondary Schools in Mawab, Davao de Oro.

Theme:

Sustainable Development

A Research Proposal presented to the

College of Architecture and Fine Arts Education

University of Mindanao, Davao City

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Bachelor of Science in Architecture

ARMYR JUNE A. DE GRACIA

December 2021

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Purpose Statement……………………………………………………………………. 4

Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………..... 5

1.1 Background of the Study…………………………………………… 5

1.2 Statement of the Problem…………………………………………... 6

1.2.1 Research Questions ………………………………………….. 7

1.3 Goals………………………………………………………………... 7

1.3.1 Research Objectives………………………………………….. 8

1.4 Theoretical Framework……………………………………………… 8

1.5 Conceptual Framework …..………………………………………… 9

1.6 Scope and Limitations………………………………………………. 11

1.7 Hypothesis………………………………………………………….. 11

1.8 Significance of the Study…………………………………………… 11

1.9 Acronyms and Abbreviations, Definition of Terms and Concepts… 12

Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature…………………………………………... 14

Chapter 3: Methodology……………………………………………………………. 26

Research Design………………………………………………………… 26

Research Locale………………………………………………………… 26

Research Instrument……………………………………………………. 27

Research Analysis……………………..…………………………….… 28

Ethical Considerations………………………………………………….. 30

References…………………………………………………………….... 32

Appendices ………………………………………………………………………….. 45

Student Perception ..…………………………………………………… 45

2
Predefined Condition………….…………………………………….. 48

Budgetary Requirements...………………………………………….. 51

Timetable……….………………………………………………….... 52

3
 PURPOSE STATEMENT

The purpose of the study is to correlate the predefined conditions and the

students’ perceptions of the physical learning environment in terms of ambient, spatial,

and technological attributes of the selected classrooms of public secondary schools in

Mawab, Davao de Oro. The study will be useful in evaluating the physical learning

environment in secondary schools. Furthermore, this research will link two Likert

scales, one for assessing student satisfaction with classroom attributes and the other for

assessing the impact of these attributes on student performance (student perceptions)

and examine the relationships between reported perceptions and student evaluations of

various conditions (predefined conditions).

4
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

With the emergence of sick building syndrome, questions about the influence

of classroom characteristics on student performance have arisen. Psychologists,

educators, architects, and engineers are among the experts who have looked at the best

learning settings for a range of age groups, from pre-school to post-secondary education

(Wargocki & Wyon, 2011). Sick building syndrome (SBS) is a term used to describe a

situation in which building occupants have severe health or comfort-related problems

that appear to be linked to the amount of time they spend within the structure (Joshi,

2008). Even though all these studies have made multiple attempts to identify the

optimum situation, no consensus has been reached. Unfavorable environmental

conditions such as extreme temperatures, insufficient lighting, and poor air quality

clearly have a negative impact on student achievement, retention, and attendance, but

the essential impacts and relationships of these attributes are still unclear once the basic

requirements are met (Corgnati, et al., 2007). This investigation has also looked into

the spatial design of classrooms, including furniture, visibility, and arrangement

(Brooks, 2012). Most of the classrooms have a default layout: rows of desks facing one,

open floor plans, group seating, and comfortable furniture that have been applied with

contradictory results (Montgomery, 2008). Technology has expanded into a crucial

component within a classroom during the last decade, involving the integration of audio

and video equipment, participation tools, personal computers, and internet connectivity.

In general, the use of technology in the classroom has been deemed advantageous.

However, technology has been shown to have little benefit or even a harmful impact on

5
 students' learning experiences in some circumstances (Schmid, et al., 2009). As

technology, teaching methodologies, and design philosophies advance, the ideal

learning environment must be measured and reassessed on a regular basis (Higgins, et

al., 2005).

The municipality of Mawab has three public secondary schools, ranging from

the Poblacion to the last barangay. These schools have been established for over six

decades. The researcher studied at Andili National High School for four years and

noticed the default classroom layouts, row of desks facing in one direction, and similar

furniture to all other classrooms, improper ventilation, poor integration of technology.

Since this is a government property hence, they have the right to give the standard size

of a classroom and furniture. Still, teachers failed to utilize this equipment to create a

conducive and interactive learning environment for the students. Classroom design,

maintenance, and administration may all help to improve physical learning settings

(Fulton, 1991). This research will aid the unconducive learning environment by

correlating the predefined conditions and the students’ perceptions towards these

classroom attributes.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The public classrooms in the Philippines, including secondary education,

occupy a unique position, where students are being molded and honed academically.

Despite the importance of these public classrooms, the structures built for over five

decades have been noticeable in their ambient, spatial, and technological attributes.

These three categories of physical characteristics are linked (Fulton, 1991) and are

inextricably linked to learning results and student conduct (Guardino & Fullerton,

2010), which determines student satisfaction and performance. Some of the previous

6
 study has focused on learning environment characteristics that influence student

satisfaction (Butt & Rehman, 2010). (Aldridge & Rowley, 1998) have observed that

high-quality learning spaces, greater chances for learning, and positive attitudes

improved student performance. Lighting, temperature, and space management are all

factors that contribute to student happiness with their learning settings (Hill & Epps,

2009).

In the local area, there is no accurate data to determine the classroom attributes

among public secondary schools in Mawab. Classrooms are designed to fulfill, serve,

and meet the requirements and desires of its users (Brooks, 2012). This research will

create a database that will help create a better learning environment that corresponds to

certain classroom characteristics. The findings will show the potential worth of effort

to enhance higher education classroom design, administration, and maintenance and

provide recommendations for reasonable adjustments.

1.2.1 Research Questions

1. How do students perceive the physical learning environment in terms of

ambient, spatial, and technological classroom attributes?

2. What are the selected predefined conditions in each category that are

present in the selected classrooms?

3. What are the relationships between reported perceptions and

corresponding descriptive conditions?

1.3 Goals

Based on the research problem, this research seeks to correlate the predefined

conditions and students’ perceptions of the physical learning environment in terms of

7
 ambient, spatial, and technological attributes. Furthermore, the area of this study is the

selected classrooms in public schools in Mawab, Davao de Oro.

1.3.1 Research Objectives

1. To perceive the physical learning environment in terms of ambient,

spatial, and technological classroom attributes.

2. To selected predefined conditions in each category that are present in

the selected classrooms.

2. To correlate the reported perceptions and corresponding descriptive

conditions.
1.1 Theoretical Framework
1.4 Theoretical Framework

LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

PSYCHOLOGICAL PHYSICAL PSYCHOSOCIAL

Ambient Attribute

Temperature

Acoustics

Artificial Lighting

Daylight

Air Quality

Spatial Attribute

Visibility

Room Layout

Classroom Furniture

Technological Attribute

Hardware

Software

Figure 1. Moo’s 1984, Classroom Environment Scale

8
 Student’s perceptions can be divided into three categories: perception of the

psychosocial environment such as a sense of belonging to a group of connection with

classmates (Velayutham & Aldridge, 2012); motivation, self-efficacy, and achievement

are examples of psychological environment perceptions (Fraser, 2012); and the

physical environment, such as classroom size, lighting, and technology, affects

students' perceptions (Guardino & Fullerton, 2010). This categorization strategy is like

the one presented by Moos in his research (i.e., relationship dimensions, personal

development dimensions, maintenance, and system change dimensions) (Moos, 1984).

Physical characteristics can be divided into three groups, according to the

literature. The ambient environment is the first category, which includes temperature,

acoustics, lighting, daylight, and air quality (Brown, 2011). The second group of

characteristics relates to the physical environment, such as classroom arrangement (Fu,

2010), furniture for the classroom (Brooks, 2012), sightline visibility and accessibility

(Tanner, 2000). The third group includes technology-related characteristics such as the

appropriateness of high-tech hardware functionalities and software simplicity of use

(Yang & Liu, 2007), as well as the speed with which data is sent across the internet.

Each of the perception characteristics outlined above might help us learn more about

how learning environments influence student happiness and performance (Fulton,

1991).

1.5 Conceptual Framework

Physical learning environment should be assessed by looking at both their

physical aspects (predefined conditions) as well as the learners' perceptions of such

attributes (through students’ satisfaction and performance). To promote student

9
1.1 learning, classrooms
Theoretical Frameworkshould be set up to give the most significant learning environments

possible (Roskos & Neuman, 2011).

LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

PHYSICAL

EVALUATED THROUGH

Predefined Condition Student Perception

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, (Trickett & Moos, 1973) and (Walberg &

Anderson, 1968) performed one of the earliest studies on learning environments. The

learning environment comprises of three aspects which are the psychological,

psychosocial, and physical environment. This three must create a conducive learning

system among the students and faculties (Barth, 2008).

This study deals with the physical learning environments, which are one of the

most important aspects of a classroom. (Zandvliet & Fraser, 2005). Students' learning

can be aided by well-organized classroom spaces, which can also improve student

ratings of the instructor and the course (Barth, 2008). Furthermore, classroom design,

maintenance, and administration may all help to improve physical learning

environment (Cho, et al., 2007). Various studies have looked into the influence of

10
 physical learning environments on student satisfaction and performance in K-12

schools (Hill & Epps, 2009).

1.6 Scope and Limitations of the Study

This study will be conducted in the municipality of Mawab. The study areas

will be the three public secondary schools: Lorenzo S. Sarmiento Jr. National High

School, Nuevo Iloco National High School, and Andili National High School. The

respondents will be the students. They will utilize the double Likert scale to rate student

contentment (the satisfaction vote) and the influence of 10 classroom parameters on

their performance (the impact vote) (Cho, et al., 2007). Afterwards, a survey will be

done among students to select predefined conditions in each classroom attribute that

are present in the selected classrooms.

1.7 Hypothesis

H0 (Null Hypothesis): There is no relationship between the reported perceptions

and corresponding descriptive conditions.

H1 (Alternative Hypothesis): There is a relationship between the reported

perceptions and corresponding descriptive conditions.

1.8 Significance of the Study

The study will give results of the physical learning environment by correlating

the data from student's predefined conditions (survey) and perceptions (scale) in terms

of the ambient, spatial, and technological attributes. Furthermore, as far as is

documented, this is the first study conducted in the municipality of Mawab. By

providing findings, this study adds to the expanding corpus of research that has assessed

11
 educational innovations in terms of their influence on the classroom environment

(Fraser, 2012).

This study could guide future research about the physical learning environment

in the province of Davao de Oro. Finally, the outcomes of this study may have practical

ramifications for educators, such as improved classroom layouts and greater furniture

utilization.

1.9 Acronyms and Abbreviations, Definition of Terms and Abbreviations

Physical Learning Environment

One of the components of a learning environment. A physical learning

environment is defined as a setting where learning takes place more physically

than merely reading, writing, or conversing (Barth, 2008). Ambient, spatial, and

technological attributes are the categories of this learning environment

(Velayutham & Aldridge, 2012).

Predefined Conditions

This refers to the seven predefined conditions in each classroom that the

students will select through a survey approach.

Students Perception

This refers to the students' perceptions in each classroom attributes by utilizing

a double Likert scale based on their satisfaction and the classroom’s

performance.

12
Likert Scale

For measuring attitudes, Likert scales are well-known. Subjects are asked to rate

a set of attitude statements on scales with common categories like strongly

agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree (Zandvliet & Fraser,

2005).

Mawab

One of the eleven municipalities of Davao de Oro. It comprises the three public

secondary schools: Lorenzo S. Sarmiento Jr. National High School, Nuevo

Iloco National High School, and Andili National High School.

13
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Ancient Era of Classroom Learning Environment

Since 1920, researchers had already studied learning environment, and few of

them are social psychologists. Thomas performed the first known classroom

environment study in the United States in the 1920s (Walberg & Anderson, 1968).

Furthermore, Thomas' study was more concerned with observing and recording explicit

classroom occurrences than with the psychological significance of happenings. This

earlier work has been enhanced by (Lewin, 1936) field theory which defined behavior

as a function of person and environment that is (that is,B=f {P,E}). The "life space" of

a person is the field with which research must deal, according to Lewin's theory. Lewin

added that, he person and the psychological environment make up this life space.

Scientists have used this work from Lewin as a benchmark to evaluate a

classroom environment. Some of the researchers are Cartwright, Murray, Stern, Stein

and Bloom, and Pace and Stern. Following academics built on Lewin's work to create

a need press theory in which people are defined by their press. Individual needs are the

most essential factors of behavior (Lackney, 2000). Murray added a term in connection

of classroom learning environment, where the press is described as an object, it is what

it can do to the subject - the power it has to alter the subject's well-being in some manner

(Higgins, et al., 2005). (Aldridge & Rowley, 1998) suggested that an environment’s

crucial aspects are "Its general mood or features, the types of activities that are

rewarded, promoted, stressed, the way of life that is prized in the community and is

most overtly exhibited and felt,".

14
 Murray and Pace's theories suggest that needs and pressure interact to develop

and guide behavior. An individual or teacher at a school has needs, and the school's

press either meets or exceeds these demands (Murray, 1938). Stern developed a

hypothesis in which the degree of person-environment similarity is connected to student

results, based on need-press theory (Stern, 1970). This idea has been used in

investigations of person-environment fit, in which the comparison of real and preferred

surroundings is linked to student performance (Brown, 2011).

2.2 Modern Era of Classroom Learning Environment

In 1960, Rudolf Moos and Herbert Walberg focused on the assessment of

psychosocial environments. The development of a set of social climate scales sparked

research in a variety of settings, including hospitals, jails, businesses (including

schools), university dormitories, clubs, and classrooms (Moos, 1984). Relationship (the

nature and intensity of personal relationships in the background), Personal

Development (the basic directions along which personal growth and self-enhancement

tend to occur), and System Maintenance and System Change are the three dimensions

of human environments that Moos incorporated (the extent to which the environment

is orderly, clear in expectations, maintains control and is responsive to change). Few

real learning environment researchers have used this general approach for

conceptualizing settings during the past 30 years (Moos, 1984).

Walberg's participation in Harvard Project Physics (HPP) necessitated an

assessment of the learning environment. HPP was a physics course for secondary school

students that was centered on experiments. Walberg used the need-press hypothesis in

his study, collecting perceptual data from students via a questionnaire. His work

concludes that students may make meaningful summary assessments about their

15
 classes, and that these impressions should be employed in studies on learning

environments (Walberg & Anderson, 1968).

2.3 Development of Learning Environment Research

Learning environment research is studied from the viewpoints of both students

and teachers in a specific classroom setting. The term classroom environment began as

early as the 1930s, when (Lewin, 2012) established the concept that personal conduct

is the product of an individual's interaction with his or her environment. (Murray, 1938)

this theory was expanded by incorporating additional influences inside the system,

specifically, that an individual's conduct is influenced both internally and externally by

personality characteristics and the environment. Murray also devised the needs-press

paradigm, which allows for the depiction of personal and environmental data in

standard terms.

(Getzels & Thelen, 1960) presented an expanded model for the classroom as a

social system, in which the interaction of personality, expectations, and the

environment predicts actions, including student results. (Stern, 1970) established a

theory of person-environment congruence in which students' results are improved by

complementary combinations of personal demands and environmental pressures.

Later, (Doyle, 1979) advocated that the classroom be regarded from an ecological

perspective, emphasizing the interconnections and communication among all members

of the classroom community.

In the 1960s, (Getzels & Thelen, 1960) and then later in the 1980s, (Wubbels &

Brekelmans, 1998) all of these studies concluded that teacher-student contact is a potent

force that may have a significant impact on students' cognitive and affective

development. (Wubbels, 1993) emphasized the importance of teacher conduct in the

16
 classroom, specifically how it affects students' motivation, which is connected to

increased achievement If we define learning because of "1interaction with the

environment," individual performance is merely one aspect of the learning process

(Allodi, 2007).

Students' opinions of the classroom environment have been utilized to show

consistent relationships between the classroom environment's character and student

cognitive and emotional outcomes (Fraser, 2012); (Goh & Fraser, 1998). Even though

the idea of classroom environment is complex, significant progress has been made in

conceiving, measuring, and evaluating it, as well as mapping its impacts on pupils

(Fraser, 2007); (Wubbels & Brekelmans, 1998). Numerous studies have found that

students' evaluations of the classroom environment are more closely connected with

learning results than students' background factors (Fraser, 2002).

2.4 Development of Learning Environment Research Instrument

In the topic of learning environments, there are a plethora of low-cost, reliable,

and broadly applicable surveys that have been designed and used to analyze students'

impressions of the classroom environment (Fraser, 2002); (Wubbels & Brekelmans,

1998). Few sectors of education can claim of such a diverse set of validated and reliable

instruments that have been utilized in a wide range of research applications (Aldridge

& Fraser, 2000).

Students are well-equipped to make classroom judgements because they have

had exposure to a range of learning environments and have spent sufficient time in the

classroom to form accurate impressions (Fraser, 2002). Even if instructors' conduct is

inconsistent, they generally convey a consistent impression of the classroom's long-

standing characteristics. Most of the tools have two forms: one for measuring

17
 perceptions of the real or experienced classroom environment, and another for

measuring perceptions of the preferred or ideal classroom environment (Wubbels &

Brekelmans, 1998).

2.5 Physical Learning Environment

The physical qualities and the students' perceptions of those attributes should

be studied when evaluating physical learning settings. Physical characteristics can be

divided into three groups, according to the literature. The ambient environment is the

first category, including factors such as temperature, acoustics, lighting, daylight, and

air quality (Brown, 2011). The second category includes features of the physical

environment, such as classroom layout (Fu, 2010), classroom furniture (Brooks, 2012),

and sightline visibility and accessibility (Tanner, 2000). The third group includes

technology-related characteristics such as the appropriateness of high-tech hardware

features, software simplicity (Yang & Liu, 2007).

These three physical attributes are associated with learning outcomes and

student behavior (Fulton, 1991) and directly linked to student behavior and academic

results (Guardino & Fullerton, 2010) it has an influence on student happiness and

achievement. For example, some previous research has focused on factors that impact

student happiness in the learning environment (Butt & Rehman, 2010). According to

Aldridge and Rowley, high-quality learning facilities, greater learning chances, and

favorable attitudes helped students perform better (Aldridge & Rowley, 1998).

According to Hill and Epps, factors associated with precise settings, such as lighting,

temperature, and space management, boosted student satisfaction with learning

environments (Hill & Epps, 2009). There is no perfect classroom environment to

accommodate all forms of academic activities (Lei, 2010), sometimes it is difficult to

18
 modify a single quality (Fulton, 1991), and how important a physical setting is based

on a student's perspectives (Vosko, 1984). As a result, initiatives to improve learning

environments in higher education settings should regard student views as a critical

variable (Siegel, 2003).

2.6 Ambient Attribute

The temperature was the most relevant ambient factor in shaping student

impressions of classrooms in surveys and quantitative testing (Liu, et al., 2011).

Students are willing to accept somewhat chilly thermal settings (Hwang, et al., 2006)

but prefer slightly warmer environments (Jung, et al., 2011), and temperatures over 74F

have been shown to affect student performance in arithmetic and reading (Lackney,

2000). Temperature and ventilation are strongly linked to air quality because they

determine the number of indoor pollutants, mainly CO2 (Lee & Chang, 2000). Poor air

quality has been connected to low efficiency, a high absentee rate, poor performance,

and failure (Shendell, et al., 2001). Internal ambient disturbances like HVAC fans or

student chats, as well as exterior elements like road noise, have an impact on student

perceptions in the classroom (Dockrell & Shield, 2013). As a result of the distraction

and discomfort caused by excessive noise, poor classroom acoustics can lead to a poor

learning environment for pupils (Dockrell & Shield, 2004), as excessive noise causes

distraction and annoyance. Any object that generates background noise should be

removed, and other acoustical reverberations should be thoroughly investigated and

examined (Guardino & Fullerton, 2010) and other acoustical reverberations, such as

echoes, must be carefully addressed and analyzed (Adewunmi, et al., 2011).

People's perceptions of lighting are influenced by light levels, spatial

distribution of light, glare, and color rendering in an area. It's debatable whether natural

19
 or artificial light creates the optimum learning environment. Natural light has been

shown to benefit pupils' psychological and biological well-being. Natural light can help

students feel better, behave better, and concentrate better (Gerber, et al., 2006), but it

can also cause glare and sun heating (Winterbottom & Wilkins, 2009). Where natural

light is available, artificial light is often required to maintain acceptable levels at all

times of the day and having a lot of windows might be distracting (Veltri, et al., 2006).

Unpleasant glare can be reflected by computers and writing surfaces such as

whiteboards (Wong & Jan, 2003). Headaches, eye strain, and weariness can all be

caused by poor illumination. Varied lighting hues and intensities have been

demonstrated to influence students' perceptions of temperature conditions (Maki &

Shukuya, 2012), and different colors may inspire good sentiments and encourage

learning (Papadatos, 1973). Finally, personal characteristics such as gender and age

have a questionable impact on lighting color and illumination preferences (Sleegers, et

al., 2012).

2.7 Spatial Attribute

Room arrangement, furnishings, and visibility are the spatial qualities

investigated in this work. The organization and bounds are described as layout, whilst

the comfort, ergonomics, and utility of seats and workstations are characterized as

furniture. Visibility in a classroom is affected by the distance and line of sight between

students and an instructor, as well as visual aids such as a projector or black board.

Spatial qualities are less standardized by industry regulations than ambient variables,

and the impact of spatial design on student achievement has received less attention.

However, there has been some progress. For instance, placing the lectern on the room's

short side enhances visibility (Brown, 2011), as every seat must have a clear line of

sight (Guardino & Fullerton, 2010). The classroom's size and form are also critical in

20
 providing space for fundamental classroom interactions and activities (Olatunji, 2013).

There should be adequate space between seats and rows to allow for movement and

accessibility (Wong & Jan, 2003). For seclusion, this area might be structured by adding

shelves or cubbies (Dockrell & Shield, 2013). Pathways between workstations and

heavily trafficked areas should also be clearly marked (Gopikrishnan & Topkhar,

2014).

The instructor's desk can also be moved around the classroom, for example, in

front of or midst it (Wargocki & Wyon, 2011). Typically, rows of chairs assist lecture

sessions by keeping students focused and attentive to the teacher. With this setup,

students are facing away from visual distractions (Wong & Jan, 2003), Students in the

front or middle rows are more interested in class activities and lectures (Brown, 2011),

because the shorter distance guarantees eye contact between the learner and the

instructor (Yang & Liu, 2007) blackboards, whiteboards, and projector displays should

all be visible (Ackley, et al., 2018). In discussion-type classes, group clusters or

horseshoe arrangements are advantageous to student engagement (Brooks, 2012), but a

clear demarcation between individuals and group spaces should be created (Guardino

& Fullerton, 2010). Finally, to accommodate pupils of varying sizes, ergonomic and

flexible furniture is advised (Panagiotopoulou, et al., 2004). In addition, ergonomically

comfortable furniture helps pupils stay focused and attentive in the classroom (Deuble

& Dear, 2012). To maximize the flexibility of space utilization, a permanently

connected table should be avoided (Lippman, 2004).

2.8 Technological Attribute

Hardware (e.g., projector, computer, clicker, smart board, camera, etc.) and

software are the technical attributes investigated in this work (e.g., software installed

21
on instructor and student computers and the Internet). As the use of computers,

smartboards, DVD players, and projectors has risen in recent years, researchers have

begun assessing the impact of technology on learning outcomes and students' views of

their learning environments. Schmid et al. discovered that low and moderate usage of

technology in the classroom is more successful than heavy use (Schmid, et al., 2009).

Technology was more useful as a "cognitive tool" rather than a "presentation tool,"

according to Shuell and Faber (Shuell & Farber, 2001).

Finally, (Lowerison, et al., 2006) discovered that here was no substantial link

between computer use and global course assessments, suggesting that this classroom

technology is ineffective. According to the same poll, students prioritize computer use

outside of the classroom for activities such as vocational training and social interaction.

AV (Audio Video) technology like as projectors, speakers, document readers, and

digital writing surfaces can help pupils strengthen their auditory and visual senses.

Kennedy demonstrated that increasing the use of visual aids increases students'

listening abilities (Kennedy, et al., 2006). Because lectures are quicker-paced and

available digitally, students often take fewer notes in class when instructional

technology is used. All classroom equipment should be managed efficiently to ensure

that no time is wasted and that technological issues do not obstruct students' learning

(Lei, 2010) to guarantee that no time is wasted and that students' learning is not

disrupted by technological concerns (Brooks, 2012). Furthermore, students with higher

self-reported GPAs had lower expectations when it came to employing projectors as

teaching tools (Barth, 2008). These findings show that, while technology may be an

excellent teaching tool, its usage in classrooms does not ensure greater student

happiness or performance and may even cause students to become disengaged from

classroom subjects (Holbert & Karady, 2009).

22
2.9 Student Performance and Opinions

Prior research on college and university student happiness as well as student

evaluations of instructional efficacy is extensive. Many aspects influence student

happiness and teacher assessments, including instructor enthusiasm, organization, tests

and grading, content covered, subject matter competence, and communication abilities

(Barth, 2008). There has also been a lot of study on how factors like race, age, gender,

and the expected grade in the class affect student ratings of teachers (Merritt, 2008).

While there have been several research on student happiness and teacher evaluations,

there have been few studies on the impact of the environment on student satisfaction

and teacher ratings at the college and university level. (Westerman, et al., 2002)

examines three factors and their impact on the happiness of business school students.

These factors included the degree to which the overall classroom environment met

student expectations, the alignment of student values with perceived teacher values, and

the compatibility of student and instructor personalities. Both values congruence and

overall classroom environment fit, according to the authors, were significant predictors

of student contentment. Other studies that looked at student satisfaction with upgraded

classrooms focused on technological advances in the classroom. (Tornabene, 1998) It

was revealed that students preferred "smart" classrooms over traditional schools, i.e.,

schools with modern technology. (Marcellus & Ghrayeb, 2002) students preferred

smart classrooms for transmitting basic facts and information, but conventional

schooling with the teacher writing on the chalkboard was better for problem-solving.

2.10 Likert Scale

Since the inception of the Likert scale in 1932, users have discussed the number

of points on the scale's optimal potential utility in terms of reliability and validity

23
(Preston & Colman, 2000). In his (Likert, 1932) explored the limitless number of

identifiable attitudes that everyone possesses, as well as the potential of arranging them

into "clusters" of reactions. He also discussed the process of creating his "survey of

opinions," which he used to show his findings and psychological interpretations

(Brooks, 2012). His poll's key premise is that the elements on the scale are presented in

such a way that participants can choose between opposing options. Second, the themes

chosen for clashing were empirically meaningful, and the results served as an empirical

check on the degree of success. As a result, it is discussed in the context of attitude

clustering. When it comes to the reliability of responses from survey participants, the

7-point scale may perform better than the 5-point scale due to the survey concept's

choice of items on the scale. The seven-point scale provides additional options,

increasing the chances of approaching people's objective reality. A 7-point scale

efficiently appeals to the participants' "power of reason" since it offers more

information about the motif (Chang, 1994).

A respondent's entire agreement with the question's topic may fall between the

two descriptive choices provided on a 5-point scale. When a person is choosing between

two response possibilities on a 5-point scale, they may choose one of the answers on

repeated administration, such as three instead of four. A 7-point scale may reduce the

difficulties of picking between the two negative points on a 5-point scale to some extent

by invoking recollection beyond the highest significant degree of agreement offered by

a 5-point scale. As a result, the difficulty of being forced to choose between two equally

unacceptable points presented by the 5-point Likert scale may be solved to some extent

by a 7-point scale that provides additional options (in between) (Pearse, 2011). The

availability of multiple scale points, such as 5 or 7, would be more enticing to

respondents' minds when the items on the scale include expressions of ideas near the

24
reality of the universe for both the participants and the surveyor. It has the capacity to

generate dependability curves near the 'peak of validity.'

25
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Methodology

This study will use a quantitative research design. The goal of quantitative

research is to figure out how many people think, act, or feel in a certain way.

Quantitative research employs large sample sizes and focuses on the quantity of

responses rather than the more focused or emotional understanding sought by

qualitative research (Matthews, et al., 2011). Furthermore, a survey-based investigation

will be done and will use descriptive and inferential analysis to produce results.

3.2 Research Design

The outcomes of this study will be based on a correlational design. A

correlational research approach investigates relationships between variables without

altering or manipulating any of them. A correlation represents the strength and direction

of a relationship between two (or more) variables. The direction of a connection might

be either positive or negative (Bhandari, 2021). When utilizing a correlational study

methodology, researchers look for links or correlations in data rather than proving that

one event causes another. Researchers must control variables that may alter the

associations identified in the data while statistically analyzing correlational data

(Jamaludin, et al., 2013).

3.3 Research Locale

This study will be conducted at the classrooms of public secondary schools in

Mawab, Davao de Oro. The schools are the following: Lorenzo S. Sarmiento Jr.

National High School, Nuevo Iloco National High School, and Andili National High

26
 School. The respondents of this study are students at each school. A total of eighteen

(18) classrooms will be surveyed, six (6) classrooms each school. The classroom shall

have these three physical attributes: spatial, ambient, and technological. The researcher

will seek information from the principal regarding the criteria for the study area. This

study aims to improve classroom design, administration, and maintenance and provide

recommendations for reasonable adjustments.

3.4 Research Instrument

A double Likert scale and a survey-based technique will be used in this

investigation. A double Likert scale will be used to explore the influence of a wide

variety of physical features on student satisfaction and performance in public secondary

schools. Afterward, a survey of predefined conditions in each classroom attribute will

be executed among students. These two instruments will be utilized to correlate the

different data and test if there is a significant relationship in identifying constraints in

each category. In assessing the learning environment, survey-based studies are

recommended. Students' direct observations may omit critical information, yet they are

the only ones who can share their perspectives on learning settings (Brophy, 1984).

Surveys are helpful tools for studying the learning environment, created and broadly

relevant to various research topics involving classroom attributes.

Students will assess their satisfaction (the satisfaction vote) and the influence of

ten classroom elements on their performance using a two-point Likert scale (the impact

vote) (research question 1). A double scale increases reading consistency and ease of

understanding (Levermore, 2000). The rating method is more suitable and accurate

when the satisfaction and impact votes are collected separately and then combined. The

following ten characteristics were included in this paper based on the literature review:

27
 temperature, air quality, artificial lighting, daylight (only for classrooms with windows;

students in schools without windows could answer "NA" to questions about daylight),

acoustics (audio contact with the instructor and ability to hear the presenter, etc.),

visibility (ability to see the blackboard, whiteboard, projector, visual aids, etc.),

furniture (ability to see the blackboard, whiteboard, projector, visual (software installed

on classroom computers, and the Internet).

Students will be asked to choose which of the preset ambient, spatial, and

technological aspects were present in their classrooms (research question 2). Students

might, for example, choose whether the classrooms were chilly, humid, or overly light.

The goal of this study is to look at the links between classroom attribute perceptions

and descriptive circumstances, as well as the probable drivers of specific perceptions

(research question 3).

3.5 Research Analysis

This study will use quantitative data analysis, which are descriptive statistics

and inferential analysis. There are two approaches to examining the effects of

circumstances and their interrelationships. The adjusted determination coefficient

(Adjusted R Square) is a measure of how much of the dependent variable (perception

score) can be explained by the independent factors (descriptive conditions). Tolerance

is another way for determining multicollinearity between variables. The stronger the

multicollinearity emerges, the lower the tolerance threshold (Yang, et al., 2013).

3.5.1 Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics provide an overview of the data and include

averages and variability measurements. To display data and check for patterns

or outliers, use graphs, scatter plots, and frequency tables (Bhandari, 2020). In

28
 the study, this statistic will be used to provide graphs of perception score, and

regression of perception score.

3.5.2 Inferential Statistics

Predictions or generalizations will be made based on the data. A test of

hypothesis or sample data to estimate the population parameter. This includes

perception scores and regression interpretation of perception scores (Bhandari,

2020).

3.5.2.1 Perception Scores

The three attributes of a physical learning environment will be

chucked down into ten classroom attributes. The study looked at ten

different aspects of the classroom. Temperature, air quality, artificial

lighting, daylight, acoustics, visibility, room layout, furniture, hardware,

and software are all factors to consider. In this analysis, the mean

satisfaction and performance vote will be presented.

3.5.2.2 Regression interpretation

The three classroom attributes will be interpreted based on the

perception scores.

3.5.2.2.1 Spatial Attributes

Students will be asked to identify the variables impacting

their ability to see to assess their views of visibility in the

classroom. A linear regression will be used to analyze the

relationship between the conditions and corresponding

perception scores. When analyzing the student perceptions of

furniture, the score will be explained by three descriptive

29
 conditions. Room layout is another spatial attribute will be

studied in this paper; a linear regression analysis will be done.

3.5.2.2.2 Ambient Attributes

A linear regression will be used to analyze temperature

perception. The perception score will be calculated by five

circumstances for measuring student impressions of air quality

in classrooms: unclean air, odorous air, humid air, dry air, and

drafty air. The factors that influence perception scores in

artificial and natural illumination will be looked at individually.

Only the classrooms with windows will be analyzed for daylight.

Students will be asked to choose ambient noises that impact their

ability to hear the presenter in the classroom when it comes to

acoustics perception.

3.5.2.2.3 Technological Attributes

When analyzing the student’s perceptions in the two

categories of technological attribute which are the hardware and

software; a linear regression will be done.

3.6 Ethical Consideration

The researcher will not compel anyone to complete or rate the questionnaire in

an online survey. I don't want them to leave their house to find an internet café since

I'm a researcher. Instead, we ensure that they are kept secure, healthy, and out of

congested areas.

30
 The security of individuals with the aid of informed permission, and its

participatory excitement for participating this study throughout the world's pandemic

issue, the study's conduct is significant.

The participant's profiles will be always kept safe and secure, as will their

immunity to the pandemic virus. To safeguard the participant's identity, all replies were

kept completely secret.

31
 REFERENCES

Ackley, A., Teeling, C. & Atamewan, a. E., 2018. Factors Affecting the Shortage and or

Provision of Sustainable Affordable Housing in Developing Countries – A Case-Study of Cross

River State, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering, 1(22), pp. 22-

38.

Adewunmi, Y., Omirin, M. & Famuyiwa, a. F., 2011. Post-occupancy evaluation of

postgraduate hostel facilities. Emerald Insight, 29(3/4), pp. 149-168.

Aldridge, J. M. & Fraser, a. B., 2000. A Cross-cultural Study of Classroom Learning

Environments in Australia and Taiwan. Learning Environments Research, Volume 3, pp. 101-

134.

Aldridge, S. & Rowley, a. J., 1998. Measuring customer satisfaction in higher education.

Quality Assurance in Education, 6(4), pp. 197-204.

Allodi, M. W., 2007. Assessing the quality of learning environments in Swedish schools:

Development and analysis of a theory-based instrument. Learning Environments Research,

Volume 10, pp. 157-175.

32
Barth, M. M., 2008. Deciphering Student Evaluations of Teaching: A Factor Analysis

Approach. Journal of Education for Business, 84(1), pp. 40-46.

Bhandari, P., 2020. An introduction to quantitative research. Scribbr.

Bhandari, P., 2021. An introduction to correlational research. Scribbr .

Brooks, C. D., 2012. Space and Consequences: The Impact of Different Formal Learning

Spaces on Instructor and Student Behavior. Journal of Learning Spaces, 1(2), pp. 1-10.

Brophy, J. E., 1984. Teacher Behavior and Student Achievement. Institute for Research on

Teaching, Michigan State University.

Brown, F. E., 2011. The Case for a Learning Space Performance Rating System. Journal of

Learning Spaces, 1(1), pp. 1-6.

Butt, B. Z. & Rehman, a. K. u., 2010. A study examining the students satisfaction in higher

education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), pp. 5446-5450.

33
Chang, L., 1994. A Psychometric Evaluation of 4-Point and 6-Point Likert-Type Scales in

Relation to Reliability and Validity. Applied Psychological Measurement, Volume 18, pp. 205-

215.

Cho, H., Gay, G., B. D. & Ingraffea, a. A., 2007. Social networks, communication styles, and

learning performance in a CSCL community. Computers & Education, Volume 49, pp. 309-

329.

Corgnati, S. P., Filippi, M. & Viazzo, a. S., 2007. Perception of the thermal environment in

high school and university classrooms: Subjective preferences and thermal comfort. Building

and Environment, 42(2), pp. 951-959.

Deuble, M. P. & Dear, a. R. J. d., 2012. Green occupants for green buildings: The missing

link?. Building and Environment, Volume 56, pp. 21-27.

Dockrell, J. E. & Shield, a. B., 2004. Children’s perceptions of their acoustic environment at

school and at home. J Acoust Soc Am, Volume 115, pp. 2964-2973.

Dockrell, J. E. & Shield, a. B. M., 2013. Acoustical barriers in classrooms: the impact of noise

on performance in the classroom. British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), pp. 509-525.

34
Doyle, W., 1979. Making managerial decisions in classrooms. IL: University of Chicago

Press., pp. 42-74.

Fraser, B. J., 2002. LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS RESEARCH: YESTERDAY, TODAY

AND TOMORROW. Studies in Educational Learning Environments, pp. 1-25.

Fraser, B. J., 2007. Classroom learning environments. Handbook of research on science

education, pp. 103-124.

Fraser, B. J., 2012. Classroom Learning Environments: Retrospect, Context and Prospect.

Second International Handbook of Science Education, Volume 24, pp. 1191-1239.

Fu, F.-L., 2010. Comparison of Students’ Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction Factors in Different

Classroom Types in Higher Education. International Conference on Hybrid Learning, pp. 415-

426.

Fulton, R. D., 1991. A conceptual model for understanding the physical attributes of learning

environments. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, Issue 50, pp. 13-22.

Gerber, B. L., Wiley, L. P. & Rayneri, a. L. J., 2006. The Relationship Between Classroom

Environment and the Learning Style Preferences of Gifted Middle School Students and the

Impact on Levels of Performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(2), pp. 104-118.

35
Getzels, J. W. & Thelen, a. H. A., 1960. The classroom group as a unique social system.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press..

Goh, S. C. & Fraser, a. B. J., 1998. Teacher Interpersonal Behaviour, Classroom Environment

and Student Outcomes in Primary Mathematics in Singapore. Learning Environments

Research, Volume 1, pp. 199-229.

Gopikrishnan, S. & Topkhar, a. V., 2014. Validation of a Questionnaire for Objective

Evaluation of Performance of Built Facilities. Journal of Performance of Constructed

Facilities, pp. 1-7.

Guardino, C. A. & Fullerton, a. E., 2010. Changing Behaviors by Changing the Classroom

Environment. Teaching Exeptional Children, 42(6), pp. 8-13.

Higgins, S. et al., 2005. The Impact of School: A literature review. The Centre for Learning

and Teaching, School of Education, Communication and Language Science, pp. 04-08.

Hill, M. C. & Epps, a. K. K., 2009. DOES PHYSICAL CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT

AFFECT STUDENT PERFORMANCE, STUDENT SATISFACTION, AND STUDENT

EVALUATION OF TEACHING IN THE COLLEGE ENVIRONMENT?. Allied Academies

International Conference, 14(1), pp. 15-19.

36
Holbert, K. E. & Karady, a. G. G., 2009. Strategies, Challenges and Prospects for Active

Learning in the Computer-Based Classroom. IEEE Transactions on Education, 52(1), pp. 31-

38.

Hwang, R.-L., Tzu-PingLin & Nai-JungKuo, a., 2006. Field experiments on thermal comfort

in campus classrooms in Taiwan. Energy and Buildings, 38(1), pp. 53-62.

Jamaludin, A. A., Keumala, N., Ariffin, A. R. M. & Hussein, a. H., 2013. Satisfaction and

perception of residents towards bioclimatic design strategies: residential college buildings.

Indoor and Built Environment, pp. 1-13.

Jung, G. J. et al., 2011. Experimental research on thermal comfort in the university classroom

of regular semesters in Korea. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, Volume 25, pp.

503-512.

Kennedy, S. M. et al., 2006. Subjective assessment of listening environments in university

classrooms: Perceptions of students. J Acoust Soc Am, 119(1), pp. 299-309.

Lackney, J. A., 2000. Thirty-Three Educational Design Principles for Schools & Community

Learning Centers.. Eric Clearinghouse, pp. 1-36.

37
Lee, S. C. & Chang, a. M., 2000. Indoor and outdoor air quality investigation at schools in

Hong Kong. Chemosphere, 41(1-2), pp. 109-113.

Lei, S. A., 2010. Classroom Physical Design Influencing Student Learning and Evaluations of

College Instructors: A Review of Literature. Education, 131(1), pp. 128-134.

Levermore, G., 2000. Building energy management systems: applications to low energy

HVAC and natural ventilation control. E & FN Spon .

Lewin, K., 1936. Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw..

Lewin, K., 2012. Principles of Topological Psychology. The Pedagogical Seminary and

Journal of Genetic Psychology , 54(1), pp. 249-259.

Likert, R., 1932. A Technique for the Measurements of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology,

140(22), pp. 5-55.

Lippman, P. C., 2004. The L-Shaped Classroom. Design Share.

Liu, S., Yoshino, H. & Mochida, a. A., 2011. A Measurement Study on the Indoor Climate of

a College Classroom. International Journal of Ventilation, 10(3), pp. 251-261.

38
Lowerison, G., Sclater, J., Schmid, R. F. & Abrami, a. P. C., 2006. Student perceived

effectiveness of computer technology use in post-secondary classrooms. Computers &

Education, Volume 47, pp. 465-489.

Maki, Y. & Shukuya, a. M., 2012. Visual and thermal comfort and its relations to exergy

consumption in a classroom with daylighting. International Journal of Exergy, 11(4), pp. 481-

492.

Marcellus, R. & Ghrayeb, a. O., 2002. Effects of Smart Classrooms on Learning and Teaching

Effectiveness: The students’ point of view.. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, pp. 1-6.

Matthews, K., Andrews, V. & Adams, a. P., 2011. Social learning spaces and student

engagement. Higher Education Research & Development, Volume 30, pp. 105-120.

Merritt, D. J., 2008. BIAS, THE BRAIN, AND STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING.

St. John's Law Review, 82(1), pp. 235-287.

Montgomery, T., 2008. Space matters: Experiences of managing static formal learning spaces.

Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(2), pp. 38-122.

Moos, R. H., 1984. The social climate scales. Consulting Psychologists Press, pp. 1-93.

Murray, H. A., 1938. Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University.

39
Olatunji, A. A., 2013. Post-occupancy evaluation of Lagos State Polytechnic facilities : a user-

based system. Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences, 4(2).

Panagiotopoulou, G., Christoula, K., Papanckolaou, A. & Mandroukas, a. K., 2004. Classroom

furniture dimensions and anthropometric measures in primary school. Applied Ergonomics,

Volume 35, pp. 121-128.

Papadatos, S. P., 1973. Color Them Motivated - Color's Psychological Effects on Students.

NASSP Bull, 57(370), pp. 92-94.

Pearse, N., 2011. Deciding on the Scale Granularity of Response Categories of Likert type

Scales: The Case of a 21-Point Scale. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 9(2),

pp. 1-13.

Preston, C. C. & Colman, a. A. M., 2000. Optimal number of response categories in rating

scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta

Psychologica, Volume 104, pp. 1-15.

Roskos, K. & Neuman, a. S. B., 2011. The Classroom Environment. The Reading Teacher,

65(2), pp. 110-114.

40
Schmid, R. F. et al., 2009. Technology’s effect on achievement in higher education: a Stage I

meta-analysis of classroom applications. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(2),

pp. 95-109.

Shendell, D. G., Fisk, W. J., Apte, M. G. & Faulkner, a. D., 2001. Associations Between

Classroom CO2 Concentrations and Student Attendance in Washington and Idaho. Inddor Air,

14(5), pp. 1-14.

Shuell, T. J. & Farber, a. S. L., 2001. Students' Perceptions of Technology Use in College

Courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(2), pp. 119-138.

Siegel, P. M., 2003. Where Innovation Matters, IT Matters. Education Review, 38(6), pp. 94-

97.

Sleegers, P., PhD, N. M., M Galetzka PhD, A. P. P. B. S. P. & PhD, a. B. v. d. Z., 2012.

Lighting affects students’ concentration positively: Findings from three Dutch studies. Lighting

Res. Technol, pp. 1-17.

Stern, G. G., 1970. People in context. Measuring person-environment congruence in education

and industry. The School Environment, 8(1), pp. 90-91.

Tanner, K. C., 2000. The influence of school architecture on academic achievement. Journal

of Educational Administration, 38(4), pp. 309-330.

41
Tornabene, L., 1998. The SMART classroom verses the traditional classroom: what the

students are saying.. ERIC, pp. 2-13.

Trickett, E. & Moos, a. R., 1973. Social environment of junior high and high school classrooms.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(1), pp. 93-102.

Velayutham, S. & Aldridge, a. J. M., 2012. Influence of Psychosocial Classroom Environment

on Students’ Motivation and Self-Regulation in Science Learning: A Structural Equation

Modeling Approach. Research in Science Education, Volume 43, pp. 507-527.

Veltri, S., H.., J. B. & Davies, a. T. G., 2006. The Community College Classroom Environment:

Student Perceptions. College Student Journal, 40(3), pp. 517-527.

Vosko, R. S., 1984. Shaping Spaces for Lifelong Learning.. Lifelong Learning, 8(2), pp. 4-7.

Walberg, H. J. & Anderson, a. G. J., 1968. Classroom climate and individual learning. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 59(6p1), pp. 414-419.

Wargocki, P. & Wyon, a. D. P., 2011. The Effects of Moderately Raised Classroom

Temperatures and Classroom Ventilation Rate on the Performance of Schoolwork by Children.

HVAC&R Research, 13(2), pp. 193-220.

42
Westerman, a. W., Nowicki, M. D. & Plante, a. D., 2002. FIT IN THE CLASSROOM:

PREDICTORS OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND SATISFACTION IN

MANAGEMENT EDUCATION. Journal of Management Education, 26(1), pp. 5-18.

Winterbottom, M. & Wilkins, a. A., 2009. Lighting and discomfort in the classroom. Journal

of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), pp. 63-75.

Wong, N. H. & Jan, a. W. L. S., 2003. Total building performance evaluation of academic

institution in Singapore. Building and Environment, 38(1), pp. 161-176.

Wubbels, T., 1993. Teacher-Student Relationships in Science and Mathematics Classes. What

Research Says to the Science and Mathematics Teacher. Number 11. Perth: Key Centre for

School Science and Mathematics, Curtin University of Technology, pp. 1-11.

Wubbels, T. & Brekelmans, a. M., 1998. The teacher factor in the social climate of the

classroom. International handbook of Science Education, pp. 565-580.

Yang, Z. & Liu, a. Q., 2007. Research and development of web-based virtual online classroom.

Computers & Education, 48(2), pp. 171-184.

43
Yang, Z., Becerik-Gerber, B. & Mino, a. L., 2013. A study on student perceptions of higher

education classrooms: Impact of classroom attributes on student satisfaction and performance.

Building and Environment, Volume 70, pp. 177-188.

Zandvliet, D. B. & Fraser, a. B. J., 2005. PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOSOCIAL

ENVIRONMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH NETWORKED CLASSROOMS. Learning

Environments Research , Volume 8, pp. 1-17.

44
 APPENDICES

Student Perception

Student Satisfaction with Classroom Attributes

The following rating scale questionnaires will be adopted from (Yang, et al., 2013).

1.1 Rate your satisfaction with the Temperature in this classroom:

Very Dissatisfied Very Satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

1.2 Rate your satisfaction with the Air Quality in this classroom:

Very Dissatisfied Very Satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

1.3 Rate your satisfaction with the Artificial Lighting in this classroom:

Very Dissatisfied Very Satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

1.4 Rate your satisfaction with the Daylight in this classroom:

Very Dissatisfied Very Satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

1.5 Rate your satisfaction with the Acoustics (the audio contact with instructor and the ability

to hear the presenter, etc.) in this classroom:

Very Dissatisfied Very Satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

1.6 Rate your satisfaction with the Visibility (ability to see blackboard, whiteboard, projector,

visual aids, etc.) in this classroom:

Very Dissatisfied Very Satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

45
1.7 Rate your satisfaction with the Furniture in this classroom:

Very Dissatisfied Very Satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

1.8 Rate your satisfaction with the Room Layout in this classroom:

Very Dissatisfied Very Satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

1.9 Rate your satisfaction with the Hardware (projector, computer, clicker, smart board, etc.)

in this classroom:

Very Dissatisfied Very Satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

1.10 Rate your satisfaction with the Software (software installed on classroom computers,

and the Internet) in this classroom:

Very Dissatisfied Very Satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

Impact of Classroom Attributes on Student Performance

2.1 Rate the degree to which you believe the Temperature in this classroom impacts your

performance:

No Impact` Large Impact

1 2 3 4 5

2.2 Rate the degree to which you believe the Air Quality in this classroom impacts your

performance:

No Impact` Large Impact

1 2 3 4 5

2.3 Rate the degree to which you believe the Artificial Lighting in this classroom impacts your

performance:

46
 No Impact` Large Impact

1 2 3 4 5

2.4 Rate the degree to which you believe the Daylight in this classroom impacts your

performance:

No Impact` Large Impact

1 2 3 4 5

2.5 Rate the degree to which you believe the Acoustics (the audio contact with instructor and

the ability to hear the presenter, etc.) in this classroom impacts your performance:

No Impact` Large Impact

1 2 3 4 5

2.6 Rate the degree to which you believe the Visibility (ability to see blackboard, whiteboard,

projector, visual aids, etc.) in this classroom impacts your performance:

No Impact` Large Impact

1 2 3 4 5

2.7 Rate the degree to which you believe the Furniture in this classroom impacts your

performance:

No Impact` Large Impact

1 2 3 4 5

2.8 Rate the degree to which you believe the Room Layout in this classroom impacts your

performance:

No Impact` Large Impact

1 2 3 4 5

2.9 Rate the degree to which you believe the Hardware (projector, computer, clicker, smart

board, etc.) in this classroom impacts your performance:

47
 No Impact` Large Impact

1 2 3 4 5

2.10 Rate the degree to which you believe the Software (software installed on classroom

computers, and the Internet) in this classroom impacts your performance:

No Impact` Large Impact

1 2 3 4 5

Predefined Condition

The following survey questionnaires will be adopted from (Yang, et al., 2013).

3.1 Which factors describe the Temperature in the classroom?

Heat from Sun

Heat from Classroom Equipment

Cold Air from Windows

Cold Air from AC Unit or Vent

Cold Air from Door or Outside Room Source

Noticeable Different Temperature than Other Classrooms or Hallways

No Discomfort

3.2 Which factors describe the Air Quality in the classroom?

Comfortable

Dirty Air

Humid Air

Dry Air
48
 Odorous Air

Drafty Air

Stuffy Air

3.3 Which factors describe the Artificial Lighting in the classroom?

Adequate Illumination

Too Bright

Too dark

Too Much Glare

Lack of Control

Undesirable Color

Shadows

Flickering

3.4 Which factors describe the Daylight in the classroom?

Adequate Illumination

Too Bright

Too dark

Too Much Sunlight

Insufficient Sunlight/Windows

Lack of Control

Shadows

49
 N/A

3.5 Which factors describe the Acoustics (the audio contact with instructor and the ability to

hear the presenter, etc.) in the classroom?

Sound from Air Vent/AC

Sound from Electronic Equipment

Sound from Talking inside of the classroom

Sound from Talking outside of the classroom

None

3.6 Which factors describe the Visibility (ability to see blackboard, whiteboard, projector,

visual aids, etc.) in the classroom?

Far from the Front of the Classroom

Sight Block by Equipment

Sight Block by Other Students

Slope of Classroom

None

3.7 Which factors describe the Furniture in the classroom?

Level of Comfort with Furniture

Furniture Mobility

Number of Chairs of Desks

Layout of Workspace for Course Tasks

50
 4.1 Additional Comments

Please add any other comments regarding this classroom and your experience in this

learning environment:

Budgetary Requirements

RESOURCES QUANTITY COST SUB-TOTAL

a. Salary and Wages
Adviser 1 3,000.00 PHP
Statistician 1 3,000.00 PHP
14,500.00 PHP
Analyst 1 3,500.00 PHP
Grammarian 1 3,000.00 PHP
b. Consumable Supplies and Materials
Office Supplies 2 semesters 700.00 PHP 1,400.00 PHP
Questionnaire Forms 720 pieces 2.00 PHP 1,440.00 PHP
Informed Consents 720 pieces 2.00 PHP 1,440.00 PHP
c. Travel
Field Examination 5 100.00 PHP 500. 00 PHP
Survey Sessions 5 100.00 PHP 500. 00 PHP
d. Services
Publication Costs 1 2,000.00 PHP 2,000.00 PHP
Photographic/Graphic Services 1 1,000.00 PHP 1,000.00 PHP
Data Analysis 1 2,500.00 PHP 2,500.00 PHP
e. Other Costs
Tuition Fees 8 units 545.00 PHP 4,360.00 PHP
TOTAL 29,640.00 PHP

51
 Timetable

2ND SEM S.Y. 2021-

1ST SEM S.Y. 2021-2022
TASKS 2022
START FINISH DURATION AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY

1. Identification
of research AUG. SEP. 2 mos.
topic.

2. Establishing
AUG SEP. 2 mos.
research title.

3. Review of
related SEP. NOV. 3 mos.
literature.

4. Preparing
OCT. DEC. 3 mos.
methodology.

5. Collection of
JAN. FEB. 2 mos.
data.

6. Data
FEB. MAR. 2 mos.
analysis.

7. Findings and
MAR. APR. 2 mos.
discussion.

8. Thesis
MAY MAY 2 weeks
submission.

52