Effective teaching and learning are significantly influenced by the classroom ergonomics, particularly the visibility of blackboards, which is affected by factors such as daylight variations, chalk colour, viewing angles and blackboard areas. While previous research has often examined these factors in isolation, this study explored their individual and combined effects to provide a cohesive framework for optimizing visibility. Luminous environment metrics were quantitatively assessed using fixed and handheld measurement devices, while student feedback was collected through surveys. Spearman's Rank Correlation revealed a strong positive relationship between contrast and visibility scores ( = 0.75, p < 0.001), while the Kruskal-Wallis test confirmed significant effects of viewing angle (H = 1145.24, p < 0.001) and chalk colour (H = 798.44, p < 0.001) on visibility. Despite yellow chalk exhibiting the highest contrast ratio (3.005), subjective assessments favoured green chalk, likely due to its reduced visual fatigue and perceptual comfort. Conversely, red chalk provided the least visibility, limiting its practical use. Visibility was highest during morning hours (9 AM–11 AM), particularly in blackboard areas closer to natural light sources. These findings offer insights for designing classrooms that enhance visual comfort, reduce eye strain and support student engagement in energy-efficient learning spaces.
BianYLuoJHuJLiuLPangY. Visual discomfort assessment in an open-plan space with skylights: a case study with POE survey and retrofit design. Energy Build2021; 248: 111215.
2.
LiYLiLShenPYuanC. An occupant-centric approach for spatio-temporal visual comfort assessment and optimization in daylit sports spaces. Indoor Built Environ2024; 33: 145–166.
3.
SuHSunYYuGYangB. The benefit of daylight-simulcasted dynamic lighting: an experiment isolating simultaneousness from dynamicity. Indoor Built Environ2024; 33: 287–304.
4.
HansenEKBjørnerTXylakisEPajusteM. An experiment of double dynamic lighting in an office responding to sky and daylight: perceived effects on comfort, atmosphere and work engagement. Indoor Built Environ2022; 31: 355–374.
5.
FarajiARezaeiFRahnamayiezekavatPRashidiMSoleimaniH. Subjective and simulation-based analysis of discomfort glare metrics in office buildings with light shelf systems. Sustainability2023; 15: 11885.
6.
TianZZhaoYFangJKongZ. A study of daylight glare evaluation with prism daylighting redirecting fenestrations. J Build Eng2023; 71: 106428.
7.
LiangQJinLLuoTShiJXuePLiuJWangBJinX. Status of typical artificial lighting environments in different public buildings in China, and requirements for their improvement. Buildings2023; 13: 2283.
8.
LalandePHébertMPotvinALalondeJFWatchmanMDemersCM. Representing the photobiological dimension of light in northern architecture. Indoor Built Environ2023; 32: 1875–1890.
9.
ÇağatayKYıldırımKYıldırımİBaşoğluK. Impacts of light direction and window properties on students’ perceptual evaluations in design studios. Indoor Built Environ2022; 31: 1079–1090.
10.
DuXZhaoSZhangDYuY. Comparative analysis of light environment perception, eye movement and physiology in university professional classroom based on virtual reality experiment. Indoor Built Environ2023; 32: 1152–1169.
11.
HopkinsSNarayanasamySVincentSJSampsonGPWoodJM. Do reduced visual acuity and refractive error affect classroom performance?Clin Exp Optom2020; 103: 278–289.
12.
WenPTanFWuMCaiQXuRZhangXHuX. The effects of different bedroom light environments in the evening on adolescents. Build Environ2021; 206: 108321.
13.
XuePWangHLuoTZhaoYFanCMaT. Clear sky color modeling based on BP neural network. Build Environ2022; 226: 109715.
14.
SawyerAO. Imagining daylight: evaluating participants’ perception of daylight in work environments. Indoor Built Environ2021; 31: 96–108.
15.
LiDHLiSChenWLouS. Simple correlations between point daylight factor, average daylight factor and vertical daylight factor under all sky conditions and building design implications. Indoor Built Environ2022; 31: 1700–1714.
16.
Salem BahdadAASyed FadzilSFOnubiHOBenLasodSA. Balancing daylight in office spaces with respect to the indoor thermal environment through optimization of light shelves design parameters in the tropics. Indoor Built Environ2022; 31: 1963–1985.
17.
HuXLiNGuJHeYYonggaA. Lighting and thermal factors on human comfort, work performance, and sick building syndrome in the underground building environment. J Build Eng2023; 79: 107878.
18.
DongYZhangX. Study on the effect of awakening daylight in dormitories on morning alertness, mood, fatigue and sleep quality of college students. Build Environ2021; 203: 108060.
19.
HeschongLKnechtC. Daylighting makes a difference. Educ Facil Plann2002; 37: 5–14.
20.
ZomorodianZSTahsildoostM. Assessing the effectiveness of dynamic metrics in predicting daylight availability and visual comfort in classrooms. Renew Energy2019; 134: 669–680.
21.
ShiJLiangQJinLLuoTYangBPanQZhangSXueP. Different human physical responses of visual performance within daylighting and artificial lighting. J Build Eng2025; 101: 111886.
22.
JinLXuePZhangLWangJShiJLiangQLiaoJ. Visual and non-visual effects of integrated lighting based on spectral information. Build Environ2023; 242: 110617.
23.
MarkussenSRøedK. Daylight and absenteeism – evidence from Norway. Econ Hum Biol2015; 16: 73–80.
24.
XiongJTzempelikosABilionisIAwalgaonkarNMLeeSKonstantzosIKaravaP. Inferring personalized visual satisfaction profiles in daylit offices from comparative preferences using a Bayesian approach. Build Environ2018; 138: 74–88.
25.
SadeghiSALeeSKaravaPBilionisITzempelikosA. Bayesian Classification and inference of occupant visual preferences in daylit perimeter private offices. Energy Build2018; 166: 505–524.
26.
XuePMakCMCheungHD. The effects of daylighting and human behavior on luminous comfort in residential buildings: a questionnaire survey. Build Environ2014; 81: 51–59.
27.
JamrozikAClementsNHasanSSZhaoJZhangRCampanellaCBauerB. Access to daylight and view in an office improves cognitive performance and satisfaction and reduces eyestrain: a controlled crossover study. Build Environ2019; 165: 106379.
28.
WangTLiJWangYDaiSShaoRHaoL. Active interventions of dynamic lighting on human circadian rhythm and sleep quality in confined spaces. Build Environ2022; 226: 109766.
29.
BianYLuoJLuoTLengT. Contrast demand on the blackboard in typical secondary school classrooms of China: effects of daylight reflections on text legibility. Energy Build2022; 261: 111974.
30.
ZhuS. A novel approach for solving light reflections on the blackboard by machine vision algorithm. In: Proceedings: 2021 IEEE international conference on emergency science and information technology (ICESIT), Chongqing, China, 19–21 November 2021, pp.738–741.
31.
SakurabaGNakajimaT. Practicality study of head-mounted display-based system using perspective transformation. In: 2020 IEEE 9th global conference on consumer electronics (GCCE), Kobe, Japan, 13–16 October 2020, pp.804–805.
32.
RamasootTFotiosS. Lighting and display screens: models for predicting luminance limits and disturbance. Light Res Technol2012; 44: 197–223.
33.
RamasootTFotiosS. Lighting for the classrooms of the future. Electronic classrooms: a new challenge for school lighting guidance. Light Eng2009; 17: 62–70.
34.
DobresJChahineNReimerB. Effects of ambient illumination, contrast polarity, and letter size on text legibility under glance-like reading. Appl Ergon2017; 60: 68–73.
HungSJ. Comparing the legibility of different coloured chalk in teaching on a blackboard. World Trans Eng Technol Educ2016; 14: 333–333.
37.
BianYChenYLuoJSunY. Contrast-based evaluation of the reflected daylight glare on the blackboard in a classroom with complex fenestration systems. J Build Eng2023; 64: 105622.
38.
BianYChenYSunYMaYYuDLengT. Simulation of daylight availability, visual comfort and view clarity for a novel window system with switchable blinds in classrooms. Build Environ2023; 235: 110243.
39.
KimHOkudaSNakaneY. Study on luminance contrast of characters on blackboard. J Archit Plann (Trans AIJ)1997; 62: 23–29.
JadhaoABagadeATawareGBhondeM. Effect of background color perception on attention span and short-term memory in normal students. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol2020; 10: 981–984.
42.
OuLCLuoMWoodcockAWrightA. A study of colour emotion and colour preference. Part III: colour preference modeling. Color Res Appl2004; 29: 381–389.
43.
KüllerRBallalSLaikeTMikellidesBTonelloG. The impact of light and colour on psychological mood: a cross-cultural study of indoor work environments. Ergonomics2006; 49: 1496–1507.
44.
BrascampJWShevellSK. The certainty of ambiguity in visual neural representations. Annu Rev Vis Sci2021; 7: 465–486.
45.
DzulkifliMAMustafarMF. The influence of colour on memory performance: a review. Malays J Med Sci2013; 20: 3–9.
46.
KayaNEppsHH. Relationship between color and emotion: a study of college students. Coll Stud J2004; 38: 396–405.
47.
Al-AyashAKaneRTSmithDGreen-ArmytageP. The influence of color on student emotion, heart rate, and performance in learning environments. Color Res Appl2015; 41: 196–205.
48.
BoycePR. Human factors in lighting. 3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2014.
49.
SchlossKBLessardLWalmsleyCSFoleyK. Color inference in visual communication: the meaning of colors in recycling. Cogn Res: Princ Implic2018; 3: 5.
50.
WilkinsA. Reading through colour: How coloured filters can reduce reading difficulty, eye strain, and headaches. Chichester: Wiley, 2003.
51.
ElliotAJMaierMA. Color psychology: effects of perceiving color on psychological functioning in humans. Annu Rev Psychol2014; 65: 95–120.
52.
MehtaRZhuR. Blue or red? Exploring the effect of color on cognitive task performances. Science2009; 323: 1226–1229.
53.
SheLWangZTaoXLaiL. The impact of color cues on the learning performance in video lectures. Behav Sci2024; 14: 560.
