Evaluation of the Discomfort Level for Students at Polytechnic Kuching Sarawak Sitting on Chairs

Background: Classroom Ergonomics in Malaysian Polytechnics

Polytechnic institutions in Malaysia form a critical pillar of the country’s technical and vocational education system, providing diploma-level training in engineering, information technology, commerce, and other applied disciplines. Students at these institutions typically spend extended periods in classroom and laboratory settings, where the quality of the physical environment—and particularly the design of seating furniture—can significantly influence both their physical wellbeing and their capacity for sustained learning.

Unlike university students who may have more varied schedules with movement between different settings, polytechnic students often attend long blocks of classroom instruction in fixed seating arrangements. The chairs and desks provided in these classrooms were typically procured based on standardised government specifications that prioritise durability and cost-effectiveness over ergonomic design. The result, as this study documented, is a widespread prevalence of seating discomfort that affects students’ comfort, concentration, and potentially their long-term musculoskeletal health.

Politeknik Kuching Sarawak (PKS), located on the island of Borneo in East Malaysia, serves a diverse student population drawn from across Sarawak and neighbouring regions. The institution’s location in a tropical equatorial climate adds an additional dimension to the comfort equation: high ambient temperatures and humidity can exacerbate the discomfort experienced during prolonged sitting, particularly on non-ventilated seat surfaces.

Study Design and Methodology

This cross-sectional survey included 500 students at Politeknik Kuching Sarawak, providing a substantial sample size that strengthens confidence in the generalisability of the findings to the wider PKS student population. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire that employed Borg’s CR-10 scale—a widely validated psychophysical scale originally developed for assessing perceived exertion but adapted here for seating discomfort assessment.

The questionnaire incorporated a body chart discomfort diagram, which allowed students to identify specific body regions where they experienced discomfort while sitting in classroom chairs. For each identified region, students rated their discomfort on a score ranging from 0 to 5. The scoring system classified responses into three categories: scores of 0 to 1.99 indicated no discomfort, scores of 2.00 to 3.99 indicated discomfort, and scores of 4.00 to 5.00 indicated very uncomfortable conditions.

In addition to the body chart assessment, students were asked to rank ten statements about comfort in order of importance and to select three responses that best characterised their seating experience. This approach provided both quantitative discomfort data and qualitative insights into the nature and character of the discomfort experienced.

Results: Patterns of Discomfort

The evaluation revealed that a significant proportion of students experienced discomfort while using the classroom chairs and desks at PKS. The body chart analysis identified multiple anatomical regions where discomfort was concentrated, with the lower back, upper back, buttocks, and thighs being the most commonly affected areas. These findings are consistent with the known biomechanical consequences of prolonged sitting in chairs that do not adequately support the natural curvature of the spine or accommodate individual variation in body dimensions.

The predominance of cramped and stiff feelings among student responses is particularly telling. Cramped sensations typically arise when seating dimensions are too small for the user, constraining natural posture and movement. In the polytechnic context, where students range from late adolescence to early adulthood, the use of standardised chairs designed for a narrower demographic range can leave larger students feeling physically constrained. Stiffness, conversely, suggests that students are maintaining static postures for extended periods without the opportunity for postural variation—a consequence both of chair design (which may not encourage or permit postural changes) and of classroom practices that require sustained sitting.

The Biomechanics of Classroom Sitting

Understanding the discomfort reported by PKS students requires consideration of the biomechanical demands of prolonged sitting. The human body is not designed for sustained static postures. When seated, approximately 75% of body weight is supported by a small area of the ischial tuberosities (the bony prominences of the pelvis), and the lumbar spine must be actively supported—either by muscular effort or by a chair backrest—to maintain its natural lordotic curve. Without adequate support, the lumbar spine tends to flatten or reverse its curvature, placing strain on intervertebral discs, ligaments, and paraspinal muscles.

The seat surface characteristics also play a crucial role in comfort. Hard, flat seat surfaces concentrate pressure on the ischial tuberosities, reducing blood flow to the compressed tissues and eventually causing numbness and pain. Seat surfaces that are too deep (measured from front to back) force users to either slide forward on the seat—losing contact with the backrest—or accept pressure behind the knees from the seat edge, which can restrict blood flow to the lower legs. Chair designs that do not permit the user’s feet to rest flat on the floor create further instability and discomfort, as the legs cannot contribute to postural support.

For polytechnic students, who may sit for three or more consecutive hours during lecture blocks, the cumulative effect of these biomechanical stresses is significant. Even moderate discomfort, sustained over weeks and months of regular classroom attendance, can contribute to chronic musculoskeletal complaints, decreased concentration, and negative attitudes toward the learning environment.

Comparison with Related Malaysian Studies

The findings from PKS complement and extend research conducted in other Malaysian educational settings. Studies of primary school children in Putrajaya found 100% mismatch between classroom furniture dimensions and children’s anthropometric measurements for key parameters such as seat height and seat depth. While the PKS study dealt with an older population (polytechnic students rather than primary school children), the underlying problem is the same: standardised furniture that fails to accommodate the anthropometric diversity of its users.

Research at other Malaysian polytechnics and universities has similarly documented high prevalence of musculoskeletal discomfort among students, with seating quality consistently identified as a contributing factor. The convergence of these findings across different educational levels and geographical locations suggests that the problem is systemic rather than institution-specific, pointing to a need for national-level reform of educational furniture standards.

Proposed Solutions: Natural Fibre Composite Furniture

A distinctive feature of this study was its proposal for the design of a new type of classroom desk using natural fibre reinforced composite (NFRC) materials. This recommendation reflects both ergonomic and sustainability considerations. Natural fibre composites—potentially incorporating palm oil industry by-products or other locally available plant fibres—can offer advantages in terms of weight reduction, thermal comfort (natural fibres tend to feel less cold and clammy than metal or plastic), and environmental sustainability.

From an ergonomic perspective, the use of NFRC materials could enable the production of classroom furniture with more complex, body-conforming shapes than is practical with traditional wood or metal construction. Curved seat surfaces, integrated lumbar support, and ventilated seat panels—all of which contribute to seating comfort—may be more economically achievable with composite manufacturing techniques. The potential to utilise waste materials from Malaysia’s oil palm industry adds an additional dimension of sustainable innovation to the proposal.

Implications for Educational Policy

The scale of the discomfort identified in this study—across a sample of 500 students—constitutes a clear signal that the physical learning environment at PKS, and likely at other Malaysian polytechnics, requires improvement. The Ministry of Higher Education and the Department of Polytechnic and Community College Education have an opportunity to address this issue through updated furniture procurement specifications that incorporate ergonomic design principles, provision of multiple chair sizes to accommodate the anthropometric range of the student population, inclusion of adjustable-height features in at least some classroom furniture, and scheduled furniture replacement programmes that prioritise classrooms with the oldest and most ergonomically deficient equipment.

The cost of ergonomic improvement must be weighed against the benefits of enhanced student comfort, improved concentration, reduced musculoskeletal complaints, and potentially better academic outcomes. Given that polytechnic education is designed to prepare students for physically active technical careers, equipping them with an understanding of ergonomic principles—starting with their own classroom environment—has educational value beyond the immediate health benefits.

Limitations

The study relied on subjective discomfort ratings, which are inherently influenced by individual pain thresholds, psychological factors, and the context in which assessments are conducted. Objective measurements—such as pressure mapping of the seat-body interface, electromyographic assessment of postural muscle activity, or biomechanical analysis of seated posture—would provide complementary data to strengthen the findings. The study did not collect anthropometric measurements of the students, which would have allowed direct calculation of furniture-body mismatch comparable to the Putrajaya primary school study. Additionally, the cross-sectional design captures discomfort at a single point in time and cannot assess the temporal evolution of discomfort during extended sitting sessions or the long-term health consequences of sustained exposure to ergonomically inadequate furniture.