Volume 2 Issue 3 pp. 499-508 Summer, 2011


Anthropometric evaluations and assessment of school furniture design in Nigeria: A case study of secondary schools in rural area of Odeda, Nigeria


Adekunle Ibrahim Musa


This study was carried out on 621 schoolboys with age range of 12-17 years in Junior and Senior Secondary Schools in Odeda area of Odeda local government in Ogun State, Nigeria. Different anthropometric data were collected from these boys. It was observed from the results that all anthropometric dimensions of the school children increase with their age. Moreover, there exists a little difference between mean values of different anthropometric dimensions between the boys of 12-13 years (2.9% to 8.8%), 14-15 years (1.3% to 9.9%), and 16-17 years (1.4% to 5.5%). But the said differences become much higher (16.2% to 42.4%) when the same were compared between the children of 12 years and 17 years. Therefore, it can be said that the design of furniture for the children of 12 years will not match the children of 17 years. If single furniture is designed by considering dimensions of the children from 12 years to 17years, it will also not suit the children of all age groups. Therefore, in the present investigation, all the students have been divided into three combined age groups, e.g., 12-13 years, 14-15 years, and 16-17 years, and the percentile values (5th, 50th and 95th) of anthropometric measures, which will be helpful for designing of the classroom furniture.


DOI: 10.5267/j.ijiec.2011.03.006

Keywords: Anthropometric dimensions, Schoolchildren, Classroom furniture, Ergonomic
References

Adejuyigbe, S.B & Ali, D.M. (2004). Ergonomic evaluation of furniture in higher institution in Nigeria, A case study of FUTA. Nigerian Journal of Industrial and System Studies (NJISS), 3(1), 24-30.

Castellucci, H. I., Arezes, P. M., & Viviani, C. A. (2010). Mismatch between classroom furniture and anthropometric measures in Chilean schools. Applied Ergonomics, 41(4), 563-568.

Chakrabarti, D. (1997). Indian anthropometric dimensions for ergonomic design practice, National Institute of Design.

Chakrabarti, D. & Das, A. (2004). Design development of a new seat-desk unit suitable for Indian school children. Proceedings of National Conference on Humanizing Work and Work Environment, National Institute of Industrial Engineering.

Chaudhary, N., Sharma, D., Grover, R. & Nainwal, U. (2004). Mismatch between classroom furniture dimensions and student anthropometric characteristics: A study of schools of Pantnagar. Proceedings of National Conference on Humanizing Work and Work Environment, National Institute of Industrial Engineering.

Corlett, N., Wilson, J., & Manenica, I. (1986). The ergonomics of working postures: models, methods and cases. Taylor & Francis, London, 21-29.

Das, A., & Chakrabarti, D. (2004). Role of free postural adoption on performance and informal workplace design. Proceedings of National Conference on Humanizing Work and Work Environment, National Institute of Industrial Engineering, April, Mumbai.

Ermakova, S. V., Podstavkina, T. P., & Strokina, A. N. (1985). Anthropometric Atlas, Recommendations on Methods. Amerind Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 23-123.

Gouvali, M.K. & Boudolos, K. (2006). Match between school furniture dimensions and children's anthropometry. Applied Ergonomics, 37(6), 765-773.

Hira, D.S. (1980). An ergonomic appraisal of educational desks. Ergonomics, 23, 213-221.

Indian Council of Medical Research (1989). Growth and physical development of Indian infants and children. New Delhi, 18, 1-176.

Ismaila, S. O. (2009). Anthropometric data of hand, foot, ear of university students in Nigeria. Leonard Journal of Sciences, 15, 15-20.

Jeong, B. Y. & Park, K. S. (1990). Sex differences in anthropometry for school furniture design. Ergonomics, 33, 1511-1521.

Kroemer, K. H. E. and Grandjean, E. (2001). Fitting the task to the human: A text book of occupational ergonomics. Taylor and Francis, London.

Mououdi, M. A., & Choobineh, A. R. (1997). Static anthropometric characteristics of students age range six-11 in Mazandaran province/Iran and school furniture design based on ergonomics principles. Applied Ergonomics, 28(2), 145-147

Molenbroek, J. F. M., Kroon-Ramaekers, Y. M. T. & Snijders, C. J. (2003). Revision of the design of a standard for the dimensions of school furniture. Ergonomics, 46, 681-694.

Nag, P. K. (1996). Ergonomics and work design. New Age International (P) Limited, New Delhi, 129-154.

Savanur, C. S., Ghosh, S., Dhar, U., & De, A. (2004). An ergonomic study of comparison between school classroom furniture and student’s anthropometry. Proceedings of National Conference on Humanizing Work and Work Environment, National Institute of Industrial Engineering.

Singh, I. P. & Bhasin, M.K. (1989). Anthropometry. Kamla-Raj Enterprises, Delhi.

Sane, S. M., Karandikar, V., & Savale, P. (2004). Ergonomic product design: classroom bench. Proceedings of National Conference on Humanizing Work and Work Environment, National Institute of Industrial Engineering.

Trevelyan, F. C., & Legg, S. J. (2006). Back pain in school children—Where to from here? Applied Ergonomics, 37(1), 45-54.

Weiner, J. S. & Lourie, J. A. (1969). Human biology: A guide to field methods, IBP Hand Book No.9. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.