Comfortable Workplaces Matter for Teacher Productivity
Teachers spend much of their working time preparing lessons, teaching students, evaluating learning outcomes, completing administrative duties, and developing their professional skills. These activities require concentration, adequate facilities, and a working environment that allows teachers to perform effectively.
The study highlights several elements of the physical work environment, including lighting, air circulation, noise, odors, workplace decoration, and safety. A comfortable environment can reduce distractions and fatigue while helping teachers concentrate on teaching and administrative responsibilities.
At SMP PGRI 1 Cimahi, however, preliminary observations identified several areas that still needed improvement. School records showed relatively low productivity scores for teaching materials, student behavior records, lesson planning, assessment administration, and report-card administration.
Some of the lowest scores included:
Teaching materials: 2.45
Student behavior records: 2.38
Lesson plans: 3.14
Student assessment records: 3.21
Report-card administration: 3.09
Field observations also identified physical conditions such as damaged classroom ceilings, inadequate lighting, limited ventilation, untidy classroom arrangements, and sanitation facilities that required improvement.
These conditions provided an important context for examining whether the physical workplace was associated with teachers’ productivity.
Teachers Report High Motivation and Good Productivity
The researchers surveyed 32 teachers at SMP PGRI 1 Cimahi. Because the population consisted of only 32 teachers, all teachers were included as respondents using a census or saturated sampling approach.
The research used a quantitative approach. Data were collected through questionnaires, observations, interviews, and documentation. The researchers then analyzed the relationship between the physical work environment, work motivation, and teacher productivity.
The descriptive results showed generally positive conditions.
The physical work environment received an average score of 4.11, categorized as good. Among the measured aspects, workplace safety received the highest score at 4.37, while workplace decoration received the lowest score at 3.92.
Teachers also demonstrated a high level of work motivation, with an average score of 3.91. The highest motivation indicator was responsibility, scoring 4.22, followed by potential development at 4.03.
Teacher work productivity itself recorded an average score of 4.00, also categorized as good. The quality dimension achieved the highest score at 4.28, followed by efficiency at 4.24.
Physical Work Environment Has a Significant Effect
The statistical analysis found that the physical work environment had a positive and significant effect on teacher productivity.
The regression coefficient was 0.305, meaning that an increase in the physical work environment score was associated with an increase in teacher productivity. The t-test produced a value of 3.012, with a significance level of 0.005, below the 0.05 threshold.
The result supports the first hypothesis that better physical working conditions contribute to higher teacher productivity.
For schools, the finding suggests that seemingly simple improvements—such as better lighting, adequate ventilation, organized classrooms, proper sanitation, and safe facilities—can become part of a broader strategy to support teachers’ performance.
Motivation Also Plays an Important Role
Work motivation showed another significant relationship with teacher productivity.
The regression coefficient for motivation was 0.426, while the t-test produced a value of 2.371 with a significance level of 0.025. Because the significance value was below 0.05, work motivation was found to have a positive and significant effect on teacher productivity.
The strongest motivation indicator was responsibility, with a score of 4.22. This suggests that teachers generally have a strong sense of accountability toward their professional duties.
However, achievement recorded the lowest motivation score at 3.56. The researchers therefore suggest that schools could further strengthen motivation by providing opportunities for professional development, recognition, achievement, and career growth.
For teachers, motivation can be reflected in their willingness to prepare learning materials, manage classrooms, evaluate students, participate in professional development, and take responsibility for educational outcomes.
Two Factors Explain 53.7% of Productivity Variation
The strongest overall finding emerged from the simultaneous statistical test.
When the physical work environment and work motivation were analyzed together, the F-test produced a value of 16.842, with a significance level below 0.001. This indicates that the two variables jointly have a significant influence on teacher work productivity at SMP PGRI 1 Cimahi.
The coefficient of determination was R² = 0.537. In practical terms, the physical work environment and work motivation together explained 53.7% of the variation in teacher work productivity.
The remaining 46.3% was associated with other factors that were not examined in the study. These may include leadership style, organizational culture, job satisfaction, compensation, organizational commitment, and teacher competence.
School Management Can Improve Both Conditions and Motivation
According to Siti Nurdiana and Mochamad Vrans Romi of Universitas Jenderal Achmad Yani, improving teacher productivity requires attention to both the physical workplace and the human factors that encourage teachers to perform well.
The researchers recommend that school management maintain and improve classroom facilities, lighting, ventilation, cleanliness, safety, and workplace organization. Improving the appearance and arrangement of workspaces is also important because workplace decoration received the lowest score among the physical environment indicators.
At the same time, schools can strengthen teacher motivation through professional training, opportunities for competency development, recognition of achievements, supportive leadership, and greater opportunities to take responsibility.
The findings indicate that investment in teachers should therefore not be limited to training programs. Creating a comfortable workplace and maintaining teachers’ motivation can work together to support productivity and educational quality.
What the Study Means for Schools
The study provides a practical message for educational institutions: teacher productivity is influenced by both the environment in which teachers work and their motivation to perform their duties.
For school leaders, improving physical facilities can reduce workplace distractions and create conditions that support concentration. Meanwhile, recognition, professional development, supportive leadership, and meaningful responsibilities can strengthen teachers’ motivation.
The researchers also recommend that future studies examine other factors, including leadership, organizational culture, job satisfaction, compensation, organizational commitment, and teacher competence. Research involving larger samples and multiple schools could provide a broader picture of the factors shaping teacher productivity.
About the Authors
Siti Nurdiana is a researcher affiliated with Universitas Jenderal Achmad Yani and serves as the corresponding author of the study.
Mochamad Vrans Romi is also affiliated with Universitas Jenderal Achmad Yani and contributed to the research examining human resource management and teacher productivity.
The study was published in 2026 and focuses on human resource management in the educational environment, particularly the relationship between physical working conditions, work motivation, and teacher productivity.
Research Source
Teacher work environment, motivation, and productivity scores
Average scores reported by teachers at SMP PGRI 1 Cimahi on a 1–5 scale.
| variable | score |
|---|---|
| Physical work environment | 4.11 |
| Work motivation | 3.91 |
| Work productivity | 4 |
Factors associated with teacher productivity in the study model
The regression model explains 53.7% of productivity variation through physical work environment and work motivation; the remaining 46.3% involves factors outside the model.
| category | percentage |
|---|---|
| Physical work environment and work motivation | 53.7 |
| Other factors | 46.3 |
0 Komentar