Light at eye level is a means to create energy savings and space for learning, focus and concentration

The main findings from this pilot study show the importance of giving the users the choice to change their lighting environment so it corresponds to the learning activity.

The results show both effects of improved performance in math and reduced noise level, when working in light from pendants compared to evenly distributed light from the ceiling, Furthermore the use of pendants results energy savings of up to 68%.  This pilot study shows that the distribution of lighting in rooms can have an impact on the learning environment. Further studies are needed on order to fully understand the influences and mechanisms.

Energy
The energy calculations show energy savings by use of pendants only of up to 38% compared to the reference case with daylight savings at threshold 300 lux. For the same scenario, giving the users the choice to further dim the pendants to half its output give energy savings in the range of 68%.  Furthermore, the calculations show potential energy savings by also giving the users the opportunity to dim both the ceiling lighting and the pendants, the saving potential is in the range from 2-37%.

Sound level
The noise levels during focus-based activities were measured in a Danish primary school with different lighting conditions. Comparing 20 fair conditions in terms of activity type and number of students, we found that the noise levels of the 70% of the measured cases get lowered, which potentially implies that the students can focus on the class better, and accordingly the students learning could be higher. The average improvement in the noise level was not huge, but clearly above the perceptual noticeable difference.

Students performance test
For the math tests, the overall finding is that performance in all classes seems to be improved in the condition with pendants compared to the ceiling lighting. The differences are statistically significant for one class room meaning that the difference is very likely to be due to the different lighting conditions. Two classrooms show a difference with a statistical tendency meaning that the difference is likely to be due to the different lighting conditions, but is probably to some extent affected by other factors (e.g. mood, sleepiness, social and psychological factors). The difference in the classroom which is not statistically significant means that it cannot be ascribed to the lighting intervention.

For the creativity tests, the overall finding is that performance in all classes seems to be improved in week 2 of the intervention, i.e. not following the changing of lighting conditions. For all classes, except class B, the difference in correct answers is statistically significant. This could indicate that a certain learning effect was in progress during the intervention, i.e. that the pupils got better at doing the test due to repeated training. It could also indicate that whether the lighting condition is important cannot be ascribed to one certain condition. Further studies are needed to fully understand this mechanism.

This pilot study shows the potential impact of focused lighting in classrooms for focused learning tasks, i.e. mathematics. However, further studies are needed to get the full overview.

Illumination
When using ambient ceiling lighting alone, all classrooms achieved the illuminance values recommended in lighting standards EN12464-1 and DS700. Most of the spaces have a horizontal illuminance of 200lux or above (highest around 450lux) at the working plane. The uniformity ratio is 0.4 or higher for 63% of the cases and never lower than 0.3.

On the other hand, when pendants are part of the scenario, uniformity is below 0.2 for all cases, and illuminance levels between the pendants show 50-150lux, depending on whether ceiling lighting is ON or OFF. This means that the uniformity ratio recommended in the previously mentioned standards is not fulfilled. With pendants switched on, the children’s working area has a horizontal illuminance of 500lux or more. With pendants, a non-uniform spatial illuminance distribution is observed, creating focused bright areas where kids work and soft light between working areas, perhaps avoiding distractions from the surroundings and creating more focus on their work. With more evenly distributed lighting scenarios, no area in the classrooms stands out over another. Lighting conditions are rather uniform.

CO2, RH and temperature
The results from the measurements of CO2, RH and temperature show stable conditions and the effect from those environmental parameters on the students’ behavior and test results was found to be insignificant.

Qualitative analysis
The results from our qualitative studies suggest that our form of non-uniform lighting design (by means of pendants) provoked changes in pupil behavior as perceived by the researchers and users (teachers and pupils) themselves. Some of these appear particularly favorable during exercise time activities. These changes can be attributed to both the physical appearance of our design (the pendants) as well as the lighting effect created by them (high contrast, local pools of light).

Although our design intervention, a non-uniform distribution of light with pendants, resulted in perceived changes in pupil behavior, it is not viable to conclude that “any” form of non-uniform distribution of light will incite (similar) changes. As we only tested one type of non-uniform lighting distribution with one typical luminaire, a pendant, further studies are recommended to explore different designs and luminaires and their impact on pupil behavior before concluding that there is a direct relationship.