energies

Article
Study on the Relationship between Thermal Comfort and
Learning Efficiency of Different Classroom-Types in
Transitional Seasons in the Hot Summer and Cold Winter Zone
of China
Haiqiang Liu 1 , Xidong Ma 2, * , Zhihao Zhang 1 , Xiaoling Cheng 1 , Yanmi Chen 3 and Shoichi Kojima 4

1 School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, NO.928 2nd Street, Qiantang
District, Hangzhou 310018, China; liu.haiqiang@zstu.edu.cn (H.L.); 2017331210017@mails.zstu.edu.cn (Z.Z.);
2018337261004@mails.zstu.edu.cn (X.C.)
2 School of Architecture, Tianjin University, NO.92 Weijin Road, Nankai District, Tianjin 300072, China
3 School of Economics and Business Management, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, NO.928 2nd Street,
Qiantang District, Hangzhou 310018, China; 2018333503069@mails.zstu.edu.cn
4 Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Graduate School of Science and Engineering,
Saga University, Saga 840-8502, Japan; shokjm@cc.saga-u.ac.jp
* Correspondence: mxd2813@tju.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-188-1277-5772

Abstract: The physical environment of classrooms has a strong relationship with student learning
performance and health. Since the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2019, almost all universities have begun
implementing closed instructional management, which has forced students to spend a much longer





 amount of time inside the classroom. This has also led to an increasing problem of thermal comfort
in classroom indoor environments. In this paper, classrooms evolved from three dominant teaching
Citation: Liu, H.; Ma, X.; Zhang, Z.;
modes at Zhejiang Sci-Tech University (ZSTU), located in the Hot Summer and Cold Winter (HSCW)
Cheng, X.; Chen, Y.; Kojima, S. Study
on the Relationship between Thermal
zone of China, were selected as experimental spaces. Meanwhile, 12 learning groups with 60 students
Comfort and Learning Efficiency of (30 of each sex) were selected as the tested samples. The relationship between thermal comfort and
Different Classroom-Types in learning efficiency of the tested students was established through thermal comfort questionnaires
Transitional Seasons in the Hot and learning efficiency tests under the typical natural conditions in transition seasons. Based on this,
Summer and Cold Winter Zone of improvement strategies were proposed for the current state of the classroom environment, providing
China. Energies 2021, 14, 6338. a database for optimizing the environmental conditions of university classrooms in HSCW zone on
https://doi.org/10.3390/en14196338 the basis of improving students’ learning efficiency.

Academic Editor: Korjenic Azra Keywords: learning efficiency; thermal comfort; natural environment of different classroom-types;
influence relationship
Received: 28 July 2021
Accepted: 30 September 2021
Published: 4 October 2021

1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
With students spending approximately one-third of their day in the classroom, the
published maps and institutional affil- physical environment of the classroom has a close relationship to students’ learning and
iations. health [1]. Therefore, maintaining an appropriate classroom indoor environment is essential
for the comfort and health of learning. In addition, with the outbreak of COVID-19, a
large number of universities had to be forced into closed teaching management, which has
extended the time that college students spent in the classroom. It is in this context that
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
the quality of the university classroom environment is beginning to receive widespread
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
attention. What is more, the impact on the classroom environment on student health is
This article is an open access article
of even greater concern. However, the impact of the classroom environment on students’
distributed under the terms and learning performance also deserves attention and research.
conditions of the Creative Commons Currently, research on thermal comfort of indoor environments has been common, and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// many scholars have conducted relevant field and experimental studies, with establishing
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ numerous evaluation models, design criteria, etc. [2–4]. With the advancement of technol-
4.0/). ogy, a number of codes and standards dealing with the basis of indoor thermal comfort

Energies 2021, 14, 6338. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14196338 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2021, 14, 6338 2 of 30

assessment have also emerged internationally, such as ASHRAE Standard 55-2007 [4],
ISO 7730-2005 [5], EN 16798-1 [6], and EN 16798-2 Standards [7], etc. There was also an
international guideline that focuses on thermal comfort in teaching spaces, namely the
REHVA Guidebook NO.13 [8]. Firstly, in the area of thermal comfort in classroom indoor
environments, it has been found that there were differences in people’s thermal comfort
needs under different conditions. Some of these studies concluded that the thermoneutral
temperature of the human body was closely related to age. Furthermore, by conducting a
thermal comfort on both students and teachers in the classroom, it was found that children
were more sensitive to higher temperatures than adults under the same conditions [9]. It
was also concluded through a study of the current state of thermal comfort in elementary
and secondary school classrooms that both values of neutral and desired temperatures
were lower for students than for adults. In addition to age conditions, some studies have
shown that students would feel more comfortable when the temperature of the classroom
was slightly elevated [10–12]. In particular, students prefered warmer classroom environ-
ments during transitional seasons, indicating that the acceptable temperature for students
was higher than the standard recommendation. However, maintaining adequate thermal
comfort conditions in schools is difficult, especially in those hosted in rural historical
buildings where it is impossible to install HVAC systems and provide mechanical cooling.
Consequently, the metrics to be used could be different; for example, some scholars have
proposed metrics such as ePMV and aPMV that are applicable under different experimental
conditions [13–17]. Additionally, this series of past investigations were mostly performed
through subjective satisfaction polls with little regard for the variability of the study sample,
as well as the reduced number of those interviewed, thus making the findings limited.
As research related to the classroom indoor environment continues to intensify, in
addition to the issue of students’ thermal comfort, learning efficiency is also receiving
increasing attention. At present, there are many studies in this field related to the influence
of classroom indoor temperature and ventilation conditions on learning efficiency, and most
of them use subjective evaluation and experimental methods [18–21]. Firstly, in terms of
research on the effects of indoor temperature, it was found that for students’ thinking skills,
indoor temperature has a certain peak, i.e., people’s thinking skills started to decrease when
the temperature deviated from 26 ◦ C [18]. However, learning efficiency was not simply
about thinking skills, and it also included concentration, memory, and so on. One way of
assessing learning efficiency was also through the calculation of students’ grades. Students’
grades showed a significant increase when the indoor temperature was lowered from
25 ◦ C to 20 ◦ C, contrary to the single change in thinking skills [22]. Of course, in addition
to the two abovementioned judging instruments, the use of neurobehavioural subtests
such as number screening, graphic stacking and letter recognition were equally viable
measures [23]. In terms of research into the effects of ventilation conditions, scholars have
likewise made a great deal of research. With a high density of people and consequent poor
ventilation conditions, the classroom was a crowded space, resulting in high indoor carbon
dioxide concentrations, to the point where students’ learning efficiency decreased [22,24].
When the indoor ventilation was unfavorable to students’ learning efficiency, with the CO2
concentration being greater than 1000 ppm, people would take the initiative to open the
windows for natural ventilation and improve indoor ventilation. In accordance with this,
the above results were followed in this study. That was, the effect of CO2 concentration on
the experiment was not taken into account while ensuring normal ventilation conditions in
the room.
In parallel to studies on both indoor temperature and carbon dioxide concentration,
a large number of scholars have also set out to investigate the mechanisms by which
indoor lighting and acoustic environments affected learning efficiency [25,26]. For example,
students’ learning efficiency decreased as the colour temperature and illumination values
of light sources increased, meanwhile, lighting settings should take into account the effects
on learning efficiency and visual fatigue [25]. Another example was that students’ learning
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 3 of 30

efficiency varied under different musical atmospheres, among which baroque music had a
certain effect on students’ memory [26].
To sum up, the classroom environment is closely related to students’ thermal comfort
and learning, while the high density of people and the unpredictable outdoor tempera-
tures during the transitional seasons lead to poor indoor comfort. However, up to now,
researches on classroom environments have mainly focused on thermal comfort and less on
learning efficiency. Most research has been conducted on the relationship between thermal
comfort and learning efficiency through subjective evaluations such as thermal perception
votes and thermal satisfaction votes. However, as is known to all, the participants in the
experiments often had differences in physical fitness, which led to some errors in the sub-
jective evaluations. As such, the results obtained from the studies are unclear and further
research is necessary. Meanwhile, most of the research experiments were conducted in
simulations under artificially set classroom environmental conditions with ad hoc results,
and there was little research on the effect of classroom environment on students’ thermal
comfort and learning efficiency under natural conditions. As a complement, most of these
experiments focused on a single indoor environmental parameter variable. However, in
general, a holistic approach to explore all aspects of thermal comfort of the Indoor Environ-
mental Quality, including IAQ, visual and acoustic comfort, will be more comprehensive
and objective, which creates the possibility for future studies of multisensorial interac-
tions [27,28]. Therefore, in order to fill the gap in the above-mentioned research area, the
focus of this study is on the relationship between changes in students’ thermal comfort
and their own learning efficiency caused by changes in indoor environmental conditions
(combined various changes in classroom temperature, relative humidity, illumination, etc.),
under typical natural conditions during the transition season. The aim is to analyze the
correlation between the current state of indoor environmental conditions, thermal comfort
and learning efficiency through thermal comfort questionnaires and learning efficiency
tests, providing guidance for improving indoor thermal conditions. Based on a certain
level of thermal comfort, this study provides students in this climate zone with indoor
environmental conditions more suitable for learning.

2. Methodology
2.1. Location Selection
China is a vast country and its climatic conditions vary greatly from place to place.
To be exact, the temperature in the north can be as low as −20 ◦ C in winter, while it can
remain at 10 ◦ C in the southernmost regions. Such various climatic conditions affect some
extent the regional character of energy consumption in buildings. The Chinese national
code “Thermal Design Code for Civil Buildings” [29] defines five climatic zones in China
based on the average temperature of the coldest and hottest months, as shown in Figure 1.
Compared to other climatic zones, Hot Summer and Cold Winter (HSCW) zone,
selected in this study, have a different significance in terms of annual climate change for
the following reasons:
• This zone covers more than half of provinces in China and is home to over 40% of
population in China. However, the small size of the zone, only 20% of China’s total
area, results in a higher population density than in other zones.
• The economic conditions of this zone are at China’s forefront and come at a higher
level than others, which has attracted a large number of labor migrants. On this basis,
the number of educated people has grown rapidly and is now close to 30 million in
this zone, with a correspondingly larger number of schools, teaching spaces and other
facilities than in others.
• The climatic conditions of this zone are exceptional, with average outdoor tempera-
tures of 0–10 ◦ C in the coldest months and 25–30 ◦ C in the hottest months (Figure 2).
The relative humidity throughout the year is 70–80% or even higher (Figure 3). In
addition to the summer and winter conditions, during the transitional season, this
zone is characterized by a large difference in daily temperature due to the frequent
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 4 of 30

intersection of cold and warm air in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze
River, which makes the weather unpredictable, with frequent thunderstorms and
coastal gales.

Figure 1. Layout of five climate zones in China and the survey city.

Figure 2. Daily dry bulb temperature profile in Hangzhou city.

Figure 3. Daily relative humidity in the city of Hangzhou city.

A series of experience investigations of this study was carried out in Hangzhou,

China, a city in the HSCW zone according to Chinese national standards. Hangzhou has a
subtropical monsoon climate. Furthermore (Figure 4), the average minimum temperature
is 6.3 ◦ C and the average maximum temperature is 25.5 ◦ C during the transition season
(March to May), with minimum and maximum temperatures of −1.9 ◦ C and 35.6 ◦ C,
respectively, and the average relative humidity of 76% to 81% [30].
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 5 of 30

Figure 4. Daily direct sunlight in Hangzhou city.

2.2. The Experiment Process

All empirical surveys for this study were conducted in Zhejiang Sci-Tech University
(ZSTU) in Hangzhou. Three months (March, April and May) during the spring of 2021,
totaling 91 days, were used as the survey period. During these days, six sets of experiments
were scheduled for each day, starting at 8:00 a.m. and ending at 20:30 p.m. Meanwhile, the
detailed explanations and counseling were given to the students on the experimental proce-
dures, and the determination of environmental parameters and the considerations related
to the completion of subjective questionnaires before the experiments were conducted.
In addition, for selecting the subject students, the participating university students
in this experiment were those who have lived in Hangzhou for a long period and were
guaranteed to have similar information about their age, family background and so on. All
students should ensure that they were in healthy and similar physical conditions without
any diseases, such as cold, fever, or colour blindness. To ensure objectivity and accuracy,
a range of variables needed to be avoided. For example, it was necessary to ensure that
the number of male and female participants was the same to minimize the effect of gender
on the results. Meanwhile, the number of students was also standardized to minimize the
effect of the order of the learning efficiency tests, in line with the requirements of the Latin
Hypercube Sampling (LHS) method [31]. By calculation, the working conditions were three
in this experiment. To satisfy the LHS method, therefore, the number of students tested was
at least six (or a multiple of six). Furthermore, to reduce the error caused by insufficient
sample size, 60 students, 30 of each sex (the number of tested students remained the same,
but there was a renewal of personnel, as shown in Table A1), were selected as participants
in this experiment. In addition, for ensuring authenticity during the experiment, each
student was asked to have a good routine before the experiment.
Four elements, namely adaptation time, environmental measurements, learning effi-
ciency tests and subjective evaluation of thermal comfort, were included in this experiment.
As illustrated in Figure 5, the duration of the entire investigation was approximately 70 min.
The first part was the environmental adaptation session, which took 30 min. During this
time, students could read books and do homework to enter the study state as quickly
as possible, but had to remain quiet and ensure a calm state. Simultaneously, the basic
environmental parameters of the classroom were measured using the relevant equipment
(Test A) and this session lasted for the whole day. Afterward, the students were given a
learning efficiency test (Test B) for approximately 15 min, which was described in detail
below. Finally, subject students would then complete a subjective evaluation of indoor
thermal comfort (Test C) in the last 5 min of the experiment. These were all that need to be
completed for each group of experiments.
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 6 of 30

Figure 5. Schedule of the experiment process.

2.3. The Environmental Measurements

A number of related studies have counted the basic characteristics of Chinese uni-
versity classrooms, including function, size, capacity, and so on [32–34]. The results show
that the classification of university classrooms is inextricably linked to their teaching
modes. The University curriculum consists of three different teaching modes: small classes,
medium-sized workshops, and group lectures, which directly affect the size and capacity
of the classroom as each mode of teaching targets a different number of students. Therefore,
it is evident that the different teaching models in the university have created different types
of classrooms, which can be divided into small, medium, and large classrooms, as shown in
Table 1. In this study, three classrooms of different sizes were selected for experimentation
in the same educational building in ZSTU.

Table 1. Relationship between the curriculum types and the classroom types.

Curriculum Type Capacity Classroom Type

Small Class m2
about 20 students with the area of about 35 Small Classroom
Medium-sized Workshop about 60 students with the area of about 90 m2 Medium Classroom
Group Lecture about 200 students with the area of around 360 m2 Large Classroom

Finally, these three case models were selected as follows:

• CASE A: Small Classroom
• CASE B: Medium Classroom
• CASE C: Large Classroom
The layout of the three cases is shown in Figure 6, and the basic information is also
shown in Table 2. As it can be seen, the three classrooms differ in floor areas, shape
coefficients, and window-to-floor ratios, which are the main reasons for the difference
in the indoor environment of the three classrooms. However, all three classrooms have
the same envelope, as in the same educational building, what’s mean that all are of
brick construction with aluminum single pane windows. Further explanation, the small
classroom can accommodate up to 25 people, the medium classroom can hold 80 people,
while the large classroom can accommodate 180 people. All classrooms tested were under
natural conditions, with no cooling or heating, no ventilation systems, and all windows
closed. Further, all classrooms selected were located on the south side of the building, so
the indoor environment reflected significant fluctuations directly through access to solar
energy from the outdoors during the day.
In this experiment, the basic conditions of indoor and outdoor environments, including
air temperature (Ta), relative humidity (RH), air velocity (Va), and illuminance (E), were
measured and recorded every 15 min with the appropriate measuring equipment. Table 3
shows the type of equipment used to determine each environmental parameter. Figure 6
also presents the placement of the equipment in the three classrooms and the specific
layout of the experimental environment, with all equipment fixed at a height of 1.1 m above
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 7 of 30

the floor in accordance with ISO 7726 [35]. All equipment was calibrated periodically in
accordance with the relevant instructions for use, before conducting the experiments.

Figure 6. Layout of the case A, B, and C.

Energies 2021, 14, 6338 8 of 30

Table 2. Basic information of the case A, B, and C.

Classroom Type Small Classroom Medium Classroom Large Classroom

Case A B C
Area (m2 ) 33.70 90.74 279.19
Shape Coefficient 1.08 0.64 0.57
Window-to-floor Ratio 0.11 0.12 0.18
Orientation South-facing South-facing South-facing
Floor Level 2nd floor 2nd floor 2nd floor
Concrete Wall Insulated Concrete Wall Insulated Concrete Wall Insulated
Wall Alternatives Semi-hard Mineral Wool Semi-hard Mineral Wool Semi-hard Mineral Wool
Board Outside Board Outside Board Outside
U-value 1.09 1.09 1.09

Table 3. Basic information of the experimental equipment.

Parameters Instrument/Sensor Time Interval Range Accuracy

T-type Thermocouple-GRAPHTEC
Air Temperature 1 min 0–50 ◦ C ±0.3 ◦ C
Midi Logger GL220
AZ Handheld WBGT Tester 8778 Indoor: ±1 ◦ C (15–40 ◦ C)
Globe Temperature 15–25 min 0–80 ◦ C
(d = 0.075m) Outdoor: ±1.5 ◦ C (15–40 ◦ C)
Relative Humidity Thermo Recorder TR-72Ui 1 min 10–95% RH ±5%
Air Velocity Hotline Anemograph Testo 425 10 sec 0–20 m/s ±0.03 m/s +5%
Illuminance Light Sensor RS485 0.1 sec 0–200 k lux ±7%
CO2 Concentration Handheld CO2 Detector 7755 30 sec 0–9999 ppm ±50 ppm +5%

2.4. The Experience Survey

The experiment conducted every day was consisted of six small tests, in each of which
a thermal experience survey was administered, obtaining a total of six thermal experience
evaluations per day. During the adaptation session, the experience reports were distributed
to each student, and a short but detailed guide was also given to ensure that the students
were aware of the academic terms used in the questionnaire.
The experience questionnaire was divided into three sections, namely Basic Infor-
mation, Thermal Sense Vote (TSV) and Thermal Approving Vote (TAV). Firstly, basic
information included information such as gender, age and person number of the subject
students. All subject students were also told to choose similar types of clothing (a long
sleeve, a pair of trousers and a coat) before the experiment started, to ensure that the
students were dressed as uniformly as possible in terms of insulation. Lastly, and most
importantly, TSV and TAV were the two main parameters used to assess the thermal experi-
ence of subject students. Based on the seven-point ASHRAE criteria [4], Table 4 shows that
TSV was assessed on a seven-point scale from −3 (Cold) to 3 (Hot), and TAV was assessed
from −3 (Very Dissatisfied) to 3 (Very Satisfied) too.

Table 4. Thermal sensation scale of TSV, TAV and PMV.

Scale TSV TAV PMV

+3 Hot Very Satisfied Hot
+2 Warm Satisfied Warm
+1 Slight Warm Slightly Satisfied Slight Warm
0 Neutral Acceptable Neutral
−1 Sightly Cool Slightly Dissatisfied Sightly Cool
−2 Cool Dissatisfied Cool
−3 Cold Very Dissatisfied Cold

The 60 tested students (30 males and 30 females) selected for the experiment were
divided equally into groups of 20 in three tested classrooms. In each classroom, the
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 9 of 30

20 tested students were further divided into four small groups of five, distributed in
four directions in the classroom. Each group of five would generate an average of the
thermal comfort votes (TSV and TAV), which was intended to indicate that there was also
some variation in the thermal comfort in different orientations. Therefore, in each tested
classroom, four average values of thermal comfort votes representing the four directions
would be generated, for a total of 12 averages in the whole experiment.
The TSV and TAV mentioned above were the results of students’ subjective thermal
comfort evaluation. In this study, the PMV/PPD model, proposed by P.O. Fanger using
the heat-balance equations and empirical studies on skin temperature, was chosen as a
way to define comfort. As shown in Table 4, in this model, subjects were asked about
their thermal sensations through a standard thermal comfort survey, and people’s thermal
sensations were classified on a seven-point scale from cold (−3) to hot (+3). During this
experiment, Fanger’s equations were used to calculate the PMV for a specific combination
of air temperature, mean radiant temperature, relative humidity, air velocity, metabolic
rate and basic clothing insulation in the tested classrooms [36,37]. Additionally, the PMV
was a predictive value that would be compared with TSV and TAV in the later study.
In the process of calculating PMV, in addition to environmental parameters such as
air temperature, there are also some parameters that are predicted based on the current
situation, including the metabolic rate value and the basic clothing insulation value. Ac-
cording to the ASHRAE Standard 55 [4], for example, since the tables and chairs in the
tested classrooms were all wooden, their thermal insulation could be ignored. Additionally,
the tested students in the experiment were asked to wear similar clothes (a long sleeve,
a pair of trousers and a coat) in advance, so it could be predicted that the basic clothing
insulation (lcl) was about 0.75 clo [38]. The students were in a quiet sitting position for
reading and writing during the experiment, so their metabolic rate (M) could be chosen to
be 1.2 met [39]. Finally, the other environmental parameters corresponded to the measured
data under different experimental conditions, and the PMV was calculated separately for
different experimental conditions.

2.5. The Learning Efficiency Test

The learning efficiency test is a research for students’ efficiency of learning, but there
are relatively few relevant efficiency assessment tests in this field. In contrast, there are
numerous assessment methods on productivity that are also brain-based. Therefore, a
similar assessment method should be selected and modified in this experiment, on the
premise that the two have a high degree of similarity. It is a neuro-behavioural test that
is widely used to assess the productivity of office workers, which focuses on various
neuro-behavioural abilities, including perception, memory, concentration, thinking and
emotional control [40]. This method is not only short and suitable for testing students’
learning efficiency, but the overall test is composed of a series of mini-games in a simple
format. So this method was used in this experiment.
For the specific content, this test was mainly based on the APCD (Attention, Perception,
Comprehension and Deduction) method [23]. Through the comprehensive evaluation of
these four aspects, a more objective representation of the students’ learning efficiency
was derived. Therefore, this test was based on the APCD method, which developed the
assessment of learning efficiency in four dimensions, including Perceptual Ability, Memory
Ability, Concentration Ability and Thinking Ability, as shown in Table 5. The relevant test
games were also adapted and optimized. Table A2 in Appendix A shows all the test items
used in this experiment and the corresponding methods of operation [41–47].
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 10 of 30

Table 5. Four dimensions and main test items of the APCD method.

Learning Efficiency Dimension Test Item

Letter Search, Word Color Interference, Graphic Overlay,
Perceptual Ability
and Stereo Vision
Concentration Ability Schulte Grid and Digital Filter
Memory Ability Visual Learning and Memory Scanning
Thinking Ability Logical Events and Continuous Addition & Subtraction

Ultimately, the learning efficiency was quantified by counting the average correct
proportion (ACP) and average reaction time (ART) of students completing each test item.
For this part of the data sorting, the values with obvious errors should be removed before
the statistical average can be processed next. As such, there were two key points to note
in the statistical component of the data. On the one hand, it is not feasible to directly
compare test results across items as students’ performance varies from test to test. Thus,
in this experiment, the ACP and ART must be normalized at first, and all data should be
processed by the process expressed in Equation (1) for calculation [47].
xi,j
Pi,j (%) = n × 100 (1)
1
n ∑ xi,j
j =1

where xi, j is an index of the i-th student under working condition j, and n refers to the total
number of working conditions.
On the other hand, one indicator alone may not give a very objective picture of either
ACP or ART, as there may be cases where students got a high percentage correct but took a
long time. Thus, a composite indicator needed to be introduced to represent the combined
efficiency of each item, and Equation (2) shows the assessment indicator item combined
ACP and ART, namely the combined Learning Performance (LP), which represented the
combined impact of student correctness and response time [47]. To sum up, the three
indicators mentioned above were all used as the basis for evaluating student learning
efficiency in the later stage.
2
LP = [ ACP0.5 × (1/ART )0.5 ] (2)

3. Data Analysis
3.1. Determination of Indoor and Outdoor Environmental Parameters
In this experiment (from 1 March 2021 to 30 May 2021), the environmental parameters
were mainly measured, including indoor temperature, outdoor temperature, relative
humidity, central illuminance, air velocity and CO2 concentration. Furthermore, the
91 days were divided into three categories, i.e., sunny, rainy and cloudy, based on the
principle of weather conditions, and the environmental parameters were calculated and
plotted as average curves. Finally, as presented in Figures 7–9, by comparing the change
curves, it was found that the change curves of these three days (March 21, March 27 and
March 28) were the most similar to the mean curve, which indicated that they could be
sufficiently representative of the whole transition season.
Figure 7 shows the indoor and outdoor temperature changes in the three classrooms
under cloudy, rainy and sunny conditions, respectively. It can be found that the temperature
in each classroom was various under different weather conditions. Additionally, regardless
of the weather conditions, the indoor temperature of the large classroom was the lowest,
while the indoor temperature of the small classroom was the highest, followed by the
medium classroom. Over the day, the indoor temperature of the small classroom had the
largest change, followed by the medium classroom, while the change of the large classroom
was the smallest.
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 11 of 30

Figure 7. Temperature in the three classroom-types under different weather conditions throughout
the day.

Figure 8 presents the relative humidity changes in the three classrooms under different
weather conditions. Firstly, in general, the indoor relative humidity in rainy days was
higher compared to other days, and the relative humidity varies less. Furthermore, in all
three weather conditions, the relative humidity of large classroom was higher than the
other two types, while the small classroom had the lowest relative humidity. Then, the
indoor relative humidity in sunny days varied the most throughout the day, followed
by cloudy days, and the least under rainy conditions. Finally, regardless of the weather
conditions, the change in relative humidity in the small classroom was the most significant
among the three classroom types.
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 12 of 30

Figure 8. Humidity in the three classroom-types under different weather conditions throughout
the day.

Figure 9 illustrates the changes of the central illuminance in the three classrooms under
cloudy, rainy and sunny conditions, respectively. Firstly, it should be noted that the central
illuminance values were measured under normal outdoor solar radiation (without direct
solar radiation because of the distance between the measurement point and the external
windows), and the values of the three classrooms showed significant differences. Secondly,
the E values under the sunny condition were the highest of the three weather conditions.
However, in the range of 12:00 to 13:30 under the cloudy condition, there was a short
period of sunny sky, which led to the E values greater than 1000 lux in both the small and
medium classrooms. In addition, since the measurement points in the small and medium
classrooms were very close to the windows, while the large classroom’s were much further,
the E values in the large classroom were the lowest compared to the other two types. In
general, although there was no direct solar radiation, the E values at all times met the
relevant design standard “Hygienic Standard for Day Lighting and Artificial Lighting for
Middle and Elementary School” (GB7793-2010) [48], with no significant impact on learning
efficiency, due to the lights always being on and the white decorations in the classrooms.
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 13 of 30

Figure 9. Central illuminance in the three classroom-types under different weather conditions
throughout the day.

In accordance with the three environmental parameters above, the variation of air
velocity and CO2 concentration were also measured in the experiment. However, the
results showed that their variation were small regardless of the weather conditions, where
the air velocity was stable at about 0.10 m/s, and the CO2 concentration was at a stable
and comfortable level of about 400 ppm [24]. What is more, the air temperature (Ta) and
the globe temperature (Tg) were all recorded together in this experiment. On this basis,
the mean radiant temperature (Tr) and the operative temperature (To) values have been
derived according to ISO 7726. However, since the temperatures were measured in center of
the classrooms, where there was no direct solar radiation, and not exposed to air velocities
greater than 0.10 m/s, it could be assumed that the values of Tr and To were replaced
by Ta in the further calculation process, according to the ASHRAE Standard 55 [4] for
determining the operative temperature.

3.2. Data Analysis of Thermal Comfort Evaluation

3.2.1. TSV and TAV
The results of the TSV and TAV of the tested students in the three classroom-types
under different weather conditions throughout the day are shown in Figures 10 and 11.
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 14 of 30

Figure 10. The TSV of the tested students in the three classroom-types under different weather conditions throughout
the day.

Figure 11. The TAV of the tested students in the three classroom-types under different weather conditions throughout
the day.

From the analysis of environmental parameters above, it can be concluded that the
temperature on sunny days was higher than on cloudy days and lowest on rainy days.
As shown in Figure 10, the proportion of TSV as warm increased on sunny days when
the temperature was higher. On rainy days with lower temperatures, the proportion
of TSV as cooler grew relatively. However, under the same weather conditions, the TSV
differed between classroom-types because of different environmental conditions. Moreover,
regardless of the weather conditions, the TSV in all three classrooms showed the same
trend throughout the day, with an increase followed by a decrease and the highest TSV
value scoring at around 13:00.
As for the TAV, it can be discussed in terms of both different weather and classrooms.
As presented in Figure 11, under different weather conditions, the TAV on sunny days
with higher temperatures was relatively higher, but only around +1. Simultaneously, the
TAV on the rainy day was the lowest, with an average value of about −0.5. Alternatively,
under the same weather conditions, the TAV in different classrooms showed a similar
trend throughout the day, increasing firstly and then decreasing, reaching the highest
values at around 13:00. To sum up, during the transition season, most tested students were
dissatisfied with the thermal environment in the lower temperature environments when
compared to higher temperature environments.
As indicated in Figures 12 and 13, the relationship curves between TSV, TAV and tem-
perature were plotted by combining the heat sensation voting and heat satisfaction voting
data measured in three types of weather and in different classrooms. In detail, Figure 12
represents the variation of the TSV between −3 (Cold) and +3 (Hot) over the temperature
range of 14 ◦ C to 25 ◦ C (the current situation in the transition season). Figure 13 shows that
TAV varied between −3 (Very Dissatisfied) and +3 (Very Satisfied) over the temperature
range of 14 ◦ C to 25 ◦ C (the current situation in the transition season). However, according
to the ASHRAE Standard 55 [4], the thermal sensation is “neutral” at a temperature of
approximately 26.5 ◦ C, which is supposed to be a critical value. However, since this study
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 15 of 30

was conducted during the transitional season, the measured temperatures ranged from
14 ◦ C to 25 ◦ C; as the temperature increased, the TAV increased and did not show a change
in the transition. In summary, it can be shown that the tested students preferred a warmer
environment during the transition season.

Figure 12. The quantitative relationship between TSV and Ta.

Figure 13. The quantitative relationship between TAV and Ta.

3.2.2. Comparison of Actual Thermal Sensation and Predicted Thermal Sensation

In this study, the PMV model proposed by P.O. Fanger was also applied to compare
the similarities and differences between the actual thermal sensation and the predicted
thermal sensation, of which would be analyzed through the comparison followed.
Figure 14 illustrates the relationship between TSV, PMV and air temperature (Ta). It
can be found that there was a strong linear relationship between TSV, PMV and Ta, while
the difference between them was small. However, according to related studies, the subject
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 16 of 30

students were informed of the actual temperature during the actual heat sensory voting,
while the PMV model was based on the condition that the tested students did not know
the actual environmental parameters. Therefore, it was possible that the symmetry of
information about the environmental parameters weakened the impact of psychological
effects on heat sensory voting [49].

Figure 14. The quantitative relationship between PMV and Ta.

3.3. Data Analysis of Learning Efficiency Test

3.3.1. Processing and Data Analysis
SPSS 20.0 and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) software were used in this study to
process and analyze the data obtained from the learning efficiency tests. Then, the existence
of significant differences between similar data under each experimental environmental
condition could be judged while setting the significance level at 0.05 (p < 0.05). However,
simply calculating the p was not enough to show the magnitude of the difference in results.
Therefore, in this study, the Effect Size (ES) was also calculated to analyze the strength of
the experimental effects [50].
In ANOVA, the ES value can be calculated from Equation (3).
r
F
ES = (3)
n
where the test statistic F is ANOVA, n is the number of people in each group if the groups are
equal, and if the groups are not equal, the summed mean needs to be calculated. Moreover,
the quantification of ES has been developed by related studies, which represent three tiers
of weaker, moderate and stronger impact at ES of 0.1, 0.25 and 0.4, respectively [51].
The final results of the ACP, ART and LP as well as P and ES of the relevant test
items were calculated as shown in Tables A3–A6 in Appendix A. The ANOVA showed that
the p-values were greater than 0.05 for all tests except Stereo Vision and Visual Learning,
indicating that for most tests, there were no significant differences in the experimental
results between the weather and classroom type conditions. According to other studies,
similar error cases have been observed, which means that there were always 1−2 test items
with p-values less than 0.05 in the calculation of p-values for multiple test items [52–54].
In addition, for all test items, their ES values were greater than 0.1, and most of the
test items achieved ES values of about 0.25, showing that different weather and classroom
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 17 of 30

types of conditions affect all test items, but to a different extent for each test item. Among
them, the different weather and classroom types had a moderate effect on the ART for most
of the test items, except for the weak effect on the ART for Schulte Grid, Number Filter and
Logical Events. In terms of the degree of impact on ACP, the impact on Memory Scanning
and Continuous Addition & Subtraction was weak, but with moderate effects on the other
test items.
In conclusion, under different weather conditions and classroom-types, there were
differences in the degree of influence on different test items in this study. There were also
differences in the degree of influence of ART and ACP on the same test items.

3.3.2. Relationship between Learning Efficiency and Temperature in the Four Dimensions
In this study, the learning efficiency evaluation method applied, namely the APCD,
contained four dimensions: Perceptual Ability, Concentration Ability, Memory Ability and
Thinking Ability. The relevant test contents and methods were given in detail above, and
the results were standardized to obtain the changes in the four dimensions of the tested
students’ learning during the day, as shown in Figures 15–17. The points in the figures
were all processed averages for each test item, with ACP, ART and LP indicating average
correctness, average reaction time and learning performance, respectively.

Figure 15. The ACP of the four dimensions in the three classroom-types under different weather
conditions throughout the day.
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 18 of 30

Figure 16. The ART of the four dimensions in the three types of classrooms under different weather
conditions throughout the day.

As shown in Figure 15, in terms of correctness, the ACP showed a more pronounced
trend of repeated fluctuations throughout the day, regardless of the different weather
conditions or the different classroom-types. However, the items of Thinking Ability test
tended to increase, then decrease, and then increase again, while the rest of the test items
showed the opposite trend. Simultaneously, as indicated in Figure 16, the ART also showed
more pronounced repeated fluctuations throughout the day in terms of response time.
However, in both Memory Ability and Thinking Ability tests, the ART tended to decrease,
then increase, then decrease. In the case of Perceptual Ability and Concentration Ability
tests, the RT showed the opposite trend. Generally, the RT of the Perceptual Ability test
and Thinking Ability test varied more, while the RT of the remaining two tests varied less.
In other words, Figure 17 presents the LP of the four types of tests, and it can be found that
their trend of changes was exactly opposite to the ART. In addition, the LP of the Perceptual
Ability and Thinking Ability tests varied relatively more, while the concentration Ability
and Memory Ability tests varied relatively less.
As is evident, when exploring student learning effectiveness, it is inappropriate to
look at only one type of ability performance. This is because various types of test items are
affected to different degrees under different conditions, and it is one-sided and error-prone
to judge students’ learning efficiency using only the test results of a single category.
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 19 of 30

Figure 17. The LP of the four dimensions in the three classroom-types under different weather
conditions throughout the day.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Relationship between Integrated Learning Efficiency and Temperature
The results of the combined learning efficiency test for the tested students under three
weather conditions and three classroom-types were shown in Figures 18–20. In each figure,
nine curves indicate the trends of learning efficiency indicators under different conditions.
Each point on the curve indicates the average test data of the tested students.
As indicated in Figure 18, the ACP of the combined learning efficiency of the tested
students increased firstly and then decreased throughout the day, reaching the highest
value at around 13:30, which was the highest temperature moment of the day. Furthermore,
the magnitude of change in the ACP was greatest on sunny days, followed by rainy
days, and the smallest on cloudy days. This is due to the greater variation in indoor
temperature under sunny conditions and the least variation in indoor temperature under
cloudy conditions. In the same weather conditions, the variation in ACP was greater in the
small classroom than in the others, also because the indoor temperature varied more in the
small classroom.
Figure 19 illustrates the change in ART for the combined learning efficiency of the
tested students across conditions, with a rapid decrease followed by a small increase. In
particular, the ART fluctuated around 95% during the time period of 10:30 to 18:00, which
was the shortest interval throughout the whole day.
As for the combined learning performance, as presented in Figure 20, the LP under
different conditions showed a consistent trend of increasing and then decreasing during the
whole day. The LP-value was highest at around 13:30. Additionally, under different weather
conditions, the LP varied the most under sunny conditions, followed by cloudy conditions,
and the least under rainy conditions. In contrast, under the same weather conditions, the
LP varied the most in the small classroom, followed by the medium classroom, and the
least in the large classroom. The reasons for the above were consistent with the reasons for
the variation in the ART. Simultaneously, combining all the learning performance data, it
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 20 of 30

was found that nearly half of the Lp-values were greater than 100%, which indicated that
the tested students in this condition performed above their average learning performance.

Figure 18. The ACP of the learning efficiency test in the three classroom-types under different
weather conditions throughout the day.

Figure 19. The ART of the learning efficiency test in the classroom-types under different weather
conditions throughout the day.
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 21 of 30

Figure 20. The LP of the learning efficiency test in the three classroom-types under different weather
conditions throughout the day.

Conclusively, it was found that under different conditions, when the time was around
13:00, the tested students had the highest ACP, the shortest ART and the highest LP. It
indicated that during the whole day in the transition season, the learning efficiency was
relatively the highest at that time. Influenced by different outdoor temperatures, the
students’ learning efficiency varied the most under different weather conditions on sunny
days, followed by rainy days and the least on cloudy days. Additionally, influenced
by different indoor temperatures, the students’ learning efficiency varied most in small
classrooms, the second most in medium classrooms and the least in large classrooms under
the same weather conditions.

4.2. Relationship between Thermal Comfort and Learning Performance

As can be seen through the circumstances investigated in this study, accurately judging
the comfort level of an environment is relatively easy for people to do, but judging their
own learning efficiency in that environment is more difficult. Subjective evaluations of
learning efficiency often present a large margin of error and are unconvincing due to
personal factors. Therefore, if the quantitative relationship between people’s evaluations
of thermal comfort and learning efficiency can be derived from experimental data, the
human thermal comfort can be improved to some extent by changing the conditions of the
surrounding environment, while improving learning efficiency. Nevertheless, the analysis
of the relationship between the ACP, RT and thermal comfort alone is one-sided, and
only the choice of the LP, a comprehensive learning efficiency index, can more accurately
represent the learning efficiency of the tested students. Thus, in the study of the relationship
between students’ thermal comfort and learning efficiency in different classrooms during
the transition season, the LP was selected to be explored.
Firstly, the relationship between TSV and LP is shown in Figure 21. This linear func-
tion combined all the results of the test items in the four dimensions, obtained by fitting the
mean of each students’ TSV to its corresponding LP data in a regression analysis. It can be
seen that the LP shows a slow increase when the TSV changes from Cold (−3) to Hot (+3).
In fact, according to the ASHRAE Standard 55 [4], the TSV is “neutral” at a temperature of
approximately 26.5 ◦ C. Therefore, the LP tended to improve with increasing temperature
in the transition season because the indoor temperature of classrooms ranged from approx-
imately 14 ◦ C to 25 ◦ C, which were lower than 26.5◦ C. Overall, it can be interpreted that
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 22 of 30

for indoor environments in classrooms during the transition season, students were more
productive in warmer environments.

Figure 21. The quantitative relationship between TSV and LP.

Secondly, the relationship between PMV and LP is presented in Figure 22. The
results were similar to those of the TSV-LP, but there was some error. This is probably
because the subject students were informed of the actual temperature before the actual
heat sensation voting, and the PMV model was built under the condition that the tested
students didn’t know the actual environmental parameters. Therefore, the error could be
a psychological effect of the asymmetry of information on the students during the actual
heat sensation voting.

Figure 22. The quantitative relationship between PMV and LP.

Thirdly, the relationship between TAV and LP is indicated in Figure 23. It can be
clearly seen that the TAV of the tested students showed a linear relationship with LP. When
the TAV changed from “Very Dissatisfied” (−3) to “Very Satisfied” (+3), the LP showed an
increasing trend, indicating that the higher the TAV, the better the LP.
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 23 of 30

Figure 23. The quantitative relationship between TAV and LP.

5. Conclusions
In this study, the current research progress and results of domestic and international
scholars on human thermal comfort and learning efficiency of students in the classroom
were reviewed and summarized. Most of the research experiments were found to be
simulations that were conducted under artificially set environmental conditions, with
little relation to natural conditions. Additionally, due to the small sample sizes and single
measurement variables, there always were many errors in the experimental results. In
order to remedy these shortcomings, this study established the relationship between
thermal comfort and learning efficiency of the tested students through the thermal comfort
questionnaire and learning efficiency test under typical natural conditions in the transition
season. Furthermore, the correlation between the current state of indoor environmental
conditions, thermal comfort and learning efficiency was analyzed to provide guidance for
improving indoor thermal conditions. The following three main conclusions were obtained.
• Under the natural conditions of the transitional season, the indoor temperature of
the classrooms varied between 14 ◦ C and 25 ◦ C throughout the day and was higher
between 12:00 and 13:30. Meanwhile, the TSV of the subject students varied between
−3 and +3, and the highest TAV was obtained around 13:00. On the one hand, under
different weather conditions, sunny days with higher temperatures saw relatively
higher TAV, cloudy days were second and rainy days saw the lowest. On the other
hand, under the same weather conditions, small classrooms with higher indoor tem-
peratures had the highest TAV, medium classrooms the second highest, and large
classrooms the lowest. These can indicate that during the transition season, the subject
students preferred a warmer environment.
• Under the natural conditions of the transitional season, different weather and class-
room type conditions have different degrees of influence on each test item of learning
effectiveness. Then, under the natural condition that the indoor temperature of the
classroom was between 14 ◦ C and 25 ◦ C in the transition season, student LP exhibited
a trend of increasing and then decreasing throughout the day, with the highest LP at
around 13:30. Furthermore, under different weather conditions, student’s LP varied
the most under sunny conditions with higher indoor temperatures, followed by cloudy
days and the least under rainy days. However, under the same weather conditions,
the small classrooms with higher indoor temperatures showed the greatest variation
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 24 of 30

in the LP, followed by the medium classrooms, and the large classrooms showed the
least variation.
• Under natural conditions of the transition season, and LP was linearly related to the
TSV and TAV. On the one hand, the LP showed a slow upward trend as the subject
student’s TSV changed from cold (−3) to warm (+3). On the other hand, the LP
presented an increasing trend when the TAV of the subject students changed from
very dissatisfied (−3) to very satisfied (+3).
Combined with the analysis of the correlation between the current state of different
classroom environmental conditions and thermal comfort and learning efficiency, it was
found that changes in classroom indoor environmental conditions impact student learning
efficiency. Simultaneously, the causes of the adverse effects are not only common problems
such as poor insulation performance of the envelope, but also factors such as a large shape
coefficient and large window-to-floor ratio. In response to the above problems, this paper
proposes the following improvement strategies.
• For the walls, which account for the largest proportion of the building envelope, there
is a need to improve their insulation performance. Firstly, in the building construction
process, a single insulation material such as aerated concrete or a multifunctional
conforming wall composed of high-efficiency insulation materials should be vigor-
ously used, which has the advantages of high strength and heat insulation compared
with ordinary brick walls. Secondly, to avoid the formation of internal insulation
and sandwich insulation trims panel cracking, “thermal bridge”, moisture and other
problems, it is recommended to use the construction form of external insulation to
reduce indoor heat loss and improve the thermal insulation performance of the wall.
• For windows, the weakest part of the envelope, it is equally important to improve their
insulation performance. Firstly, the window-to-wall ratio of the classroom needs to
be controlled. The window-to-wall ratios of the north, east-west and south directions
are controlled to reduce the heat loss in the room. Secondly, the airtightness of the
windows needs to be improved to reduce heat loss due to air infiltration. Window pro-
files with better cross-sectional dimensions and rigidity can be selected, and window
installation can be performed with a softer mass and a greater compression ratio seal.
Thirdly, using double-pane windows, multi-pane windows or low-E glass windows
and other new heat transfer coefficients are also effective ways to insulate windows.
• For classrooms with roof panels, it is equally important to improve the insulation per-
formance of the roof. Using lightweight, non-absorbent or less absorbent insulation
materials as roofing materials, with the “inverted” roofing as the main construc-
tion practices, can effectively improve the insulation and waterproof performance of
the roof.
• For the classrooms with small window spaces, their indoor lighting and solar radiation
gains are often less. Thus, it is also important to improve the solar radiation heat gain
of this type of classroom, which can be achieved by means of an external sunroom
and thermal storage walls.
It is important to mention that this paper explores the relationship between changes
in students’ thermal comfort caused by changes in indoor environmental conditions and
students’ own learning efficiency under typical natural conditions during the transition sea-
son. However, according to the relevant standards, the temperature of about 26.5 ◦ C when
the thermal sensation is “neutral”, where the temperature is a critical value theoretically. In
this paper, the actual classroom experimented, however, had an indoor temperature range
of 14 ◦ C to 25 ◦ C, and we could not find out how the learning efficiency changed at higher
temperatures. In addition, adopting a holistic approach to explore all aspects of thermal
comfort in Indoor Environmental Quality, including visual and auditory comfort, which
will be more comprehensive and objective. More thought and experimental analysis are
needed for research and practice in these areas.
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 25 of 30

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, X.M.; Data curation, Z.Z., X.C. and Y.C.; Formal analysis,
X.M.; Funding acquisition, H.L.; Investigation, X.M., Z.Z. and X.C.; Methodology, H.L.; Project
administration, Y.C.; Software, Z.Z. and X.C.; Validation, Y.C.; Visualization, Z.Z.; Writing—original
draft, X.M.; Writing—review & editing, H.L. and S.K. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Data was contained within supplementary material.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Basic information of the tested students.

Gender
Test Week Classroom Type Mean Age
Male Female
Small Classroom 10 10 22.75
Week1 (1 March 2021–7 March 2021) Medium Classroom 10 10 22.50
Week2 (8 March 2021–14 March 2021) Large Classroom 10 10 22.75
Small Classroom 10 10 23.00
Week3 (15 March 2021–21 March 2021) Medium Classroom 10 10 22.75
Week4 (22 March 2021–28 March 2021) Large Classroom 10 10 22.75
Small Classroom 10 10 22.20
Week5 (29 March 2021–4 April 2021) Medium Classroom 10 10 22.00
Week6 (5 April 2021–11 April 2021) Large Classroom 10 10 22.75
Small Classroom 10 10 22.40
Week7 (12 April 2021–18 April 2021) Medium Classroom 10 10 22.00
Week8 (19 April 2021–25 April 2021) Large Classroom 10 10 23.00
Small Classroom 10 10 22.25
Week9 (26 April 2021–2 May 2021) Medium Classroom 10 10 22.75
Week10 (3 May 2021–9 May 2021) Large Classroom 10 10 23.00
Small Classroom 10 10 22.75
Week11 (10 May 2021–16 May 2021) Medium Classroom 10 10 22.50
Week12 (17 May 2021–23 May 2021) Large Classroom 10 10 22.50
Small Classroom 10 10 22.20
Week13 (24 May 2021–30 May 2021) Medium Classroom 10 10 22.00
Large Classroom 10 10 22.75

Table A2. The corresponding methods of operation for main test items.

Test Item Purposes Operation Method

Faced with a card printed with ten capital letters without repetition and a
Letter Search Basic Visual Perception target letter, the test students judge whether the target letter appears in the
ten letters [40].
Color Perception and Get a piece of text printed with multiple description colors, each word is
Word Color
Semantic Recognition printed in a different color, and the students choose the item with the same
Interference
Ability semantics and colors [41].
Seven plane figures are randomly superimposed, and the test students
Spatial Reasoning and
Graphic Overlay judge the figure names in order from top to bottom according to the edge
Perception
shape of the superimposed graphics [42].
A variety of three-dimensional figures are rotated at any angle, and the
Stereo Vision Spatial Perception
students judged from the front view that the cube has several faces [43].
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 26 of 30

Table A2. Cont.

Test Item Purposes Operation Method

Randomly fill 25 Arabic numbers in a 5×5 grid, and the test students need
Schulte Grid Concentration
to find the number 25 in sequence starting from the number 1 [44].
Randomly select any number from 10 Arabic numerals to form a set of
Pay Attention to the
Digital Filter 32-digit numbers. From the number column, the test students find all
Ability to Select Features
adjacent numbers whose sum is 10.
Four meaningless figures appear anywhere in the 3×3 grid, each figure
Memory Recognition appears two or three times, and the nine spaces are filled. The test students
Visual Learning
Ability need to memorize the position of each figure in the grid within 20 s and
reproduce it in a blank table [40].
The test students first have 5 s to look at a set of numbers carefully, and
Memory Scanning Memory Neurobehavior then give another set of numbers, and the students are asked to find the
repeated number in the two sets of numbers [45].
Each test item gives five short description events, and asks students to
Logical Events Logical Reasoning Ability
choose the most logical one from the options [46].
The ten numbers are arranged in a random order, and the addition and
Continuous Addition
Assignment subtraction symbols are inserted between two adjacent numbers, and the
& Subtraction
students are required to calculate the result.

Table A3. The final results of the ACP, ART and LP of the relevant test items on rainy days.

Test Conditions
Test Item Indicator Sunny Days
Small Classroom Medium Classroom Large Classroom
ACP 77.71 ± 9.20 81.95 ± 9.48 80.63 ± 9.30
Letter Search ART 25.88 ± 1.41 23.79 ± 1.12 22.63 ± 0.74
LP 3.00 3.44 3.56
ACP 78.61 ± 10.21 92.15 ± 6.48 79.10 ± 9.01
Word Color Interference ART 27.54 ± 5.17 20.42 ± 1.81 22.71 ± 2.65
LP 2.85 4.51 3.48
ACP 84.84 ± 9.96 77.76 ± 13.03 85.10 ± 11.18
Graphic Overlay ART 34.29 ± 5.09 33.13 ± 3.73 31.29 ± 5.67
LP 2.47 2.35 2.72
ACP 83.54 ± 10.27 93.13 ± 8.04 83.68 ± 10.31
Stereo Vision ART 13.88 ± 2.08 10.21 ± 0.85 11.21 ± 1.44
LP 6.02 9.12 7.47
ACP 90.82 ± 8.38 92.85 ± 6.09 84.86 ± 11.08
Schulte Grid ART 49.21 ± 4.63 35.83 ± 4.19 38.57 ± 3.33
LP 1.85 2.59 2.20
ACP 81.56 ± 8.75 80.53 ± 9.30 87.32 ± 8.76
Digital Filter ART 37.17 ± 4.85 26.96 ± 3.60 35.86 ± 4.13
LP 2.19 2.99 2.43
ACP 91.67 ± 7.93 91.46 ± 7.56 93.54 ± 6.06
Visual Learning ART 10.83 ± 1.39 10.04 ± 0.80 10.58 ± 3.57
LP 8.46 9.11 8.84
ACP 61.88 ± 10.91 74.44 ± 10.70 66.21 ± 8.39
Memory Scanning ART 25.29 ± 4.22 25.63 ± 2.13 23.63 ± 2.9
LP 2.45 2.91 2.80
ACP 75.42 ± 11.40 79.38 ± 9.76 87.29 ± 8.67
Logical Events ART 60.00 ± 11.97 75.42 ± 8.09 91.63 ± 14.12
LP 1.26 1.05 0.95
ACP 72.50 ± 12.35 87.15 ± 10.05 85.63 ± 8.77
Continuous Addition & Subtraction ART 56.42 ± 10.67 53.33 ± 4.86 65.92 ± 9.17
LP 1.29 1.63 1.3
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 27 of 30

Table A4. The final results of the ACP, ART and LP of the relevant test items on cloudy days.

Test Conditions
Test Item Indicator Cloudy Days
Small Classroom Medium Classroom Large Classroom
ACP 71.97 ± 11.89 77.64 ± 13.54 83.68 ± 9.41
Letter Search ART 23.42 ± 2.12 21.67 ± 0.76 20.50 ± 1.88
LP 3.07 3.58 4.08
ACP 77.71 ± 11.36 90.49 ± 7.55 88.03 ± 8.14
Word Color Interference ART 19.13 ± 3.93 15.13 ± 1.51 15.42 ± 2.40
LP 4.06 5.98 5.71
ACP 72.86 ± 14.76 89.05 ± 8.74 86.60 ± 9.92
Graphic Overlay ART 24.96 ± 2.93 24.08 ± 2.68 25.42 ± 4.79
LP 2.92 3.70 3.41
ACP 63.56 ± 11.52 82.85 ± 12.34 85.07 ± 9.71
Stereo Vision ART 10.54 ± 2.32 7.63 ± 0.99 7.79 ± 1.49
LP 6.03 10.87 10.92
ACP 80.21 ± 11.25 88.82 ± 8.31 84.58 ± 10.91
Schulte Grid ART 47.04 ± 4.25 32.46 ± 1.93 33.86 ± 2.20
LP 1.71 2.74 2.50
ACP 76.81 ± 10.67 90.43 ± 7.86 87.53 ± 8.57
Digital Filter ART 30.21 ± 2.16 17.75 ± 1.04 26.37 ± 2.00
LP 2.54 5.09 3.32
ACP 74.10 ± 12.95 90.42 ± 8.01 88.13 ± 9.89
Visual Learning ART 7.88 ± 1.24 8.08 ± 0.48 5.92 ± 1.18
LP 9.41 11.19 14.89
ACP 80.82 ± 8.69 83.81 ± 8.29 85.49 ± 7.85
Memory Scanning ART 21.71 ± 1.72 20.79 ± 1.33 20.83 ± 2.58
LP 3.72 4.03 4.10
ACP 72.28 ± 10.47 77.92 ± 11.04 89.58 ± 8.38
Logical Events ART 38.88 ± 6.59 52.46 ± 10.83 53.25 ± 7.01
LP 1.86 1.49 1.68
ACP 77.96 ± 11.42 87.36 ± 8.68 86.42 ± 9.21
Continuous Addition & Subtraction ART 49.21 ± 6.68 46.21 ± 3.77 68.08 ± 9.31
LP 1.58 1.89 1.27

Table A5. The final results of the ACP, ART and LP of the relevant test items on sunny days.

Test Conditions
Test Item Indicator Sunny Days
Small Classroom Medium Classroom Large Classroom
ACP 64.76 ± 9.77 80.67 ± 10.40 75.85 ± 10.59
Letter Search ART 22.00 ± 0.72 22.75 ± 0.76 20.00 ± 1.78
LP 2.94 3.55 3.79
ACP 82.72 ± 10.72 89.96 ± 8.24 96.54 ± 4.08
Word Color Interference ART 13.63 ± 1.89 11.92 ± 1.44 12.71 ± 1.41
LP 6.07 7.55 7.60
ACP 77.42 ± 11.34 84.58 ± 10.72 92.43 ± 8.62
Graphic Overlay ART 22.38 ± 2.74 20.08 ± 1.94 22.58 ± 3.01
LP 3.46 4.21 4.09
ACP 73.15 ± 12.89 84.61 ± 10.87 90.07 ± 9.90
Stereo Vision ART 8.38 ± 1.82 6.58 ± 0.71 6.71 ± 0.86
LP 8.73 12.85 13.43
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 28 of 30

Table A5. Cont.

Test Conditions
Test Item Indicator Sunny Days
Small Classroom Medium Classroom Large Classroom
ACP 71.83 ± 11.77 88.54 ± 10.07 96.32 ± 5.57
Schulte Grid ART 46.46 ± 4.11 32.33 ± 3.50 34.52 ± 3.28
LP 1.55 2.74 2.79
ACP 84.91 ± 10.90 85.63 ± 9.31 94.82 ± 6.08
Digital Filter ART 26.21 ± 2.02 17.92 ± 0.98 22.80 ± 1.28
LP 3.24 4.78 4.16
ACP 83.38 ± 10.96 90.75 ± 9.24 94.17 ± 8.03
Visual Learning ART 6.08 ± 0.94 9.13 ± 0.45 3.92 ± 0.86
LP 13.71 9.95 24.04
ACP 73.54 ± 8.89 80.97 ± 8.38 81.94 ± 8.42
Memory Scanning ART 20.88 ± 2.39 24.75 ± 1.36 20.25 ± 2.09
LP 3.52 3.27 4.05
ACP 77.01 ± 12.83 86.13 ± 8.45 87.04 ± 8.68
Logical Events ART 48.00 ± 9.77 45.96 ± 9.86 62.71 ± 15.58
LP 1.60 1.87 1.39
ACP 74.83 ± 11.37 88.67 ± 8.52 83.96 ± 10.00
Continuous Addition & Subtraction ART 52.79 ± 11.20 46.04 ± 5.88 61.46 ± 10.23
LP 1.42 1.93 1.37

Table A6. The final results of the P and ES of the relevant test items.

Test Item Indicator P ES

ACP 0.10 0.26
Letter Search
ART 0.08 0.25
ACP 0.12 0.22
Word Color Interference
ART 0.06 0.25
ACP 0.11 0.20
Graphic Overlay
ART 0.09 0.26
ACP 0.10 0.30
Stereo Vision
ART 0.03 0.29
ACP 0.12 0.21
Schulte Grid
ART 0.14 0.20
ACP 0.11 0.26
Digital Filter
ART 0.09 0.18
ACP 0.12 0.22
Visual Learning
ART 0.03 0.24
ACP 0.10 0.19
Memory Scanning
ART 0.08 0.28
ACP 0.11 0.27
Logical Events
ART 0.20 0.20
ACP 0.11 0.19
Continuous Addition & Subtraction
ART 0.19 0.30

References
1. Giuli, V.D.; Pos, O.D.; Carli, M.D. Indoor environmental quality and pupil perception in Italian primary schools. Build. Environ.
2012, 56, 335–345. [CrossRef]
2. Yao, R.; Li, B.; Jing, L. A theoretical adaptive model of thermal comfort—Adaptive Predicted Mean Vote (aPMV). Build. Environ.
2009, 44, 2089–2096. [CrossRef]
3. Fanger, P.O.; Toftum, J. Extension of the PMV model to non-air-conditioned buildings in warm climates. Energy Build. 2002, 34,
533–536. [CrossRef]
4. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers. ASHRAE and Thermal Environmental Conditions for
Human Occupancy. ASHRAE Standard 55; American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers: Atlanta,
GA, USA, 2017.
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 29 of 30

5. Ergonomics of the Thermal Environment—Analytical Determination and Interpretation of Thermal Comfort Using Calculation of the PMV
and PPD Indices and Local Thermal Comfort Criteria; ISO 7730-2005; British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2005.
6. CEN. Indoor Environmental Input Parameters for Design and Assessment of Energy Performance of Buildings—Addressing Indoor Air
Quality, Thermal Environment, Lighting and Acoustics; EN 16798-1; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
7. CEN. Indoor Environmental Input Parameters for Design and Assessment of Energy Performance of Buildings Addressing Indoor Air
Quality, Thermal Environment, Lighting and Acoustics (Module M1-6); EN 16798-2; CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
8. Federation of European Heating, Ventilation and Air-conditioning Associations. REHVA Guidebook NO.13: Indoor Environment and
Energy Efficiency in Schools—Part 1 Principles; Federation of European Heating, Ventilation and Air-conditioning Associations:
Brussels, Belgium, 2010.
9. Teli, D.; Mark, F.; Patrick, J.; James, A.B. Naturally ventilated classrooms: An assessment of existing comfort models for predicting
the thermal sensation and preference of primary school children. Energy Build. 2012, 53, 166–182. [CrossRef]
10. Teli, D.; James, P.A.; Jentsch, M.F. Thermal comfort in naturally ventilated primary school classrooms. Build. Res. Inf. 2013, 41,
301–316. [CrossRef]
11. Corgnati, S.P.; Ansaldi, R.; Filippi, M. Thermal comfort in Italian classrooms under free running conditions during mid seasons:
Assessment through objective and subjective approaches. Build. Environ. 2008, 44, 785–792. [CrossRef]
12. Pereira, L.D.; Raimondo, D.; Corgnati, S.P.; da Silva, M.G. Assessment of indoor air quality and thermal comfort in Portuguese
secondary classrooms: Methodology and results. Build. Environ. 2014, 81, 69–80. [CrossRef]
13. Zhang, S.; Lin, Z. Extending Predicted Mean Vote using adaptive approach. Build. Environ. 2020, 171. [CrossRef]
14. Zhang, S.; Lin, Z. Extended predicted mean vote of thermal adaptations reinforced around thermal neutrality. Indoor Air 2021,
31, 1227. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Zhang, S.; Cheng, Y.; Fang, Z.; Lin, Z. Improved algorithm for adaptive coefficient of adaptive Predicted Mean Vote (aPMV).
Build. Environ. 2019, 163, 106318. [CrossRef]
16. Kim, J.T.; Lim, J.H.; Cho, S.H.; Yun, G.Y. Development of the adaptive PMV model for improving prediction performances. Energy
Build. 2015, 98, 100–105. [CrossRef]
17. Ming, R.; Yu, W.; Zhao, X.; Liu, Y.; Li, B.; Essah, E.; Yao, R. Assessing energy saving potentials of office buildings based on
adaptive thermal comfort using a tracking-based method. Energy Build. 2020, 208, 109611. [CrossRef]
18. Cho, H. The effects of summer heat on academic achievement: A cohort analysis. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2017, 83, 185–196.
[CrossRef]
19. Wyon, D.P.; Andersen, I.B.; Lundqvist, G.R. The Effects of Moderate Heat Stress on Mental Performance. Scand. J. Work Environ.
Health 1979, 5, 352–361. [CrossRef]
20. Lei, P. A Positive Analysis of the Relations of Study Efficiency and Indoor Temperature: Taking Guangdong Zhanjiang Normal
College Library as an example. J. Libr. Inf. Sci. Agric. 2010, 22, 147–149+152.
21. Sarbu, I.; Pacurar, C. Experimental and numerical research to assess indoor environment quality and schoolwork performance in
university classrooms. Build. Environ. 2015, 93, 141–154. [CrossRef]
22. Wargocki, P.; Wyon, D.P. The Effects of Moderately Raised Classroom Temperatures and Classroom Ventilation Rate on the
Performance of Schoolwork by Children (RP-1257). HVAC&R Res. 2011, 13, 193–220.
23. Jiang, J. Research on Classroom Thermal Environment under the Comprehensive Impact of Thermal Comfort and Learning Performance
during Winter in Rural Areas of Northwest China; Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology: Xian, China, 2018.
24. Toftum, J.; Kjeldsen, B.U.; Wargocki, P.; Menå, H.R.; Hansen, E.M.; Clausen, G. Association between classroom ventilation mode
and learning outcome in Danish schools. Build. Environ. 2015, 92, 494–503. [CrossRef]
25. Yan, Y.; Yan, N.; Guan, Y.; Zeng, H. Impact on brain wave rhythm and learning efficiency by color temperature of artificial light
sources. J. Civ. Archit. Environ. Eng. 2012, 34, 76–79+90.
26. Gu, R.; Zhang, J.; Zhou, J.; Tong, M.S. The Baroque Music’s Influence on Learning Efficiency Based on the Research of Brain
Cognition. In PIERS Proceedings; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2014.
27. Candas, V.; Libert, J.P.; Muzet, A. Heating and cooling simulations during SWS and REM sleep in man. J. Therm. Biol. 1982, 7,
155–158. [CrossRef]
28. Bellia, L.; Alfano, F.R.D.A.; Fragliasso, F.; Palella, B.I.; Riccio, G. On the interaction between lighting and thermal comfort: An
integrated approach to IEQ. Energy Build. 2021, 231, 110570. [CrossRef]
29. Code for Design of Civil Buildings (GB50352-2005); Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of
China: Beijing, China, 2005. (In Chinese)
30. Meteorological Information Center of China Meteorological Administration, Tsinghua Meteorological Administration and
Tsinghua University. Meteorological Data Set for Building Thermal Environment Analysis of China; China Construction Industry Press:
Beijing, China, 2005. (In Chinese)
31. Xu, Y.C. Study on the Factors Influencing Thermal Comfort and Learning Performance of Primary and Secondary School Students In
Summer; Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology: Xian, China, 2019.
32. Xu, P.T. University Classroom Construction Standards Between Multi-Fields Horizons: A Case Study of ECNU Classroom Construction
Standard; East China Normal University: Shanghai, China, 2016.
33. Chen, F. Analysis of the Educational Power of Teaching Space in Universities: Taking the University’s Large-scale General
Classroom as an Example. Res. Educ. Dev. 2019, 39, 79–84.
Energies 2021, 14, 6338 30 of 30

34. Fang, Z.; Li, J.Y. A Study on University Class Size Effects. Educ. Sci. 2011, 27, 59–64.
35. International Organization for Standardization. Thermal Environments Instruments and Methods for Measuring Physical Quantities;
ISO 7726; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012.
36. Liu, H.Q. Design Method of Energy Efficiency Residential Building in Hot-Summer and Cold-Winter Zone in China. Ph.D. Thesis,
Saga University, Saga, Japan, 2017.
37. Fanger, P.O. Thermal Comfort: Analysis and Applications in Environmental Engineering; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1970.
38. Lei, D. Experiment Research of Effects of Clothing on Human Thermal Comfort; Chongqing University: Chongqing, China, 2012.
39. Liu, H.; Zhang, Z.; Ma, X.; Lu, W.; Li, D.; Kojima, S. Optimization Analysis of the Residential Window-to-Wall Ratio Based on
Numerical Calculation of Energy Consumption in the Hot-Summer and Cold-Winter Zone of China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6138.
[CrossRef]
40. Shao, Z.F. Cognitive Psychology: Theory, Experiment and Application; Shanghai Education Press: Shanghai, China, 2006.
41. Lezak, M.D.; Howieson, D.B.; Loring, D.W. Neuropsychological Assessment; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
42. Natale, V.; Alzani, A.; Cicogna, P. Cognitive efficiency and circadian typologies: A diurnal study. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2003, 35,
1089–1105. [CrossRef]
43. Feng, W.Y. Application of NES-C3 in Test of Workers Exposed to Noise; Zhejiang University: Hangzhou, China, 2003.
44. Gu, R.; Zhang, J.; Zhou, J.; Tong, M. The Baroque music’s influence on learning efficiency based on the research of eye movement.
In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE),
Wellington, New Zealand, 8–10 December 2014; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2014.
45. Ma, J.Z. A Construction Study of Working Memory Test with Reliability and Validity Analysis for Primary School Students; East China
Normal University: Shanghai, China, 2011.
46. Drake, A.S. Psychometrics and normative data for the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite: Replacing the PASAT with the
Symbol Digit Modalities Test. Mult. Scler. 2010, 16, 228–237. [CrossRef]
47. Lan, L. Mechanism and Evaluation of the Effects of Indoor Environmental Quality on Human Productivity; Shanghai Jiao Tong University:
Shanghai, China, 2010.
48. Hygienic Standard for Day Lighting and Artificial Lighting for Middle and Elementary School (GB7793-2010); Ministry of Health of the
People’s Republic of China, China National Standardization Administration Committee: Beijing, China, 2010. (In Chinese)
49. Geng, Y.; Ji, W.; Lin, B.; Zhu, Y. The impact of thermal environment on occupant IEQ perception and productivity. Build. Environ.
2017, 121, 158–167. [CrossRef]
50. Hu, Z.J.; Dai, H.Q. The comparison for assessing methods of the effect size and statistical power of ANOVA. Psychol. Explor. 2011,
31, 254–259.
51. Jacob, C. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Taylor and Francis: Oxford, UK, 2013.
52. Cui, W.; Cao, G.; Ouyang, Q.; Zhu, Y. Influence of dynamic environment with different airflows on human performance. Build.
Environ. 2013, 62, 124–132. [CrossRef]
53. Lan, L.; Lian, Z. Use of neurobehavioral tests to evaluate the effects of indoor environment quality on productivity. Build. Environ.
2009, 44, 2208–2217. [CrossRef]
54. Lan, L.; Lian, Z.; Pan, L.; Ye, Q. Neurobehavioral approach for evaluation of office workers’ productivity: The effects of room
temperature. Build. Environ. 2008, 44, 1578–1588. [CrossRef]