See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272909706

The Classroom Physical Environment and Its Relation to Teaching and

Learning Comfort Level

Article · January 2015

DOI: 10.7763/IJSSH.2015.V5.460

CITATIONS READS

5 14,218

5 authors, including:

Marzita Puteh Che Nidzam Che Ahmad

Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI)
50 PUBLICATIONS   133 CITATIONS    49 PUBLICATIONS   132 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Noraini Mohamed Noh Mazlini Adnan

Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI)
24 PUBLICATIONS   81 CITATIONS    64 PUBLICATIONS   130 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NRGS Research Grant View project

PROJECT PAPER - FORM DISSERTATION View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marzita Puteh on 26 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 5, No. 3, March 2015
The Classroom Physical Environment and Its Relation to
Teaching and Learning Comfort Level
Puteh M., Che Ahmad C. N., Mohamed Noh N., Adnan M., and Ibrahim M. H.
 In addition, the learning environment can also influence
Abstract—The classroom physical environment is an
important element in creating a conducive and stimulating
learning environment. A conducive learning environment
creates a comfortable teaching and learning environment, while
keeping the students focused and interested in the classroom.
Therefore, a study was conducted to identify the relationship
between the physical aspects of the classroom and the teaching
and learning comfort level. The study involves 916 secondary
school students from Malacca. The physical aspects of the
learning environment are determined using Classroom Physical
Environment Inventory (CPEI), while the teaching and learning
comfort level is determined using Teaching and Learning
Comfort Level Scale (TLCLS). Results of analysis show that the
learning space, furniture, ventilation and lighting have a direct
relationship with the teaching and learning comfort level.
Overall, the findings show that there is a highly positive
relationship between the physical environment and teaching and
learning comfort level. Thus, the classroom physical
environment needs to be given due attention and planned
carefully, as the right environment can affect the learning
atmosphere, generation of ideas, and students’ values, attitudes
and behaviour.
Index Terms—A learning environment, physical environment,
teaching and learning comfort level.
I. INTRODUCTION
Teaching and learning should take place effectively to
enable students to acquire knowledge and develop skills for
their future career needs. There are many factors which
contribute to effectiveness of learning, and one of the
important factors which need attention is the learning
environment. The learning environment can affect learning
outcomes. [1] In general, the learning environment is allotted
space for learning to take place. According to Fraser (1998),
the learning environment is where the learning process takes
place in social, psychological and pedagogical contexts
which can influence students’ achievement and attitudes. [2]
A conducive learning environment can help increase
intellectual activities, encourage friendship, cooperation and
support among the students, and at the same time, promote
learning, student growth and development.
Consequently, it is important to explore the various aspects
of the learning environment in order to obtain information for
the purpose of improvement. Previous studies on the learning
environment have found that there is a relationship between
the learning environment and learning outcomes in terms of
students’ achievement, satisfaction, comfort level or success.
Manuscript received January 6, 2014; revised Mach 15, 2014.
Marzita Puteh is with the Mathematics Department, Sultan Idris
Education University (e-mail: marzita@fsmt.upsi.edu.my)
DOI: 10.7763/IJSSH.2015.V5.460
student behaviour and social interaction. Therefore, it is
important that the learning environment is managed well to
enable the students to study comfortably, collect useful
information actively, gain relevant experience, assess their
own learning and provide feedback on their personal
experience in various social context. This conducive
environment will allow teaching and learning to occur
comfortably, and thus, can help increase learning
effectiveness.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
The learning environment is an important determinant of
student learning. [2] An environment that is conducive and
suits the needs of the teachers and students, as well as
complements the classroom activities can help improve the
learning outcomes. For that reason, factors such as learning
style and classroom design need proper attention because
these elements would interact and influence the teaching and
learning comfort level, which in turn would affect learning
effectiveness. This is due to the fact that the learning
environment is not just a physical space, but also consists of a
variety of materials and sources of information, interaction,
relationship between and amongst students and teachers, and
expectations and rules for learning and behaviour. [3]
There is a relationship between the physical structure of the
classroom, such as room organization, size of space, lighting
and table arrangement, and psychological aspects, such as
interaction between teachers and students, and interaction
among the students. The way in which the physical aspect is
organized can limit or encourage interaction that takes place
in the classroom and display of expected behaviour.
According to Woolfolk (2007), the classroom is a specific
environment which is multi-dimensional, time-sensitive and
filled with a variety of students and tasks. [4] In such
environment, there are students with different goals, needs
and abilities but have to share the same sources, complete the
same tasks, use the same materials and move about in the
same space.
During schooling, most of the students’ time is spent in the
classroom environment. Therefore, the quality of the
classroom environment is very important and needs proper
attention. Moreover, the quality of the learning environment
depends on various aspects. One of the aspects is the physical
learning environment. The physical aspect of the classroom
learning environment can affect the teaching and learning
process, and is often considered a second teacher due to its
ability in influencing student behaviour and thus, affect the
rapport between teachers and students, and also rapport
237
 International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 5, No. 3, March 2015
among students. Previous studies have shown that there is a
relationship between active forms of learning in the classroom
and allotted facilities. [5] For that reason, the physical aspect
of a learning space reflects ideas, values, behaviours and
culture which are expected of such a space. [6]
A learning environment which is equipped with quality
physical aspects can increase teaching and learning comfort
level. According to Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary:
7th Edition (2005), “comfort” is defined as “the state of being
physically relaxed and free from pain”. [7] Therefore,
teaching and learning comfort level refers to the surrounding
of a learning environment that is comfortable and satisfactory
to the students. The comfort level of teaching and learning can
be a contributing factor to someone’s failure or success. For
example, the location of a classroom, its size, allotted
furniture, heat, lighting and indoor air quality affect the
teaching and learning process which takes place. A quality
environment will be created if the infrastructure of the
learning environment is planned and organised well, meets
certain criteria and is in line with student needs and
curriculum objectives.
III. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
In creating effective learning, student concentration and
focus during the learning process in the classroom is an
important element which needs to be given due attention.
Student concentration during the learning process will
increase if the learning environment is conducive and
comfortable. Previous studies have found that the physical
environment can influence students’ psychology and social
behaviour [8], and thus, significantly impacts learning [9],
[10].
However, while there is evidence which shows that the
physical environment does affect learning, there are a limited
number of studies on the relationship between the physical
design and practices in science education. [11]-[13] Many
studies only focused on the psychosocial aspects of the
classroom. Therefore, this study aims to identify the
relationship between the physical aspects of the classroom
environment and teaching and learning comfort level.
IV. METHODOLOGY
The study is a quantitative research which uses survey as
the research design to identify the views of selected students
concerning the physical environment and teaching and
learning comfort level in the classroom. A total of several
secondary schools in Malacca participated in this study. Of
the seven schools, 916 Fourth Form students had been
randomly selected as respondents.
The study employs two instruments, which are Physical
Classroom Environment Inventory (PCEI) and Teaching and
Learning Comfort Level Scale (TLCLS). Physical Classroom
Environment Inventory (PCEI) consists of 25 items and are
divided into four scales, which are learning space, furniture,
lighting and indoor air quality. Teaching and Learning
Comfort Level Scale (TLCLS), on the other hand, consists of
8 items which have been adapted from Enjoyment of Science
238
Learning Experiences of Test of Science Related Attitudes
(TOSRA). [14] Both instruments have been validated by
experts in related fields and the reliability is determined using
Cronbach’s alpha index.
The values of Cronbach’s alpha of both instruments are
between 0.64 - 0.87. According to Mohd Majid (2005) and
Hair et al. (2006, 2010), these values are good and acceptable.
[15]-[16] Data were analysed using SPSS to facilitate
interpretation of the findings.
Descriptive statistics is used to describe the findings in the
form of mean and standard deviation. The interpretation of
the mean values is illustrated in Table I. Previous studies
involving the learning environment also used the same
interpretation. [18]-[20]
TABLE I: INTERPRETATION OF MEAN SCORE OF PHYSICAL CLASSROOM
ENVIRONMENT INVENTORY (PCEI) AND TEACHING AND LEARNING
COMFORT LEVEL SCALE (TLCLS)
Mean score Interpretation
1.00 - 2.33 Low
2.34 - 3.66 Moderate
3.67 - 5.00 High
Table I illustrates the interpretation of mean score to
determine the suitability of the physical classroom
environment for students at their schools. Mean score
between 1.00 and 2.33 indicates that the level of suitability of
the physical aspects of the science laboratory is low or
unsatisfactory. Mean score between 2.34 and 3.66 indicates
that suitability of physical aspects of the science laboratory is
moderate. On the other hand, mean score between 3.67 and
5.00 indicates that suitability of physical aspects of the
science laboratory is high, which means it is satisfactory and
meets student needs.
In addition, inference analysis which is Pearson correlation
is used to determine the relationship between the variables in
this study. Table II illustrates the interpretation of the values
of correlation coefficient (r).
TABLE II: INTERPRETATION OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENT (R)
Coefficient value (r) Interpretation
0.10 - 0.29 Weak positive relationship
0.30 - 0.49 Moderate positive relationship
n0.50 - 1.00 Strong positive relationship
In Table II, we can see that coefficient values (r) between
0.10 and 0.29 indicate a weak positive relationship, values
between 0.30 and 0.49 indicate a moderate positive
relationship and values between 0.50 and 1.00 indicate a
strong positive relationship between the variables.
V. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
A. Suitability of the Physical Classroom Environment
Table III and Diagram 1 show mean values of suitability of
the physical classroom aspects from the students’ viewpoint.
It was found that students think that the level of suitability
of the learning space (mean = 3.23, sd = 0.98), furniture
(mean = 3.34, sd = 0.88), lighting (mean = 3.34, sd = 0.73)
and indoor air quality (mean = 3.61, sd = 0.76) in the
classroom is moderate. This implies that all aspects in this
study are still at an unsatisfactory level. The finding shows
 International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 5, No. 3, March 2015

that the students believe that the existing learning space is not to be creative and lack of opportunity to generate new ideas.
suitable for the needs of teaching and learning activities and Therefore, the learning environment has to be more
the number of students. It appears that the limited space also conducive to allow students to learn more comfortably.
hinders students from moving about comfortably in the
C. The Relationship between the Physical Aspects of the
classroom. The students also think that the design of the
Learning Environment and Teaching and Learning
furniture such as tables and chairs is unsatisfactory and Comfort Level
uncomfortable to be used for an extended period of time. In
Table V illustrates the relationship between the physical
addition, the lighting in the classroom is poor, does not
aspects of the learning environment and teaching and learning
illuminate the entire classroom properly and is unsuitable for
comfort level in the classroom.
the variety of classroom activities. Lastly, the students think
that indoor air quality is unsatisfactory perhaps due to lack of TABLE V: PEARSON CORRELATION (R) BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL ASPECTS
properly functioning fans, inadequate number and opening of OF THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND TEACHING AND LEARNING COMFORT
windows, and poor ventilation in the classroom. LEVEL
Air
TABLE III: MEAN VALUES OF SUITABILITY OF THE PHYSICAL CLASSROOM Variable Learnin Furnitu Lightin
qualit
ENVIRONMENT s g space re g
y
Standard Teachin Pearson
Scale Mean Interpretation 0.41*
deviation g and correlation 0.44** 0.55** 0.36**
*
Learning space Moderate learning (r)
3.23 0.98
comfort Significant 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Furniture 3.34 0.88 Moderate level N 916 916 916 916
** Significant at 0.01
Lighting 3.34 0.73 Moderate
Indoor air quality 3.61 0.76 Moderate Table V shows that there is a significant positive
Overall 3.38 0.80 Moderate relationship between learning space [r (916) =0.44), p=0.00
(p<0.01)], furniture [r (916) =0.55), p=0.00 (p<0.01)], lighting
[r (916) =0.36), p=0.00 (p<0.01)] and air quality [r (916) =0.41),
p=0.00 (p<0.01)] and teaching and learning comfort level.
This implies that providing ample learning space which
suits the number of students and allows students to move
about freely in the classroom, as well as in a soothing colour
will increase teaching and learning comfort level.
Additionally, the use of furniture such as tables and chairs
which are ergonomic and adequate facilities such as fans can
also affect teaching and learning comfort level. Other than
Fig. 1. Mean score of each scale in physical classroom environment that, quality lighting with adjustable brightness according to
inventory (PCEI). the needs of tools and activities in the classroom can also
increase the teaching and learning comfort level. Lastly, good
A flaw in the aspects of the physical environment may
indoor air quality, which means suitable and adjustable
contribute to student and teacher discomfort, which can
temperature, efficient ventilation and appropriate humidity,
reduce the effectiveness of learning in the classroom.
can also affect teaching and learning comfort level. The
Therefore, it is obvious that there is a need to improve the
findings indicate that from the students’ perspective, the
physical aspects of the classroom because the existing
learning space, furniture, lighting and indoor air quality are
classroom facilities and equipment are not suitable to meet
important in creating a comfortable environment for teaching
and achieve world-class education.
and learning.
B. Teaching and Learning Comfort Level In general, the findings show that there is a high positive
Table V shows the mean value of teaching and learning relationship [r (916) = 0.59), p=0.00 (p<0.01)] between the
comfort level from students’ viewpoint. physical environment and teaching and learning comfort level.
This demonstrates that the physical environment is an
TABLE V: MEAN VALUE OF TEACHING AND LEARNING COMFORT LEVEL important element to consider in creating a conducive
Standard learning environment and to ensure the comfort of teaching
Scale Mean Interpretation
deviation
Teaching and
and learning in the classroom.
learning comfort 3.15 0.09 Moderate
level
VIII. CONCLUSION
From the students’ viewpoint, the teaching and learning
comfort level in the classroom is at a moderate level. The The study has found that suitability of aspects of the
finding shows that students are not comfortable during physical classroom in this study is at a moderate level. From
teaching and learning in the classroom. This could be because the students’ point of view, the teaching and learning comfort
they do not enjoy learning and group activities. The students level is also moderate. Furthermore, the study found that there
are apparently uncomfortable during teaching and learning is a relationship between the physical aspects of the learning
due to lack of interaction with each other, lack of opportunity environment and teaching and learning comfort level. Three

239
 International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 5, No. 3, March 2015
physical aspects which are furniture, space and air quality
contribute to the comfort level of teaching and learning in the
classroom. Therefore, the physical aspects of a classroom
needs to be given due attention and planned to be in line with
learning goals and needs. For that reason, the assessment of
the learning environment needs to be carried out more
comprehensively and cover various aspects to obtain accurate
information for the purpose of improvement.
REFERENCES
[1] B. J. Fraser, Learning Environment in Curriculum Evaluation: A
Review, Oxford: Pergamum Press, 1981.
[2] A. F. L. Wong and B. J. Fraser, Environment-attitude associations in
the chemistry laboratory classroom. Research in science and
Technological Education, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 91-102, 1996.
[3] F. Aladejana and O. Aderibigbe, “Science laboratory environment and
academic performance,” Journal Science Educational Technology,
vol. 16, pp. 500-506.
[4] A. Woolfolk, Educational psychology, 10th Edition. Allyn and Bacon,
2007.
[5] H. Arzi, “Enhancing science education laboratory environment: More
than wall, benches and widgets,” International Handbook of Science
Education, Vol. 1, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[6] H. Sanoff, Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning,
New York: Wiley, 2000.
[7] Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary: 7th Edition, Oxford
University Press, 2005.
[8] R. H. Moos, Evaluating Educational Environments: Procedures,
Measures, Finding and Policy Implication, San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1979.
[9] N. V. N. Chism. Challenging Traditional Assumptions and
Rethinking Learning Spaces. [Online]. Available:
http://www.educause.edu/learningspaces.
[10] C .C. Strange and J. H. Banning, Educating by Design: Creating
Campus Learning Environments that Work, San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 2001.
[11] W. R. Veal and Z. Jackson, “Developing a primary science methods
classroom,” International Journal of Science and Mathematics
Education, vol. 4, pp. 195-213, 2005.
[12] A. F. Wahab, “Pengurusan sumber fizikal IPT: Pengurusan ruang,”
Jurnal teknologi, vol. 43, pp. 15-28. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
2005.
[13] H. Lilia, “Improving science literacy through a conducive laboratory
learning environment: A proposed model,” presented at Third
International Conference on Science and Mathematics Education
(CoSMEd), Penang, Malaysia, 2009.
[14] B. J. Fraser, “Classroom environment instruments: Development,
validity and applications,” Learning Environment Research: An
International Journal, vol. 1, pp. 7-33. 1998.
[15] M. M. Konting, Kaedah Penyelidikan Pendidikan, Kuala Lumpur:
Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 2005.
[16] J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and R. L. Tatham,
Multivariate Data Analysis: 6th Edition, Pearson: Prentice Hall, New
Jersey, 2006.
[17] J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and R. L. Tatham,
Multivariate Data Analysis: 7th Edition, Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2010.
[18] R. A. Latif, “Pengaruh Sokongan Interpersonal Ibubapa, Rakan Sebaya,
Sekolah Dan Persekitaran Fizikal Terhadap Penglibatan Remaja
Dalam Aktiviti Fizikal,” PhD Thesis, Bandar Baru Bangi: Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia. 2009.
[19] Z. M. Nadzir, “Hubungan Antara Persepsi Pelajar Tentang
Persekitaran Sekolah, Motivasi Akademik Dan Strategi Pembelajaran
Dengan Pencapaian Dalam Mata Pelajaran Sains,” PhD Thesis,
Bandar Baru Bangi: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 2009.
240
View publication stats
[20] M. Puteh M. H. Ibrahim, M. Adnan, C. N. C. Ahmad, and N. M. Noh,
“Thermal comfort in classroom: constraints and issues,” Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences Journal, vol. 46, pp. 1834 – 1838.
2012.
Marzita Puteh was born in Malacca, Malaysia on 21st
March 1960. She received her bachelor’s degree
(University of Reading, UK) in 1983 majoring in
mathematics. In 1992, She received her master in
education (UKM) and her received Ph.D in 1999 from
University of East Anglia, Norwich, England. She is
currently a professor at Mathematics Department,
Sultan Idris Education University. Her research interest
is in the affective domain of teaching and learning mathematics and focusing
on mathematics anxiety. She is a competent, efficient and resourceful
researcher with enviable research outputs. Published several books pertaining
to mathematics and teaching and learning mathematics.
Che Nidzam Che Ahmad was born in Kelantan on 22nd
July 1968. Currently she is a lecturer at Biology
department, Sultan Idris Education University, Malaysia.
She received her PhD in science education and received
her master’s in education (science) (Universiti Malaya),
She received her bachelor of science (Ecology)
(Universiti Malaya) She has taught at the secondary
school for 14 years. She joined UPSI as a lecture in 2005. Her research and
publication covers areas in science education and learning environment.
Noraini Mohamed Noh was born in Selangor, Malaysia
on 22nd November 1964. She obtained her master in
multimedia education and earned her Ph.D with the
thesis “Acceptance readiness of technology innovation
among teachers In Malaysian Schools’ from National
University of Malaysia. She is currently a senior lecture
at the Faculty of Education and Human Development in
Sultan Idris Education University. Her research interest in technology
instructional, learning environment and instructional design. She has
presented numerous papers at local and international Conferences. She is
also active in research publications having published papers in several local
and international journals in this area, and areas related to instructional
technology.
Mazlini Adnan was born in Perak, Malaysia on 18th
February 1975. She is a senior lecturer in the
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science and
Mathematics, UPSI Tanjong Malim. She holds a PhD
and a master in mathematics education from the
National University of Malaysia (UKM). She received
her bachelor's degree (mathematics education) from the
University of Malaya (UM). She also has an experience
of teaching in secondary schools almost 4 years in the field of mathematics
and additional mathematics before joining UPSI as a tutor in 2003. Her
expertise is in the area of beliefs and conceptual knowledge in mathematics.
Mohd Hairy Ibrahim was born in Perak, Malaysia on
25rd November 1973. He is a senior lecturer in the
Department of Geography and Environment, Faculty
of Human Sciences, UPSI Tanjong Malim. He also has
an experience of academician almost 15 years in the
field of geography and climate changes. He received
his bachelor’s degree at University of Malaya,
Malaysia in 1998 majoring in geography. In 2001, he
obtained his master in environmental management (UKM) and now doing his
Ph.D in UKM with the thesis “Urban Atmosphere Changes and Its effect to
population in Ipoh, Perak, Malaysia”. He is a commited, efficient and
resourceful researcher with urban climate changes research.