IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Signal quality in cardiorespiratory
A review of lighting research in educational spaces monitoring
Gari D Clifford and George B Moody

To cite this article: S Angelaki et al 2022 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 1099 012032 - Relativistic Figures of Equilibrium
M Mars

- Quantification of amplitude modulation in

wall-bounded turbulence
Eda Dogan, Ramis Örlü, Davide Gatti et
View the article online for updates and enhancements. al.

This content was downloaded from IP address 185.240.255.100 on 30/01/2023 at 20:33

LIGHT-SYMP-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1099 (2022) 012032 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1099/1/012032

A review of lighting research in educational spaces

S Angelaki1, U Besenecker1 and C B Danielsson2

1
Division of Lighting Design, Department of Architecture, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44
Stockholm, Sweden

2
Department of Architecture, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden

angelaki@kth.se, ute.besenecker@arch.kth.se, christina.bodin.danielsson@arch.kth.se

Abstract. The present paper summarises tendencies related to research in lighting for school
environments from 1980 to 2020. Methods and tools used to evaluate and analyse both daylight
and electric lighting are presented. The studies in this literature review were grouped in four
decades and are presented chronologically. The review suggests a shift from on-site evaluations
in the early decades, both when using qualitative and quantitative research methods, to software-
based research and analysis in more recent studies. during the past decade, there appears to be a
general increase in both software and user-based techniques for evaluation and design of
educational spaces. However, it is interesting that the lighting layout in classrooms does not
show significant changes during the four decades since it follows the same grid pattern regardless
of the changes in architectural, design and teaching tendencies.

1. Introduction and background

Lighting in schools is not a new research topic, and lighting research in classrooms is not only present
on recent studies. Several topics have been investigated related to lighting in schools. For example, there
have been prior investigations related to lighting in schools with the focus being either on energy
efficiency (1-3), performance, mood and cognition (4, 5), or perception and visual comfort (6-8). The
topics presented in research are often related to research interests and tendencies, based on the scientific
developments, such us the existence of the ipRGCs, or technological advancements, such as the use of
digital tools, of each decade. Consequently, tools and methods are either being further developed or new
tools and methods are presented. In this review we are interested in how the reported studies measured
outcomes in their areas of investigation and correlated them with specific lighting characteristics such
as, for example, the light levels, the light distribution and the correlated colour temperature of the electric
lighting. The methodology and tools or equipment presented in each study are summarized and
presented throughout this paper.

1.1. Objective of paper

This paper’s main goal is to present the methodology and the tools used in lighting-related research in
educational spaces throughout the past four decades, to discuss parameters related to lighting design and
to identify knowledge gaps and potential areas for future research. The paper discusses the various
parameters affecting and defining, in many cases, the direction and primary focus of selected lighting-
related research papers within the selected time frame. The various methods and tools used for gathering
data in school environments are the focus of this review. Papers corresponding to research performed

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
LIGHT-SYMP-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1099 (2022) 012032 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1099/1/012032

during each decade from 1980 to 2020 were collected and grouped chronologically. For collecting the
papers, the following databases were used: Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and JSTOR.

1.2. Methods
For this literature review, papers written from 1980 to 2020 were collected using the following
databases: Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and JSTOR. The search string in the different
databases was defined as follows: ("light" OR "lighting" OR "artificial lighting" OR "electric lighting"
OR "daylight" AND "school" OR "primary education" OR "classrooms" AND "performance" OR
"visual comfort" OR "energy consumption" OR "energy" OR "behaviour" OR "perception"). Due to the
limited number of papers in the period being investigated, the papers chosen were not limited to research
performed in the Nordics, even though this paper is part of a research project situated in Sweden. The
review does not focus on research performed in specific locations but on each paper’s chosen methods
and tools. After each search, the resulting papers were further processed to eliminate papers that did not
investigate school environments. The additional keywords that were used to filter out papers not related
to schools were: [(school(s), classroom(s), educational environment(s), school building(s)]. Papers
related to research performed for educational spaces at a university level were excluded because the
authors’ current research project focuses on younger pupils. Both daylight and electric light studies were
included in the review process, and in some cases, both aspects were investigated in a single project.
Furthermore, only peer-reviewed articles or conference papers and reviews have been included in the
process.
One limitation needs to be pointed out related to the changing in terminology. There are shifts in
keywords and research interests that are not the same during each decade. An example of that is the use
of the term “classroom” during the first three decades, which is currently being replaced by the terms
“educational environment”, “learning environment”, or “innovative learning environment”.

2. History of lighting in school buildings

Lighting in educational spaces has been studied in different frequencies along the years. In the following
categorisation, the studies are presented in four decades from 1980 to 2020. The methods and tools used
to measure and evaluate light are presented. Furthermore, the main areas of investigation are pointed
out to find research tendencies along the years.

2.1. The decade 1980-1989

The review process for the first decade, from 1980 until 1989, includes six articles after the described
elimination process. During this decade, not many research projects focused primarily on school
lighting. A combination of projects investigating school lighting and office lighting suggests that similar
practices were being applied in these spaces, and only a limited number of projects work primarily with
schools. In terms of methods, light meters for registration of illumination levels and time-lapse
photography (9-11) are the dominant tools for registering and documenting the light. The collected data
in the case of time-lapse photography are analysed frame by frame to find differences between the
investigated scenarios. For outcome measures studied, one paper examines behavioural changes and
environmental characteristics through questionnaires (12). Another article explores the potential
connection between sickness leaves and fluorescent luminaires with spectral variations and illumination
levels in the classroom (13), which is the only article from the chosen ones in which lighting is linked
to health. In two of the papers, the area of investigation focuses on the pupils’ preference for windows
and daylight (12, 14). And then, there are two studies comparing energy consumption of classroom
lighting with different fluorescent tubes (11, 13). One of the main arguments for investigating lighting
in school environments was that energy consumption generated by lighting was up to one-third of the
yearly energy costs. Therefore, energy savings related to lighting were considered a priority for the
schools, and a supported research topic.
It is essential to mention that the published studies that did not administer perception or performance
tests to collect data, such as the studies focussing on measuring energy consumption, did not include the

2
LIGHT-SYMP-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1099 (2022) 012032 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1099/1/012032

pupils’ or teachers’ active participation in the investigation of the lighting. Two out of six studies used
methods allowing the teachers’ and students’ participation through interviews and questionnaires (11,
12). Furthermore, in all cases, the lighting changes refer to ceiling mounted lighting fixtures, and the
lighting layout typically follows a grid configuration to achieve the required lighting levels, existing
published guidelines and standards.

2.2. The decade 1990-1999

The following decade covers articles from the years 1990 to 1999. Seven studies met the selection
process described above. All of the ones considering educational facilities at university level have not
been included. Similar to the prior decade, there is performance-oriented research linking performance
rates of learning activities to lighting. Of these studies, one focused on electric lighting (15), or as
described in this case, artificial lighting, two more investigated the effect of daylight on performance
(16, 17), and one study combined both electric light and daylight (18). Regarding the variables to which
lighting aspects were linked, two research papers focussed on health and development-related aspects
by collecting data related to sick leaves throughout a predetermined time and registering body growth
and stress hormone levels (15, 18).
During this decade, furniture layout variations emerged in classrooms, and, therefore, research
related to how lighting should be designed in response. Specifically, using direct observations as a
method, Schreiber describes and explains how lighting can highlight certain corners in the classroom
(19). The creation of “pools of light”, or concentrated light, mentioned by referencing Moore’s report
“Recommendations for child care centres”(20), can support different activities taking place in the space.
Comparisons of conventional fluorescent lamps, with their distinct limitation in light spectral power
distribution, with so-called “full-spectrum” fluorescent luminaires with ultraviolet light supplements
and high-pressure sodium vapour lamps are presented (15, 21). The comparisons primarily aimed at
exploring the relationship between the different luminaires in terms of spectrum and illumination levels
and performance of learning activities, body growth or cognitive and physical development, but the
studies also mention the aspect of energy efficiency in comparison to the conventional fluorescent
luminaires. One of the presented articles focuses on the energy consumption aspect without investigating
any other factor, resulting in the outcome that properly designed educational spaces in which natural
light is used throughout the majority of the year could save up to 80% of energy costs compared to using
incandescent lighting fixtures (22). Two of the presented studies focused both on electric lighting,
daylight availability and school performance (16, 18). In both cases, daylight is defined as an
environmental factor that can potentially influence pupils’ performance. The authors, Kuller and
Lindsten, were comparing daylit classrooms with windowless classrooms where only electric light is
present, while the authors Nicklas and Bailey only focus on daylight availability during teaching hours
and its connection to pupils’ performance without considering electric light (16).
In this decade, the equipment used to collect data slightly varied compared to the previous decade.
Photo registration and aerial photography were used to collect data and analyze the space occupancy.
Equipment related to light measurements was used to register illuminance levels and changes in
illumination when comparing different luminaires. When exploring light in connection to performance
related to learning activities, tests were handed out to pupils to evaluate potential changes in their
performance, based on math, reading tests or visual tasks performed under certain illuminationlevels or
attention and memory in certain subjects. It is essential to mention that school architecture underwent
alterations related to architecture and interior spaces simultaneously (open-plan schools, wing schools,
modular schools). Even though the architectural and interior elements were changing the lighting
schemes remained similar to the prior applications. Therefore, an additional variable was present
regarding space characteristics compared to the last decade. Software used for calculating energy
consumption was mentioned for the first time (22).

3
LIGHT-SYMP-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1099 (2022) 012032 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1099/1/012032

2.3. The decade 2000-2009

The following decade spans from 2000 to 2009, and the elimination process resulted in the presentation
and analysis of ten papers and reports. Five out of the ten studies investigated classroom daylight-related
aspects (23-27). Of the remaining papers, four focussed on the electric light (28-31), and the last paper
focused primarily on design elements and how they influence the students’ outcomes (32). In this study,
lighting was a parameter investigated as one of several design elements. In five studies, the central aspect
linked to lighting was energy efficiency and reduced yearly energy costs (23, 24, 27-29). During these
years, six studies were performed without the involvement of any user participation, neither on behalf
of the teachers nor the pupils. In these studies, the primary tool for data collection and space evaluation
was software-based.
In one literature review summary paper, the aspect of daylight has been highlighted in individual studies
(27). In this paper the descriptions and analyses of pupils’ and teachers’ health, performance, teachers’
and pupils’ attendance and energy efficiency were provided. Two of the presented studies focused on
the effect of daylight on pupils’ performance; they showed considerable development in perfromarce
and increased student test scores in classrooms with high daylight intake (26, 27). These studies support
that efficient design can result in more optimal daylight conditions, enhance students’/pupils’
performance, and result in efficient systems for energy consumption and associated costs. The remaining
three studies did not include users’ participation but used software and measurements of various factors
, for example to evaluate the space and the current indoor conditions one of which was lighting (23-25).
Kruger and Zannin explored how the environmental factors of noise, light and temperature can
potentially influence classroom teaching activities (25). In this case, the comparison of traditional
classrooms with ones where light shelves (high reflective horizontal surfaces placed on windows’ upper
part for directing daylight into a room) were placed, taking into account the difference in orientation and
daylight intake, resulted in improved lighting/visual comfort in the classrooms with the light shelves.
Traditional classrooms were described as rectangular spaces with a desk layout oriented towards the
whiteboard. It was noted that those traditional classrooms still had thermal comfort issues even after
installing the light shelves. Data collection related to light, noise and temperature showed increased
performance rates in pupils and teachers after installing light shelves, resulting in increasing the daylight
intake.
Two of the studies focusing on electric lighting investigated only aspects of energy consumption
throughout the year relating it to energy costs (28, 29), while of the remaining two, one focused on visual
discomfort (31) and the other focused on learning-based activities in the classroom and the use of digital
screens (30). This last study explored parameters of lighting linked to digital screens while pointing out
that designing lighting in classrooms should also consider the additional light sources that are part of
the teaching/learning activities (laptop screens, monitors, projectors).
The methodologies used for data collection in the listed studies show a greater variation compared
to the previous decades and a slight tendency towards evaluation processes based on simulation without
users’ participation. Four studies were based on software and evaluation of simulations, and only one of
them included on-site measurements. Software simulations allowed the exploration of a greater variety
of cases and alternatives, but they did not include feedback or data collected from the teachers or
students. Two studies used on-site measurements of light levels, investigating different combinations of
electric lighting and blind position in the classroom (25, 31). Three more studies collected data based
on tests linked to evaluation of learning processes and activities, thus including the pupils in the data
collection process (26, 30, 32). Only one of the studies included both the teachers and students to get
feedback on the lighting conditions in the classroom by using questionnaires as a form of data collection
(30). Tanner and Uline collected data from students using a Likert-scale questionnaire to investigate the
impact of various design elements in school environments and their relation to pupils’ performance (32).
The overall impression from the studies presented above is that the simulation-related projects focus
on standards and regulations to evaluate lighting conditions and lighting levels. At the same time, a
common denominator in these studies is the energy efficiency aspect of lighting. The use of software
simulations eliminated feedback from the pupils or teachers who are the main users of the space. Photo
registration seemed to be replaced by simulations gradually. Tests addressed to students, focusing on

4
LIGHT-SYMP-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1099 (2022) 012032 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1099/1/012032

attention, memory and performance of specific activities and courses depending on each research
project, are still the primary source of data collection in performance-based studies, similar to the
previous decades.

2.4. The decade 2010-2020

The last decade of the review covers the years from 2010 until 2020. During this decade, a considerable
increase in the number of published studies and reviews related to school lighting is apparent. The
number of papers in this decade is more than twice the number of papers from 2000 to 2009. It is not
clear, however, whether that means that research in the subject increased overall, or just the possibility
and motivation to publish. Out of the total number of papers and by following the same elimination
process used for the prior decades, the twenty-four papers are included in this article. The papers will
be described first based on whether they explored daylight or electric lighting, and which other variables
were looked at. The next part will focus on methods and tools, and the last part will present the role of
user participation. At first, it needs to be mentioned that four of the papers are review articles
summarising and investigating different aspects of school environments related to lighting. Some of the
selected papers presented here are also part of the analysis in these review articles.
During this decade, daylighting and electric lighting were in focus, with daylight-related research
being included in fourteen out of twenty-four studies, meaning that more than half of the papers are
investigating daylight related aspects in school classrooms (3, 33-44). The number of studies that
focussed on electric lighting in school classrooms is twelve (1, 36, 42, 45-53). Only two studies
investigated both daylight and electric lighting in school classrooms (36, 42). In all other studies, both
natural light (or daylight) and electric lighting were mentioned, however, only focussing one of the two
aspects. Most daylight studies were linked to energy efficiency, stating that the electricity a school
building consumes throughout the year can be considerably reduced if better design practices, are in
place. This argument has been used in previous decades as well. More specifically, half of the studies
investigating daylight focussed on the energy efficiency aspect, while the corresponding number for the
electric lighting studies is three out of fourteen studies. Other areas of investigation are visual comfort,
students’ performance and behaviour, environmental and thermal comfort, and the perception of space.
More specifically, four studies investigated the relationship between students’ performance and lighting.
Three of these studies explored the correlation between daylight scenarios and their effect on students’
activities (36, 39, 44). Two studies presented the interrelation between electric lighting and performance
(36, 46). Two studies, both investigating aspects of electric lighting, focussed on students’ attitude and
behaviour, (51, 52). Visual comfort, specifically eye fatigue linked to glare, was addressed in three
studies; all of these investigated daylight, evaluating various possible solutions such as the installation
of light shelves, different types of glazing, window size and orientation. (35, 43, 54). One of the studies
focused on occupants’ spatial perception in response to the electric lighting in space, and more
specifically the illumination levels on the task areas (46). Environmental comfort, related to visual and
thermal aspects, and electric lighting, in terms of perceived light levels in space, was the focus in another
one of the described studies(47).
The methods found in these papers are different from the ones used during the previous decade. There
is an increasing combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies, regarding the use of both
measurement-based practices, such as illuminance levels, spectral distribution and daylight analysis, as
well as methods dealing with the users’ feedback and evaluation of the space, such as questionnaires
and tests for students. Even though some studies rely entirely on simulation software for spatial
assessment and light levels calculations, a limited but considerable number of examples re-introduce
user-based techniques for spatial evaluation. On-site measurements are also present, and the schemes
according to which these measurements are performed are more complex and detailed than in the
previous two decades. This could be explained by the technology advancing, making available a wider
variety of affordable field measurement equipment to measure and calculate various light parameters.
Most of the selected studies used more than one methodology for assessing the space, resulting either
in lighting related recommendations or design proposals. Seven of the here presented studies used

5
LIGHT-SYMP-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1099 (2022) 012032 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1099/1/012032

software simulations for assessing the space, collecting data related to light attributes, such as
illuminance levels and daylight availability and evaluating lighting design proposals (3, 34, 40, 43, 47,
53, 54), and eleven out of twenty-four articles had calculation schemes for on-site calculations and
evaluation of the classroom (1, 3, 35, 39-41, 46, 52-55). Qualitative methodologies used and described
in the published studies were questionnaires linked to perceived light levels, various tests for students’
assessment, direct observations of the activities and teaching processes and the photo registration of the
space. Photo registration, however, was presented as a methodology only in one study (50), and direct
observations were used to collect data in three studies. Out of these three papers, one investigated
daylight and electric lighting using direct observations (42). The second paper focussed on daylight, and
the last one explored only electric lighting (47). Tests were used to evaluate performance and attention
in five studies and were linked both to changes in daylight and electric lighting (36, 44, 45, 48, 56). In
five articles, questionnaires were used to collect data. Three of them investigated the attributes of
environmental comfort and electric lighting (36, 46, 47), and the remaining two were investigating the
attributes of students’ performance related to daylight (44, 54). One of the main findings of reviewing
the papers during this decade is the relatively low level of participation of the primary users of the space,
meaning the teachers and students. Considering that four out of twenty-four articles are reviews, the
resulted number of design-based papers is twenty. Nine out of these studies, which accounts for almost
half of the papers, used non-participatory-based evaluation of classrooms and educational spaces. This
means that the users’ feedback was not part of the evaluation or design process; the proposals were
based entirely on the calculations performed by the software in response to the available guidelines at
the time of the study.

3. Discussion and summary

This paper explores and describes the research tendencies found in lighting-related research in school
environments during the past four decades. The review involves studies performed in schools from
kindergarten to high school level. Both daylight and electric lighting are investigated during each decade
as illustrated in figure 1. The first outcome of this review is that the number of available published
studies considerably increased after 2010—the studies matching the inclusion criteria during the period
from 2010 to 2020 were more than double compared to the previous decades. This might be either due
to an increased interest in the subject as a topic or research, or due to a general increase in publishing
practices.

Lighting focus
Electric light
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00

Electric + Daylight Daylight

1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 2010-2020

Figure 1. Graph illustrating the focus in relation to electric lighting or daylight during the four
decades, from 1980 to 2020.

6
LIGHT-SYMP-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1099 (2022) 012032 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1099/1/012032

Throughout all four decades, daylight is primarily linked to energy efficiency. The main argument
related to studying daylight is that it can considerably reduce the electricity consumed during the
academic year. Therefore, it is more financially viable and cost-beneficial. During the first two decades,
the evaluation processes related to daylight utilized on-site measurements and time-lapse photography.
After 2000 the use of simulation software for calculation and evaluation of educational spaces gradually
replaced prior practices. Simulation-based evaluations allow the exploration of various scenarios and
design solutions under different sky conditions. From 2010 to 2020, simulations and on-site
measurements were used in a considerable number of studies. Additionally, the evolution of specific
software and the integration of weather data and lighting standards within the software offers the
opportunity of evaluating more spaces through a faster process. However, we observed that such
proposed solutions were based upon the lighting standards at the time of the study without considering
the users’ feedback.
Another method used more or less often throughout every decade is the use of light level and light
spectrum measurement equipment, referring to luminance and illuminance meters, spectrometers and
other similar devices as mentioned in the studies presented above. Light measurement equipment has
advanced through the years becoming smaller and more available and affordable for field work.
Subsequently, the methods to which spectral measurements are defined and performed are more refined
closer to 2020. From 1980 to 1989, lighting measurements concerned mainly light levels and contrast
ratios and not necessarily spectrum. Lighting equipment is widely used during the first two decades and
then again after 2010 as seen in figure 2. The broader use of software-based evaluations characterizes
the third decade. From 2010 to 2020, lighting equipment has been used, along with equipment
registering noise and temperature levels. It is gradually, since 2000, that more environmental factors
have been studied along with lighting.

Methods
Software
0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

User involvement On-site measurements

1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2009 2010-2020

Figure 2. Graph illustrating the tendency among three different methods for each separate decade.

Regarding the use of electric lighting, a shift from fluorescent fixtures to LED light sources took
place from 2000 to 2010, and more studies were present after 2010. During the first two decades (1980
to 2000), fluorescent fixtures were compared to full spectrum fluorescent lights, and the main attribute
studies were investigating was the light source spectrum. During the following years the argument was,
in many cases, related to the decreased energy requirements LEDs had, but studies related to visual
comfort and students’ performance enhanced the shift to LED sources. Starting 2010 LED lights
gradually started to replace fluorescent fixtures in school classrooms.

7
LIGHT-SYMP-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1099 (2022) 012032 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1099/1/012032

Attention and performance have been studied throughout the four decades, and the tools used for
their evaluation were performance and attention tests, such as the d2 attention test. In addition, behaviour
and attitude were studied through observations and interviews with teachers and students using primarily
questionnaires. It is mainly during the first two decades (1980-2000) that participatory methods were
used for spatial evaluation and evaluation of lighting qualities. Photo registration and time-lapse
photography were used in three of the studies presented in this review until 1989, but only one study
mentioned photo registration as part of its methodology in the last decade.
Furthermore, user-based methods and tools that have been used during the first two decades (1980-
2000) and were gradually replaced by simulation-based calculations. During the last decade (2010-
2020), considering that the number of studies was greater, less than half of the studies included
methodologies that engaged the users. In most of these studies, the area of investigation focused on
students’ performance.
One of the common denominators regarding electric lighting for the reviewed studies throughout all
decades is that they all investigated different light sources and fixtures that were ceiling mounted
following the same regular grid pattern and ambient distribution. No significant changes were found in
terms of light topology in the classrooms, the two main typologies are either rectangular or square
panels, or linear pendants. Even in cases where the design or furniture layout deviated, the lighting
layout appears to follow the same grid pattern without exploring alternative design solutions or
placements of the lighting in the space. Additionally, it was mainly brightness levels and spectrum that
have been tested in relation to lighting. Other attributes, such as density of light fixtures or variations in
light distribution have not been tested as variables.
Reviewing the published research, suggests the that testing different lighting layouts would fill a
current gap in research while supporting the layout of existing elements, such as furniture layouts, in the
classrooms that do not necessarily follow a grid pattern. Furthermore, since in today’s classrooms not
all pupils have the same needs and do not necessarily use the same tools simultaneously (books, laptops,
tablets), there is also use of various working spots, and the need/opportunity for lighting to support
working in different locations throughout the space (57-59). Although architecture and design have
changed based on teaching and learning tendencies, classroom lighting design has remained almost the
same for the past forty years, and it is time to change that.

Acknowledgements:
This work is part of a project financially supported by the Bertil & Britt Svensson's Foundation for
Lighting Technology and the Swedish Energy Agency.

References
1. Li DHW, Cheung KL, Wong SL, Lam TNT. An analysis of energy-efficient light fittings
and lighting controls. Applied Energy. 2010;87(2):558-67.
2. Rebec KM, Klanjsek-Gunde M, Bizjak G, Kobav MB. White LED compared with other light
sources: age-dependent photobiological effects and parameters for evaluation. Int J Occup Saf Ergon.
2015;21(3):391-8.
3. Delvaeye R, Ryckaert W, Stroobant L, Hanselaer P, Klein R, Breesch H. Analysis of energy
savings of three daylight control systems in a school building by means of monitoring. Energy and
Buildings. 2016;127:969-79.
4. Knez I. Effects of Indoor Lighting on mood and cognition. Journal of Environmental
Psychology. 1995(15):39 - 51.
5. Hygge S, Knez I. Effects of Noise, Heat and Indoor Lighting on Cognitive Performance and
Self-Reported Affect. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2001;21(3):291-9.
6. Liu Q, Huang Z, Li Z, Pointer MR, Zhang G, Liu Z, et al. A field study of the impact of
indoor lighting on visual perception and cognitive performance in classroom. Applied sciences.
2020;10:1-17.

8
LIGHT-SYMP-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1099 (2022) 012032 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1099/1/012032

7. Noda L, Lima AVP, Souza JF, Leder S, Quirino LM. Thermal and visual comfort of
schoolchildren in air-conditioned classrooms in hot and humid climates. Building and Environment.
2020;182.
8. Fakhari M, Vahabi V, Fayaz R. A study on the factors simultaneously affecting visual
comfort in classrooms: A structural equation modeling approach. Energy and Buildings. 2021;249.
9. Hunt DRG. The Use of Artificial Lighting in Relation to Daylight levels and Occupancy.
Building and Environment. 1979;14:21-33.
10. Levy AW. Lighting Controls, Patterns of Lighting Consumption, and Energy Conservation.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS. 1980;IA-16.
11. Fletcher D. Effects of Classroom Lighting on the Behavior of Exceptional Children. EEQ.
1983;4:75-89.
12. Stewart DM. ATTITUDES OF SCHOOL-CHILDREN TO DAYLIGHT AND
FENESTRATION. Building and Environment. 1981;16(4):267-77.
13. London WP. FULL-SPECTRUM CLASSROOM LIGHT AND SICKNESS IN PUPILS.
Lancet. 1987;2(8569):1205-6.
14. Dunn R, Krimsky JS, Murray JB, Quinn PJ. Light up Their Lives_A Review of Research on
the Effects of Lighting on Children. The Reading Teacher. 1985;38:863-9.
15. Hathaway WE. Effects of School Lighting on Physical Development and School
Performance. The Journal of Educational Research. 1995;88:228-42.
16. Nicklas MH, Bailey GB. Analysis of the Performance of Students in Daylit Schools. North
Carolina; 1996.
17. Heschong L. Daylighting in Schools: An Investigation into the Relationship between
Daylighting and Human Performance. Detailed Report, Academic Achievement. 1999;140.
18. Kuller R, Lindsten C. Health and Behaviour of children in classrooms with and without
windows. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 1992;12(4):305-17.
19. Schreiber ME. Lighting Alternatives: Considerations for Child Care Centers. Young
Children. 1996;51(4):11-3.
20. Gary T. Moore, Carol Gee Lane, Ann B. Hill UC, Tim McGinty, , Frederick A. Jules, Marie
H, Hollenbeck, et al. Recommendations for Child Care Centers. Wisconsin-Milwaukee: Center for
Architecture and Urban Planning Research Books; 1996.
21. Edward E. Green, Cook PF, Bolt L. Fitting New Technologies into Traditional Classrooms:
Two Case Studies in the Design of Improved Learning Facilities. Educational Technology.
1996;36:27-38.
22. M. Santamouris, Balara CA, E. Dascalaki, A. Argiriou, Gaglia A. Energy Consumption and
the potential for energy conservation in school buildings in Hellas. Energy 1994;19:653-60.
23. Ho M-C, Chiang C-M, Chou P-C, Chang K-F, Lee C-Y. Optimal sun-shading design for
enhanced daylight illumination of subtropical classrooms. Energy and Buildings. 2008;40(10):1844-
55.
24. Mistrick R, Sarkar A. A study of daylight-responsive photosensor control in five daylighted
classrooms. Leukos. 2005;1(3):51-74.
25. Krüger EL, Zannin PHT. Acoustic, thermal and luminous comfort in classrooms. Building
and Environment. 2004;39(9):1055-63.
26. Heschong L, Wright RL, Okura S. Daylighting impacts on human performance in school.
Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society. 2002;31(2):101-+.
27. L. Edwards, Torcellini P. A Literature Review of the Effects of Natural Light on
Building Occupants. 1617 Cole Boulevard
Golden, Colorado 80401-3393: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2002.
28. Daniel J. Fonseca, Kirtikumar B. Bisen, Midkiff KC, Moynihan GP. An expert system for
lighting energy
management in public school facilities. Expert Systems. 2006;Vol. 23:194-211.

9
LIGHT-SYMP-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1099 (2022) 012032 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1099/1/012032

29. Perez YV, Capeluto IG. Climatic considerations in school building design in the hot-humid
climate for reducing energy consumption. Applied Energy. 2009;86(3):340-8.
30. Ramasoot T, Fotios S. Lighting for the Classrooms of the Future.
Electronic classrooms: A new challenge for school lighting guidance. Light & Engineering.
2009;17:62-70.
31. Winterbottom M, Wilkins A. Lighting and discomfort in the classroom. Journal of
Environmental Psychology. 2009;29(1):63-75.
32. Tanner CK, Uline CL. Effects of school design on student outcomes. Journal of Educational
Administration. 2009;47(3):381-99.
33. Ramli NH, Masri MH, Zafrullah M, Taib HM, Hamid NA. A Comparative Study of Green
School Guidelines. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012;50:462-71.
34. Pellegrino A, Cammarano S, Savio V. Daylighting for Green Schools: A Resource for
Indoor Quality and Energy Efficiency in Educational Environments. Energy Procedia. 2015;78:3162-
7.
35. Secchi S, Sciurpi F, Pierangioli L, Randazzo M. Retrofit Strategies for the Improvement of
Visual Comfort and Energy Performance of Classrooms with Large Windows Exposed to East. Energy
Procedia. 2015;78:3144-9.
36. Abdolreza Gilavand Mohammadreza Gilavand SG. Investigating the Impact of Lighting
Educational Spaces on Learning and Academic Achievement of Elementary Students. International
Journal of Pediatrics. 2016;4.
37. Bellia L, Fragliasso F, Stefanizzi E. Why are daylight-linked controls (DLCs) not so spread?
A literature review. Building and Environment. 2016;106:301-12.
38. Costanzo V, Evola G, Marletta L. A Review of Daylighting Strategies in Schools: State of
the Art and Expected Future Trends. Energy and Buildings. 2017;7(4).
39. Costanzo V, Evola G, Marletta L, Pistone Nascone F. Application of Climate Based Daylight
Modelling to the Refurbishment of a School Building in Sicily. Sustainability. 2018;10(8).
40. Nocera F, Lo Faro A, Costanzo V, Raciti C. Daylight Performance of Classrooms in a
Mediterranean School Heritage Building. Sustainability. 2018;10(10).
41. Calama-Gonzalez CM, Suarez R, Leon-Rodriguez AL. Thermal and Lighting Consumption
Savings in Classrooms Retrofitted with Shading Devices in a Hot Climate. Energies. 2018;11(10).
42. Vásquez NG, Felippe ML, Pereira FOR, Kuhnen A. Luminous and visual preferences of
young children in their classrooms: Curtain use, artificial lighting and window views. Building and
Environment. 2019;152:59-73.
43. Bakmohammadi P, Noorzai E. Optimization of the design of the primary school classrooms
in terms of energy and daylight performance considering occupants’ thermal and visual comfort.
Energy Reports. 2020;6:1590-607.
44. Baloch RMM, Maesano CN, Christoffersen J, Mandin C, Csobod E, Fernandes EO, et al.
Daylight and School Performance in European Schoolchildren. Int J Environ Res Public Health.
2020;18(1).
45. Barkmann C, Wessolowski N, Schulte-Markwort M. Applicability and efficacy of variable
light in schools. Physiol Behav. 2012;105(3):621-7.
46. De Giuli V, Da Pos O, De Carli M. Indoor environmental quality and pupil perception in
Italian primary schools. Building and Environment. 2012;56:335-45.
47. De Giuli V, Zecchin R, Corain L, Salmaso L. Measured and perceived environmental
comfort: field monitoring in an Italian school. Applied Ergonomics. 2014;45(4):1035-47.
48. PJC Sleegers, Moolenaar N, Galetzka M, A Pruyn, Sarroukh B, Zande Bvd. Lighting affects
students’ concentration. Lighting Research & Technology. 2013(45):17.
49. Peng S, Chen Y, Tang X, Heynderickx I. Lighting For Projector Use In School Classrooms
To Improve Visibility. IEEE. 2014.
50. Georgieva D, Schledermann KM, Nielsen SML, Hansen EK. Designing User Centred
Intelligent Classroom Lighting. In: Brooks AL, Brooks E, Vidakis N, editors. Interactivity, Game

10
LIGHT-SYMP-2022 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1099 (2022) 012032 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1099/1/012032

Creation, Design, Learning, and Innovation. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences
Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering. 229. New York: Springer; 2018. p. 314-23.
51. L. Morrow B, M. Kanakri S. The impact of fluorescent and led lighting on students attitudes
and behavior in the classroom. Advances in Pediatric Research. 2018.
52. Pulay A, Read M, Tural E, Lee S. Examining student behavior under two correlated color
temperature levels of lighting in an Elementary School classroom. Educational Planning. 2018;23:53-
69.
53. Doulos LT, Kontadakis A, Madias EN, Sinou M, Tsangrassoulis A. Minimizing energy
consumption for artificial lighting in a typical classroom of a Hellenic public school aiming for near
Zero Energy Building using LED DC luminaires and daylight harvesting systems. Energy and
Buildings. 2019;194:201-17.
54. Michael A, Heracleous C. Assessment of natural lighting performance and visual comfort of
educational architecture in Southern Europe: The case of typical educational school premises in
Cyprus. Energy and Buildings. 2017;140:443-57.
55. Hartstein LE, Tuzikas A, Karlicek RF. The Impact of Dynamic Changes in Light Spectral
Power Distribution on Cognitive Performance and Wellbeing. Leukos. 2019;16(4):289-301.
56. Keis O, Helbig H, Streb J, Hille K. Influence of blue-enriched classroom lighting on
students‫ ׳‬cognitive performance. Trends in Neuroscience and Education. 2014;3(3-4):86-92.
57. Rands MLG-T, Ann M. The Room Itself Is Active: How Classroom Design Impacts Student.
2017:9.
58. Marchand GC, Nardi NM, Reynolds D, Pamoukov S. The impact of the classroom built
environment on student perceptions and learning. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2014;40:187-
97.
59. Kerstin S. Corridors, Classrooms, Classification – The impact of school layout on pedagogy
and social behaviours. Designing for the future of schooling: Routledge; 2018.

11