160 likes | 518 Views
The Non-Visual Effects of Natural Light on Student Performance Alberta Light & Color Study (81-85) Alberta Light Study (86-89) PG&E Daylighting Initiative (1999) Studies reported by NEA Alberta Light & Color Study (81-85) 3 School Study Sites 1. Color & Light School 2. Light School
E N D
The Non-Visual Effects of Natural Light on Student Performance
Alberta Light & Color Study (81-85) • Alberta Light Study (86-89) • PG&E Daylighting Initiative (1999) • Studies reported by NEA
Alberta Light & Color Study (81-85)3 School Study Sites • 1. Color & Light School • 2. Light School • 3. Control School
Albert Light Study (86-89)Five School Sites • Site 1: Sodium vapor light • Site 2: Full spectrum fluorescent , no UV enhancement • Site 3 & 5: Full spectrum fluorescent light, with UV enhancement • Site 4: Cool white fluorescent
PG&E Daylighting Initiative (‘99) • Correlation between productivity and natural lighting in classrooms • Three school sites selected • Natural light provided by skylighting and windows • Compared students in classrooms with most daylight to those with least daylight
Seattle • Classrooms with largest window area had 9% to 15% higher grades • Skylit classrooms had 6% to 7% higher grades
Fort Collins • There was a 7% improvement in test scores in classrooms with the mostdaylighting • 14% to 18% improvement for students in classes with largest window space
John Ott; 1973(Light as a vital nutrient) • Full spectrum fluorescent light in two first grade classes • Standard cool white tubes in two other identical first grade classes • Used hidden photography to observe classroom activity
What Ott Found Full spectrum fluorescent lights positively impacted: • Behavior • Performance • Academic achievement
Dimininished: • Disciplinary referrals • Absenteeism • Hyperactivity