The following research question gui

The following research question guided our
investigations: To what extent does a dynamic
lighting system affect the concentration of
Dutch elementary school children? In order tofind answers to this question, we conducted
two field studies and an experiment to examine
the effect of dynamic lighting on the
concentration of pupils in elementary schools.
Following previous research, we focused on
pupils’ CP25,26 and evaluated the impact of
different lighting conditions and settings on
pupil’s concentration. In addition, we examined
the differential effects of classroom
lighting conditions on concentration for
gender. We evaluated the effects of lighting,
conducting analyses of variance, using three
samples of data from 181 elementary school
children. In this section, we discuss our most
important findings.
First, the results of our field studies offer
support for the positive influence of classroom
lighting conditions on concentration.
Although all pupils performed better at the
concentration test at the consecutive measurement
points, it appeared that the performance
of the pupils in the experimental groups
improved more than the performance of their
peers in the control groups. Furthermore, the
findings of the first field study show differences
between grades: we find effects of
lighting on concentration for pupils from
grade 4 but not for pupils from grade 6.
These findings suggest that older pupils’
concentration might be less affected by the
lighting conditions used than younger pupils.
One plausible explanation is that older pupils
are more trained to concentrate while performing
tests than younger pupils. Because
pupils in Dutch elementary schools are tested
on a regular basis to assess their development
in basic skills such as reading and mathematics,
pupils become more skilled in testing
during their school career. Moreover, pupils
in grade 6 are in their final year of elementary
education and will participate at the end of
the school year in the nation-wide standardized
Final Primary Education Test. Based
on the performance of this test – together with
noncognitive factors such as attitudes, motivation
and interests, and the teacher’s judgements with regard to the child’s home
situation – an educational recommendation
will be provided for the transition from
primary to secondary school at the end of
elementary school. Given the importance of
this test for the future school career of their
pupils and to prepare them for this test as well
as possible, grade 6 teachers might be paying
more attention to testing the basic skills of the
pupils (teaching to the test) than their colleagues
from other grades. This may explain
the possible differences between grades as
found in the field study. Although the
findings of the second field study show that,
on average, older children perform better on
concentration tests than their younger peers,
no additional support was found for the role
of age in the effect of lighting on concentration.
This may be related to the small number
of different age groups within both
classrooms.
Our results partly concur with findings
from two recent studies into the effects of
dynamic lighting on concentration conducted
in Germany.25,26 In one of their studies, the
researchers found differences in errors made
when comparing elementary school pupils in
the experimental setting with the control
setting. By substantiating these earlier findings,
results from our study offer additional
support for the effect of dynamic lighting on
concentration for young children. More
research is needed to test the effects of
different lighting conditions and settings on
the school performance of different age
groups. Future studies should use reliable
and repeated measurements of concentration
in order to reduce bias, increase the validity of
the design used and evaluate the possible
long-term effects of lighting on school performance
of young children in natural school
environments.
Second, the results of the third study
showed no statistically significant effect of
lighting on concentration and do not substantiate
the findings of the two field studies in a controlled environment. One possible
explanation for not finding a significant effect
in the third study might be related to the
differences in the designs used. The randomized
experimental design features of the
third study promise full control over extraneous
sources of variances. If correctly done, the
random assignment experiment ensures that
any outcome differences between groups are
likely to be due to the treatment, not to
differences between groups that already
existed at the start of the study.46 Although
we have tried to get a more valid estimate of
the treatment effect by using a sensitive design
(repeated measures) that reduces sampling
error, the quasi-experimental design features
of the two field studies create less compelling
support for counterfactual interferences than
the randomized experimental design used in
the third study. This suggests that the statistically
significant differences found in the field
studies might be caused by uncontrolled
extraneous influences that might limit or
bias observation. In order to validate the
findings of the third study, more randomized
experiments are needed. Results from multiple
randomized experiments on the effect of
dynamic lighting on pupils’ achievement can
yield more accurate estimates than any one
individual study.
It might also be that differences between
the findings are related to differences in the
way the children were exposed to the lighting
conditions and settings in the different environments.
In the field studies, the pupils in the
experimental conditions were subjected to
different lighting settings and conditions
during one day for a longer period of time
(Study 1) or were constantly exposed to the
Focus setting for one month (Study 2), while
the pupils in the controlled environment were
subjected to the same lighting conditions
during one morning (Study 3). Although we
did not evaluate the dynamic nature of the
light system used, our findings seem to
suggest that an environment in which
different lighting settings and conditions are
used to support the specific activities and
tasks at hand during a longer period of time
may be more effective for pupils’ learning
than an environment in which pupils are
exposed to the same lighting condition for a
relatively short period of time. The effect of
lighting might be situation-, task- and time
(duration)-dependent as previous studies also
have indicated.28–30,34 Future research should,
therefore, focus on the interaction between
light conditions and settings, specific activities
and tasks and duration (in terms of exposure).
This may increase our understanding of the
variability of the effect of lighting among
classroom environments, school activities,
tasks and student performance and the potential
effects of dynamic lighting in school
settings.
The differences between the findings of the
field studies and the third study for the
relationship between lighting and concentration
may also have to do with seasonal effects.
As described above, the field studies were
conducted between October and February
(autumn and winter) while the third study was
conducted during a six-week period from
May to June (spring). Although in all three
studies the tests were administrated in the
morning, the pupils who participated in the
third study were more exposed to daylight
than pupils in the field studies before they
visited the lecture room at the university and
were tested. The pupils in the two field studies
were less exposed to normal daylight before
the administration of the post-tests; due to
seasonal conditions, it was still relatively dark
outside when school started and the test were
made. Seasonal effects were also found in a
more recent study into the effects of dynamic
lighting on student alertness in a lecture room
environment.35 The results of that study
showed that in spring no change in alertness
could be detected, while in the autumn study
the decrease of alertness during lectures was
significant. These findings shed light on the effects of exposure to lighting conditions
during different seasons and the effect of the
dynamic nature of light (both artificial and
daylight). As such, attention should be paid
to the added value of artificial lighting in
combination with exposure to daylight for the
improvement of the performance of students
in educational settings. We therefore agree
with Rautkyla and her colleagues35 that more
systematic research is needed on the relation
of daytime and artificial light, concentration
and seasonal effects, using objective measures
to analyze performance in real-life settings
and with prolonged exposure.
Third, the results of our field studies
showed no evidence of differential effects of
gender in the relationship between lighting
and concentration. Although earlier studies
did find effects of lighting on performance
and mood differ between men and women,
our findings do not indicate gender-related
effects of lighting on pupils in elementary
education. This may be related to the difference
between children and adults in effects of
lighting, for instance in regard to the development
of psychological and affective preferences
for the environment in general, and
lighting specifically.
The positive effects of lighting conditions
on pupils’ concentration as found in our
study were based on data from samples of
‘normal’ children. As mentioned above, in all
three studies, pupils with learning disabilities
were excluded from the sample. We therefore
encourage researchers who are interested in
examining the role of lighting in learning
environments to also evaluate the impact of
lighting on the performance of children with
learning disabilities (both cognitive and
behavioral). For example, studies into the
effect of lighting on concentration, reading
speed and accuracy of children with dyslexia
com