中国三市学校课桌椅匹配与学生舒适度调查

徐涛; 罗春燕; 刘忠慧; 王艳; 杨东玲; 曲爽笑; 齐文娟; 黄生垒; 郑柯炀; 张凤云

doi:10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2025073

中国三市学校课桌椅匹配与学生舒适度调查

doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2025073

1.
上海市教育委员会教育技术装备中心，200070
2.
上海市疾病预防控制中心儿童青少年健康所
3.
天津市疾病预防控制中心环境健康与公共卫生所
4.
江苏省疾病预防控制中心儿童青少年健康促进所

基金项目:

上海市第六轮公共卫生体系建设三年行动计划重点学科建设项目 GWVI-11.Ⅰ.1-30

国家疾病预防控制局公共卫生人才培养项目 2023—2025

详细信息

作者简介:
徐涛(1978-)，男，江苏江阴人，硕士，讲师，主要研究方向为教育装备事业管理

通讯作者:
郑柯炀，E-mail：zhengkeyang@scdc.sh.cn

张凤云，E-mail: zhangfengyun@scdc.sh.cn

利益冲突声明 所有作者声明无利益冲突。
中图分类号: R179 G478 G481
计量
- 文章访问数: 72
- HTML全文浏览量: 31
- PDF下载量: 25
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2024-10-15
- 修回日期: 2024-12-31
- 网络出版日期: 2025-04-03
- 刊出日期: 2025-03-25

Compatibility and comfort assessment of school desks and chairs in three cities in China

1.
Educational Technology Equipment Center of Shanghai Education Committee, Shanghai(200070)

摘要

摘要: 目的了解不同学段学生对于相匹配型号课桌椅的主观和客观舒适度评价，为课桌椅规范配备和使用提供参考。方法 2024年1—4月，采取整群随机抽样方法从上海市、天津市和江苏省无锡市13个区(县/市)26所学校抽取2 446名学生进行调查，包括幼儿园、小学、初中、高中和高等院校各年级在校学生。采用标准化程序对研究对象进行身高和体重测量，根据身高选择匹配的课桌椅型号，调查学生的主观舒适度，利用自编问卷对学生客观舒适度进行评估。采用χ²检验分析不同类型课桌椅主观和客观舒适度评价差异。结果 84.1%的学生主观认为与其身高匹配的较大尺寸型号课桌搭配较小尺寸型号课椅(大桌小椅)非常舒适或较为舒适，其次是与其身高匹配的较大尺寸型号课桌椅(大桌大椅，75.7%)，在3种类型中报告率最低为与其身高匹配的较小尺寸型号课桌椅(小桌小椅，46.2%)，差异有统计学意义(χ²=722.46，P＜0.01)。小学、初中、高中学生对大桌小椅主观认为非常舒适/较为舒适的报告率高于对其他类型课桌椅的评价，差异均有统计学意义(χ²值分别为297.49，252.82，343.67，P值均＜0.01)；幼儿园儿童对与其相匹配的各类型课桌椅主观舒适度评价差异无统计学意义(χ²=3.21，P>0.05)，66.3%的高等院校学生使用与其相匹配的标准课桌椅自我感觉为非常舒适/较为舒适。对3种类型课桌椅舒适度客观评估结果与主观评价相符合，但客观评估为非常舒适/较为舒适报告率均高于主观评价(χ²=20.76~813.47，P值均＜0.01)。结论学生对与其相匹配的大桌大椅以及大桌小椅的主观舒适度更佳，对于小桌小椅的舒适度评价较差。可按照“标准”匹配与其相适合的大桌大椅或大桌小椅，以促进学生身心健康。
- 课桌椅 /
- 匹配 /
- 舒适度 /
- 学生
Abstract: Objective To understand the subjective and objective comfort evaluations of students from different age groups on desks and chairs, so as to provide reference for standardized allocation and use of desks and chairs. Methods From January to April 2024, a total of 2 446 students were selected from 26 schools in 13 districts (counties/cities) in Shanghai, Tianjin, and Wuxi from Jiangsu Province by using cluster random method, including students in kindergartens, primary schools, junior high schools, senior high schools, colleges and universities. Standardized procedures were used to measure the height and weight of participants, and the matching desks and chairs models were selected according to the height. The subjective comfort of students on matching desks and chairs was investigated, and their objective comfort was evaluated by using a self-designed questionnaire. The χ² test was used to analyze the differences of subjective perception and objective evaluation in comfort between different types of desks and chairs. Results About 84.1% of the students subjectively thought that large desks and small chairs were very comfortable or relatively comfortable, followed by large desks and chairs (75.7%), and the proportion of small desks and chairs was the lowest among the three types (46.2%), and the difference was statistically significant (χ²=722.46, P < 0.01). The reporting rates of primary school, junior high school and senior high school students who subjectively considered large desks and chairs to be very comfortable/relatively comfortable were higher than that of other types of desks and chairs, and the differences were statistically significant (χ²=297.49, 252.82, 343.67, P < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference in the subjective comfort evaluation of different types of desks and chairs among kindergarten children (χ²=3.21,P > 0.05), and 66.3% of the students in colleges and universities felt very comfortable/relatively comfortable when they used the matching standard desks and chairs. The objective evaluation results of the comfort for the three types of desks and chairs were consistent with the subjective evaluation, but the proportions of the objective evaluation as very comfortable/relatively comfortable were higher than that of the subjective evaluation (χ²=20.76-813.47,P < 0.01). Conclusions Large desks and chairs, as well as large desks with small chairs are perceived comfortable, while small desks and chairs are perceived less comfortable. It is recommended to match the large desks and chairs or large desks and small chairs that are suitable for them according to the "standard", to promote physical and mental health of students.
- Desk and chair /
- Match /
- Comfortable degree /
- Students
注释:

1) 利益冲突声明 所有作者声明无利益冲突。

HTML全文

表 1 不同学段学生对不同类型课桌椅的主观和客观评价舒适报告率比较

Table 1. Comparison the reporting rates of the subjective and objective comfort evaluations of different types of desks and chairs by students of different stages

学段	课桌椅类型	人数	主观评价非常舒适/较为舒适	客观评价非常舒适/较为舒适	χ²值	P值
幼儿园	大桌大椅	454	393(86.6)	436(96.0)	25.64	＜0.01
	小桌小椅	417	370(88.7)	404(96.9)	20.76	＜0.01
	大桌小椅	408	369(90.4)	402(98.5)	25.61	＜0.01
小学	大桌大椅	510	371(72.7)	497(97.5)	122.70	＜0.01
	小桌小椅	510	155(30.4)	433(84.9)	310.30	＜0.01
	大桌小椅	510	402(78.8)	497(97.5)	84.60	＜0.01
初中	大桌大椅	517	374(72.3)	494(95.6)	103.34	＜0.01
	小桌小椅	517	181(35.0)	435(84.1)	259.08	＜0.01
	大桌小椅	517	412(79.7)	495(95.8)	61.84	＜0.01
高中	大桌大椅	466	383(82.2)	458(98.3)	68.50	＜0.01
	小桌小椅	466	176(37.8)	434(93.1)	315.84	＜0.01
	大桌小椅	465	415(89.2)	460(98.9)	39.13	＜0.01
高等院校	大桌大椅	489	324(66.3)	458(93.7)	114.57	＜0.01
总体	大桌大椅	2 436	1 845(75.7)	2 343(96.2)	421.80	＜0.01
	小桌小椅	1 910	882(46.2)	1 706(89.3)	813.47	＜0.01
	大桌小椅	1 900	1 598(84.1)	1 854(97.6)	207.31	＜0.01
注： ()内数字为报告率/%；有个别学生身高很高或很矮不能匹配3种类型的课桌椅搭配，而仅匹配1种，因此人数与总人数不完全一致。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(20)

[1]	PRIETO-LAGE I, AY N C, ALONSO-FERN NDEZ D, et al. Degree of mismatch between anthropometric characteristics and school furniture in a sample of Spanish students aged 6-12 years old: a pilot study[J]. Arch Argent Pediatr, 2021, 119(6): 386-393.
[2]	LEE Y, YUN M H. Evaluation of the guidelines and children's ability to select the anthropometrically recommendable height of school furniture: a case study of Korean primary school children[J]. Work, 2019, 64(3): 427-438.
[3]	孙艺, 刘伟佳, 熊莉华, 等. 广州市中学生脊柱侧弯现状及影响因素分析[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2021, 42(12): 1867-1870, 1873. SUN Y, LIU W J, XIONG L H, et al. Scoliosis and associated factors among middle school students in Guangzhou City[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2021, 42(12): 1867-1870, 1873. (in Chinese)
[4]	YEATS B. Factors that may influence the postural health of schoolchildren (K-12)[J]. Work, 1997, 9(1): 45-55.
[5]	张锡彦, 周永林, 张凤云, 等. 教室环境与学生近视的关联研究[J]. 中华流行病学杂志, 2023, 44(4): 598-606. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20220824-00729 ZHANG X Y, ZHOU Y L, ZHANG F Y, et al. The relationship between classroom environment and myopia[J]. Chin J Epidemiol, 2023, 44(4): 598-606. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112338-20220824-00729
[6]	MURA G, VELLANTE M, NARDI A E, et al. Effects of school-based physical activity interventions on cognition and academic achievement: a systematic review[J]. CNS Neurol Disord Drug Targets, 2015, 14(9): 1194-1208. doi: 10.2174/1871527315666151111121536
[7]	WICK K, FAUDE O, MANES S, et al. I can stand learning: a controlled pilot intervention study on the effects of increased standing time on cognitive function in primary school children[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2018, 15(2): 356. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15020356
[8]	YANTO, LU C W, LU J M. Evaluation of the Indonesian National Standard for elementary school furniture based on children's anthropometry[J]. Appl Ergon, 2017, 62: 168-181.
[9]	MOLENBROEK J F, KROON-RAMAEKERS Y M, SNIJDERS C J. Revision of the design of a standard for the dimensions of school furniture[J]. Ergonomics, 2003, 46(7): 681-694.
[10]	中华人民共和国国家质量监督检验检疫总局. 学校课桌椅功能尺寸及技术要求: GB/T 3976-2014[S]. 2015-05-01. General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the PRC. Functional sizes and technical requirements of chairs and tables for educational institutions: GB/T 3976-2014[S]. 2015-05-01. (in Chinese)
[11]	欧阳芳, 谭晖, 章丽, 等. 上海市中小学校可调式和固定式课桌椅符合现况[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2023, 44(2): 287-290. OUYANG F, TAN H, ZHANG L, et al. Coincidence rate of adjustable and non-adjustable desks and chairs in primary and secondary schools in Shanghai[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2023, 44(2): 287-290. (in Chinese)
[12]	王朔, 郭欣, 赵月朝, 等. 全国中小学校教室课桌椅配备情况分析[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2022, 43(9): 1416-1419. WANG S, GUO X, ZHAO Y Z, et al. Analysis of the allocation of desks and chairs in classrooms of primary and secondary schools in China[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2022, 43(9): 1416-1419. (in Chinese)
[13]	郑卫军, 何凡. 现况调查的样本量计算方法[J]. 预防医学, 2020, 32(6): 647-648. ZHENG W J, HE F. The sample size calculation method for the prevalence survey[J]. China Prev Med J, 2020, 32(6): 647-648. (in Chinese)
[14]	LEGG S, JACOBS K. Ergonomics for schools[J]. Work, 2008, 31(4): 489-493.
[15]	PODREKAR LOREDAN N, KASTELIC K, BURNARD M D. Ergonomic evaluation of school furniture in Slovenia: from primary school to university[J]. Work, 2022, 73(1): 229-245.
[16]	MILANESE S, GRIMMER K. School furniture and the user population: an anthropometric perspective[J]. Ergonomics, 2004, 47(4): 416-426.
[17]	AGHA S R. School furniture match to students' anthropometry in the Gaza Strip[J]. Ergonomics, 2010, 53(3): 344-354. http://www.onacademic.com/detail/journal_1000036574298510_de89.html
[18]	TUTTLE N, BARRETT R, GASS E. Preferred seat orientation of senior high-school students[J]. Ergonomics, 2007, 50(10): 1603-1611.
[19]	沈蕙, 韩迪, 胡佳. 苏州市2013-2015年学校课桌椅分配符合情况[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2017, 38(9): 1431-1432. SHEN H, HAN D, HU J. The distribution of desks and chairs in schools in Suzhou from 2013 to 2015 is in line with the situation[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2017, 38(9): 1431-1432. (in Chinese)
[20]	SZETO G P, STRAKER L, RAINE S. A field comparison of neck and shoulder postures in symptomatic and asymptomatic office workers[J]. Appl Ergon, 2002, 33(1): 75-84.