Design Compatibility of Classroom Furniture in Urban and ... - IOSR
Design Compatibility of Classroom Furniture in Urban and ... - IOSR
Design Compatibility of Classroom Furniture in Urban and ... - IOSR
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Design</strong> <strong>Compatibility</strong> Of <strong>Classroom</strong> <strong>Furniture</strong> In <strong>Urban</strong> And Rural Preschools<br />
Seat breadth mismatch- should be at least 10% to accommodate hip breadth <strong>and</strong> at most 30% larger than<br />
hip breadth [6]<br />
Desk height mismatch- when the desk height was at 95% <strong>of</strong> sitt<strong>in</strong>g elbow height (Evans et al. 1988).<br />
Marmora‟s calculated that the desk should be 3-5cm height than the elbow [6].<br />
III. Research F<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs And Discussion<br />
3.1 Anthropometric Dimensions-<br />
Anthropometric dimensions are the measurements <strong>of</strong> human body dimensions which present the<br />
physical characteristics <strong>of</strong> an <strong>in</strong>dividual. In the present study, to identify the mismatch between <strong>in</strong>dividual body<br />
dimensions <strong>and</strong> exist<strong>in</strong>g furniture <strong>in</strong> preschools, anthropometric measurements were taken from rural <strong>and</strong> urban<br />
preschool children. Data <strong>of</strong> each anthropometric parameter is presented by calculat<strong>in</strong>g Arithmetic mean,<br />
St<strong>and</strong>ard Deviation (SD) <strong>in</strong> Table-1 <strong>and</strong> the significance <strong>of</strong> the differences across gender (boys <strong>and</strong> girls) <strong>and</strong><br />
area (rural <strong>and</strong> urban) was determ<strong>in</strong>ed by us<strong>in</strong>g t-test.<br />
Table -1 Anthropometric dimensions <strong>of</strong> preschool children (<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>ches)<br />
Dimensions<br />
<strong>Urban</strong>/<br />
Boys t value Girls t<br />
In sitt<strong>in</strong>g posture Rural<br />
value<br />
preschool<br />
Mean ± SD<br />
Mean ± SD<br />
Sitt<strong>in</strong>g elbow height U 5.64 ± 0.90 4.14** 5.64 ± 0.81 3.31**<br />
R 6.64 ± 0.63<br />
6.32 ± 0.62<br />
Popliteal height<br />
U 5.04 ± 0.61 2.14* 5.48 ± 0.71 0.20<br />
R 5.56 ± 0.91<br />
5.44 ± 0.65<br />
Buttock popliteal<br />
U 17.84 ± 1.28 1.04 17.56 ± 0.86 0.95<br />
length<br />
R 18.28 ± 1.69<br />
17.8 ± 0.91<br />
Hip breadth<br />
U<br />
R<br />
22.56 ± 1.73<br />
23.28 ± 2.22<br />
1.25 21.88 ± 1.92<br />
22.24 ± 2.36<br />
1.05<br />
The measurements <strong>of</strong> boys <strong>and</strong> girls were found to be almost same with significant differences <strong>in</strong> rural<br />
<strong>and</strong> urban preschools. The data (table 1) presented, compared the anthropometric dimensions <strong>of</strong> rural <strong>and</strong> urban<br />
preschool boys <strong>and</strong> girls. The dimensions <strong>of</strong> rural preschoolers were more when compared to the urban<br />
preschoolers among both boys <strong>and</strong> girls. Highly significant differences were found with regard to the<br />
dimensions <strong>of</strong> sitt<strong>in</strong>g elbow height when urban preschool boys (µ=5.64) were compared with rural preschool<br />
boys (µ= 6.64) <strong>and</strong> urban preschool girls (µ= 5.64) with rural preschool girls (6.32). Significant differences<br />
were found <strong>in</strong> popliteal height <strong>of</strong> urban preschool boys (µ= 5.04) <strong>and</strong> rural preschool boys (µ=5.48) which is<br />
considered non significant between rural preschool boys (µ=5.56) <strong>and</strong> rural preschool girls (µ= 5.44). Non<br />
significant differences were found <strong>in</strong> both buttock popliteal length <strong>and</strong> hip breadth <strong>of</strong> preschoolers <strong>in</strong> urban <strong>and</strong><br />
rural preschool boys <strong>and</strong> girls.<br />
3.2 <strong>Furniture</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>ile-<br />
The dimensions <strong>of</strong> furniture <strong>in</strong> urban <strong>and</strong> rural preschools were measured to f<strong>in</strong>d out the mismatch <strong>of</strong><br />
the classroom furniture with children‟s body dimensions. The mean, st<strong>and</strong>ard deviation <strong>and</strong> t value <strong>of</strong> the same<br />
are presented <strong>in</strong> the Table 2. The proposed dimensions <strong>of</strong> the classroom furniture were calculated <strong>and</strong> presented<br />
<strong>in</strong> Table 3 to evaluate the mismatch between children‟s body dimensions <strong>and</strong> furniture design.<br />
Table -2 Mean <strong>and</strong> SD values <strong>of</strong> Exist<strong>in</strong>g furniture <strong>in</strong> urban <strong>and</strong> rural preschools.<br />
<strong>Furniture</strong><br />
<strong>Urban</strong> preschool Rural preschool t value<br />
measurement Mean SD Mean SD<br />
Table depth 11.8 0.44 11.2 0.83 0.5<br />
Table breadth 15.4 1.34 14.6 2.60 2*<br />
Table height 20.8 3.27 19 2.82 3*<br />
Chair depth 10.6 0.89 9.4 1.34 5.28**<br />
Chair breadth 14 2.54 13.8 2.48 0.39<br />
Chair height 14.4 6.06 12 1.73 2.64*<br />
Significant differences were observed <strong>in</strong> the dimensions <strong>of</strong> student‟s furniture <strong>in</strong> pre- schools. The<br />
students seat<strong>in</strong>g furniture <strong>in</strong>clusive <strong>of</strong> table <strong>and</strong> chair were studied <strong>in</strong> case <strong>of</strong> chair <strong>and</strong> table the height, the<br />
depth <strong>and</strong> the breadth were studied which are the key factors <strong>in</strong> provid<strong>in</strong>g comfort for the child, avoid<strong>in</strong>g<br />
www.iosrjournals.org<br />
3 | Page