Why the room label matters less than the conditions inside it
The studies point to air movement and climate as the main shapers of the comfortable temperature range, not whether the room is a classroom or an office. In naturally ventilated Singapore classrooms, fans let students stay thermally neutral at temperatures up to 30 °C, well above what still-air standards would call comfortable [1]. In a Malaysian university classroom study, comfort stayed within the standard comfort zone only when supply air was kept between 22 °C and 24 °C, and discomfort rose sharply at 28 °C [5]. Same kind of room, very different comfortable range, because one setting used elevated air velocity and the other relied on cooled supply air.
That pattern suggests the practical question is not 'classroom or office?' but 'what air speed, humidity, clothing, and outdoor climate are present?' The Singapore study explicitly identifies air velocity as a crucial design factor for tropical classrooms [1], while the Malaysian study emphasizes precise HVAC control and even air distribution, since rear zones of the classroom were warmer and less comfortable than the front [5].
Comfort and performance do not always peak at the same temperature
Feeling comfortable and thinking well are related but not identical. In the controlled 23–30 °C experiment, the highest performance and the highest comfort both occurred at a mean standard effective temperature of 27.2 °C, when occupants felt neutral to slightly cool, and mental workload and mood disturbance were relatively low [3]. That is a useful anchor: for young adults doing neuro-behavioral tests in a controlled setting, the sweet spot was on the warm side of typical office setpoints, not the cool side.
In the Singapore classrooms, comfort could be maintained at or below 30 °C with fans, yet cognitive performance still declined significantly as temperature increased and air velocity decreased [1]. Students scored 9.2% lower when feeling slightly warm and 18.1% lower when feeling warm, compared with feeling neutral [1]. So a room can feel acceptable while performance is already slipping, which is why comfort surveys alone are an incomplete guide to a good learning or working temperature.
Time in the room changes the answer
The best temperature also depends on how long people have been sitting there. Among architecture students in Ilam, cognitive performance was highest under proper thermal comfort and during the first 60 minutes of a class session, and it declined after that even when the room met the ASHRAE comfort standard [2]. That finding is a reminder that a temperature that supports performance at the start of a lecture or meeting may not sustain it an hour later, possibly because fatigue accumulates.
This matters for both classrooms and offices because long sessions are common in both. The Ilam result does not show that offices need a different temperature range from classrooms; it shows that duration is a separate variable that can erode performance even inside a nominally comfortable range [2].
What a reasonable target looks like across settings
Pulling the evidence together, a defensible target for classrooms and offices is a range rather than a single number, adjusted for air movement and season. In still, cooled air, comfort tends to hold around 22–24 °C and degrade by 28 °C [5]. With fans and higher air velocity in a hot climate, comfort can extend to about 30 °C, but performance may already be lower at the warm end [1]. In a controlled young-adult sample, peak comfort and performance clustered near 27 °C [3].
For winter design in schools, one analysis recommended an upper temperature limit about 5 °C lower than the low limits of international standards when both comfort and learning performance are considered together, which would also cut energy use [4]. That recommendation is specific to classroom heating design and does not directly transfer to offices, but it reinforces the broader point: the right range is set by the combination of comfort, performance, climate, and energy, not by the room's label.
Sources used in this answer
Students’ thermal comfort and cognitive performance in fan-assisted naturally ventilated classrooms in tropical Singapore
In fan-assisted naturally ventilated Singapore classrooms, students stayed thermally neutral at temperatures up to 30 °C, but cognitive performance scores fell significantly as temperature rose and air velocity dropped, including 9.2% and 18.1% decreases when slightly warm and warm versus neutral.
Investigating the Effect of Environmental Thermal Comfort Components on Students' Cognitive Performance based on the Analysis of Fatigue Factor (Study Sample of Architecture Students of Universities in Ilam)
Among Ilam architecture students, cognitive performance was highest under proper thermal comfort and in the first 60 minutes of class, and declined after 60 minutes even when the classroom met the ASHRAE comfort standard.
Exploring the influence of indoor temperature on thermal comfort and performance
In a controlled experiment with college students across 23, 25, 27, and 30 °C, the highest performance and thermal comfort occurred at a mean standard effective temperature of 27.2 °C, with lower mental workload and mood disturbance.
A holistic approach to the evaluation of the indoor temperature based on thermal comfort and learning performance
A classroom temperature-design method combining thermal comfort and learning performance recommended an upper temperature limit about 5 °C lower than the low limits of international standards, which could reduce winter energy use in school buildings.
Influence of Indoor Temperature Variation on Thermal Comfort in University Classrooms in a Tropical Malaysian Setting
In tropical Malaysian university classrooms, PMV stayed within the comfort zone only when supply air was 22–24 °C, exceeded +1.0 at 28 °C, and varied by zone, with rear areas reaching PMV up to +1.8.