Skip to main content

Relationship Between Educational Furniture Design and Cognitive Error

  • 1829 Accesses

Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC,volume 826)

Abstract

Introduction: Learners’ cognitive error plays a significant role in teaching-learning processes. This study is aimed to investigate the relationship between educational furniture design and cognitive error.

Methods: Thirty 18–22 years old students participated in the experiment. Four educational furniture, with different ergonomic characteristics were chosen. The furniture included two types of arm table student chairs (type 1 & 2), one set of library chair and desk (type 3) and one set of adjustable chair and desk (type 4). Each participant spent 90 min on each type of furniture while reading a book and making some notes. A before-after experiment designed to assess cognitive errors by Stroop Test. Paired T-test analysis was used for statistical comparisons at the .05 confidence level in SPSS software.

Findings: Comparison before-after errors showed that chairs of type 1 and type 2 could increase errors respectively .86 (P-value = .034) and .63 (P-value = .039). The increasing errors by furniture of type 3 was .40 (P-value = .184). Furniture of type 4 made errors reduction up to .16 (P-value = .517). Comparison between arm table (group 1) and separated table (group 2) showed that group 1 significantly increased errors up to .75 (P-value = .003). Group 2 has insignificantly increased error to .11.

Conclusion: The findings revealed a relationship between the ergonomic characteristics of the educational furniture and the number of cognitive errors, as the more ergonomics characteristics of the furniture, the less error. There is also an error percentage reduction using separated chair and desk.

Keywords

  • Educational furniture design
  • Cognitive error
  • Stroop test
  • SCWT

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-96065-4_68
  • Chapter length: 8 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-96065-4
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.

References

  1. Huang GC, Newman LR, Schwartzstein RM (2014) Critical thinking in health professions education: summary and consensus statements of the millennium conference 2011. Teach Learn Med 26(1):95–102

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  2. Hansen FD (2006) Human error: a concept analysis. J Air Transp 11(3):61–77

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Stewart M (1992) Simulation of human error in reinforced concrete design. Res Eng Des 4(1):51–60

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Rasmussen J, Vicente KJ (1989) Coping with human errors through system design: implications for ecological interface design. Int J Man Mach Stud 31(5):517–534

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  5. Boampong E, Effah B, Dadzie PK, Asibey O (2015) Ergonomic functionality of classroom furniture in senior high schools in Ghana. Int J Adv Sci Technol 2(1):6–11

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ward J, Coats J (2017) Comparison of the backjoy sitsmart relief and spine buddy LT1 H/C ergonomic chair supports on short-term neck and back pain. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 40(1):41–49

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Haller M, Richter C, Brandl P, Gross S, Schossleitner G, Schrempf A et al (eds) (2011) Finding the right way for interrupting people improving their sitting posture. In: IFIP conference on human-computer interaction, Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mououdi MA, Hosseini M (2018) The determination of the static anthropometric characteristics for the computer users from the monitoring room of one of the industries in the mazandaran province for designing an ergonomic chair. J Ergon 5(3):22–28

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rassweiler JJ, Klein J, Tschada A, Gözen AS (2017) Laparoscopic retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy using an ergonomic chair: demonstration of technique and matched-pair analysis. BJU Int 119(2):349–357

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. Dianat I, Karimi MA, Hashemi AA, Bahrampour S (2013) Classroom furniture and anthropometric characteristics of Iranian high school students: proposed dimensions based on anthropometric data. Appl Ergon 44(1):101–108

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. Jawalkar C (2014) Ergonomic based design and survey of elementary school furniture. i-Manag J Sch Edu Technol 9(4):27–31

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lee YS (2016) Creative workplace characteristics and innovative start-up companies. Facilities 34(7/8):413–432

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. Gilavand A (2016) The impact of educational furniture of schools on learning and academic achievement of students at elementary level. Int J Med Res Health Sci. 5(7S):343–348

    Google Scholar 

  14. Douglas D, Gifford R (2001) Evaluation of the physical classroom by students and professors: a lens model approach. Edu Res 43(3):295–309

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. Lewinski P (2015) Effects of classrooms’ architecture on academic performance in view of telic versus paratelic motivation: a review. Front Psychol 6(746):1–5

    Google Scholar 

  16. Statistical Centre of Iran (2015) Iran in the mirror image, p. 133. [In Persian]. https: //www.amar.org.ir/Portals/0/Files/fulltext/1394/n_idaa_no.35_94.pdf

  17. Scarpina F, Tagini S (2017) The stroop color and word test. Front Psychol 8(557):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lyons JB (2001) Do school facilities really impact a child’s education? IssueTrak: a CEFPI brief on educational facility issues. In: Council of educational facility planners I, Scottsdale. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED458791.pdf

  19. Odunaiya NA, Owonuwa DD, Oguntibeju OO (2014) Ergonomic suitability of educational furniture and possible health implications in a university setting. Adv Med Edu Pract 5:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  20. Savanur C, Altekar C, De A (2007) Lack of conformity between Indian classroom furniture and student dimensions: proposed future seat/table dimensions. Ergonomics 50(10):1612–1625

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  21. Gunzelmann G, Moore LR, Gluck KA, Van Dongen HP, Dinges DF (2010) Fatigue in sustained attention: generalizing mechanisms for time awake to time on task. In: Ackerman PL (ed) cognitive fatigue: multidisciplinary perspectives on current research and future applications. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 93–94

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to express their highest appreciation to Zanjan University of Medical Science which sponsored the study [Grant Number: A-12-56-51].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shirazeh Arghami .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Jafari, A., Arghami, S., Kamali, K., Zenozian, S. (2019). Relationship Between Educational Furniture Design and Cognitive Error. In: Bagnara, S., Tartaglia, R., Albolino, S., Alexander, T., Fujita, Y. (eds) Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018). IEA 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 826. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96065-4_68

Download citation