Effects to teaching environment of noise level in school classrooms
Abstract
This study determines noise level in school classrooms during school hours and identifies the effects of noise to teaching environment in classrooms using a Sound Level Meter (SLM) and a questionnaire survey on 44 teachers and 150 students. Data analyses, using t-test, one sample t-test and one-way ANOVA (Tukey's HSD Post Hoc test), indicates that noise level in school classroom during school hours exceeded WHO guideline value. This noise affects teachers and students in term of teaching and learning process and human health.
... Except for an article [17], nineteen studies examined how noise exposure produces non-auditory effects that influence primary and high school teachers' workability. Disturbances/distractions, stress, loss of concentration, shouting, cracking of voice, disruption of communication, irritation/annoyance, poor speech intelligibility, temporary dizziness, tiredness/exhaustion/fatigue, and acute headaches influenced the workability of primary and high school teachers as well as interactions in the classroom [9][10][11][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]. Deborah and Faithwin discovered a relationship between noise exposure and interference with communication, loss of attention, tension, and fatigue [33]. ...
... However, the few others that measured the noise levels reported that the subjects were exposed to noises far beyond the acceptable equivalent continuous sound pressure levels (LAeq) permitted for schools in the various countries of study. The ranges of noise level in the included studies that caused the effects were 50.0 to 92.1 dBA on primary school teachers and 68.9 to 95.2 dBA on high school teachers [17,21,24,25,28,[31][32][33][34][35]39]. ...
... There was no article found on a scoping review of this nature, which indicates that most researchers have been blind to this particular topic of review. Small sample sizes, a lack of a thorough epidemiological approach to understanding the health effects of noise, and a lack of audiometric testing facilities to assess noise-induced hearing loss were some of the main flaws of most examined publications [24,29,[34][35]. Additionally, there is a lack of information regarding the use of calibrated sound level meters to improve the quality assurance of the data gathered and used in some studies, as well as a lack of precise information regarding the frequency of measurements conducted [28,35]. ...
... Except for an article [17], nineteen studies examined how noise exposure produces non-auditory effects that influence primary and high school teachers' workability. Disturbances/distractions, stress, loss of concentration, shouting, cracking of voice, disruption of communication, irritation/annoyance, poor speech intelligibility, temporary dizziness, tiredness/exhaustion/fatigue, and acute headaches influenced the workability of primary and high school teachers as well as interactions in the classroom [9][10][11][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]. Deborah and Faithwin discovered a relationship between noise exposure and interference with communication, loss of attention, tension, and fatigue [33]. ...
... However, the few others that measured the noise levels reported that the subjects were exposed to noises far beyond the acceptable equivalent continuous sound pressure levels (LAeq) permitted for schools in the various countries of study. The ranges of noise level in the included studies that caused the effects were 50.0 to 92.1 dBA on primary school teachers and 68.9 to 95.2 dBA on high school teachers [17,21,24,25,28,[31][32][33][34][35]39]. ...
... There was no article found on a scoping review of this nature, which indicates that most researchers have been blind to this particular topic of review. Small sample sizes, a lack of a thorough epidemiological approach to understanding the health effects of noise, and a lack of audiometric testing facilities to assess noise-induced hearing loss were some of the main flaws of most examined publications [24,29,[34][35]. Additionally, there is a lack of information regarding the use of calibrated sound level meters to improve the quality assurance of the data gathered and used in some studies, as well as a lack of precise information regarding the frequency of measurements conducted [28,35]. ...
Background: Noise exposure has impacts on health and workability. There are not enough scoping reviews on how noise exposure affects the health and workability of primary and high school teachers. Therefore, this study provides a scoping review of such a topic. Materials and Methods: A search of Google Scholar, JSTOR, Elsevier, PubMed, and reference lists of literature published between 2000 and 2022 was done to find empirical data in the literature on teachers' exposure to noise and its consequences on their hearing and workability. The PRISMA-ScR protocol was applied. Results: All 20 studies reviewed, used a cross-sectional design. 50% of the studies used a calibrated sound level meter to implement the direct noise level evaluation method, while 75.0% used questionnaires. The main school-related noise source was students' activities (n = 12, 60.0%), and the main non-school-related noise source was vehicles (n = 6, 30%). These led to temporary hearing loss (n = 6, 30.0%). The non-auditory effects, such as shouting and disturbance (n = 8, 40% each) and annoyance (n = 7, 35% each), influenced the workability (performance) of the teachers as well as their interactions in the classroom. The noise levels that produced the effects were 50.0 to 92.1 dBA on primary school teachers and 68.9 to 95.2 dBA on high school teachers. Conclusions: Noise leads to hearing loss and poor workability of teachers. Regular school noise monitoring and surveillance to identify noisy areas and apply interventions is to be done.
... Noise in hospitals is offensive and an annoyance to patients. It produces physiological and psychological response in patients and has contributions to chronic physical and mental health (Seetha et al., 2008). Noise is also well known for its devastating roles in some diseases such as: hypertension, difficulty in sleeping, high blood pressure, memory loss, stress related illness, cardiovascular diseases etc. (Anees et al., 2014;Münzel et al., 2014). ...
... The recommended average noise levels around school environments should be 72 dB(A) and is rated satisfactory Table 1 (ISO, 1999; WHO, 2001). However, during lessons, noise levels should be within 35 to 55 dB(A) so as not to cause stress and distraction among students (Tiesler et al., 2015;Seetha et al., 2008). ...
There are limits recommended for environmental noise and occupational noise by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Standardization Organization (ISO). Therefore, noise levels were assessed in four different schools in Jalingo, the capital of Taraba State using a Lutron sound level meter, model SL-4030. The aim of the study was to compare noise levels in the schools with the limits recommended by WHO and ISO, so as to make appropriate recommendations in case of undesirable results. The ANOVA statistical tool was used to demonstrate that the noise levels differ in the classrooms and the Least Significant Difference (LSD) statistics was used to show the significance of the variation of noise levels in the classrooms as suggested by the ANOVA. The mean equivalent noise levels (Leq (dB(A)) varied considerably above WHO recommended limits in classrooms. In the classrooms across all the schools, noise levels were within satisfactory range (61-75 dB(A)). This range however, exceeds the recommended noise limits in classrooms (35-55 dB(A)). Meanwhile, the control sample locations had mean noise level within the good range (41-60 dB(A)). It was also observed that at the control sites, mean noise levels were within the range recommended for classrooms during lessons. Higher noise levels than the endorsed limits by the WHO in the classrooms across all the schools are justifiable by so many factors such as: proximity to busy roads, students-Teacher's activities and perhaps some acoustical reasons. Interestingly, the control of noise pollution in these schools to meet the international recommended standards is much possible if the recommendations from this study are obeyed.
... Kanu et al. (2022) also presented data from several sources that showed standards established by the World Health Organization (WHO),1999)Table 3. WHO (1999) has established that the daily noise exposure in schools should not exceed 72dB and that during lectures and learning hours, the noise level should not exceed 35dB(Seetha, et al., 2008). The Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of noise for schools should be 55dBA (Tiesler, Machner and Brokmann, 2015). ...
Noise pollution is an increasing environmental issue impacting urban areas, especially educational institutions where the academic performance, health, and well-being of individuals can be affected significantly. This study identified the main sources of noise, measured noise levels, and mapped the spatial distribution of noise pollution within Plateau State University, Bokkos, Nigeria. Using geo-mapping software and sound level meter, a total of 15 monitoring locations within the University were selected based on the land use. Three readings obtained at an interval of one hour; in the morning, at noon and in the evening for a period of one week were recorded. ArcGIS 10.5 was used to perform inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) Interpolation of the Spatial distribution of noise level in the study area. Findings were compared with the World Health Organization and the National Environmental Regulatory agency standard for noise levels. Results showed that students and traffic constitute the major sources of noise in the study environment. High noise levels were recorded at all the selected points, especially the classroom areas where the level is above the standard limit of 50 dB for educational area. The study recommends that in order to manage and control noise pollution, the University should reassign incompatible land uses, build sound proof walls, plant trees, within and around the Campus. In such ways, noise pollution would be minimized, this will hinder the interference of noise with academic activities within the Campus.
... In the classroom, noise may adversely affects educational atmosphere (Hodgson et al., 1999) and may cause hypertension, hampers teaching-learning process, obstruct cognitive development, and depreciate learning performance of students. Students exposed to high levels of noise may suffer from attention loss, social compliance and increased conflicting interactive relation (Seetha et al., 2008). ...
The Bangladesh Agricultural University (BAU) is a prime campus of agricultural study on 488 hectares of scenic land on the western array of the old Brahmaputra River. This study aimed to measure the prevailing levels of traffic generated noise pollution at the core academic points and to assess the impacts of noise pollution on students’ health at BAU. The recorded Lave ranges from 55–85 dB. The Lave ranges from 79–85 dB throughout the whole day at FoA and FoAH. The Lave at these two core academic points are almost the double than the permissible limit of 45 dB. The Lmax pressure (96 dB) at Jobber moor during the noon is the maximum inside the whole BAU campus. The movement of traffic vehicles is responsible as the main sources of these noises. The noise level indices and their degree of fluctuation as given by Leq, Lnp, and NC are higher in roadside locations namely at FoA, FoAH, FoAERS. In terms of noise pollution, three of the sampled areas namely FoA, FoAH, and KR market show ‘moderate risk’ (Lave: 81 dB) during the morning whilst, the FoAH possessed the ‘high risk’ with the Lave of 85 dB. The results show that the FoA, FoAH, KR market, Jobber moor, and administration building can be labelled as the highest zone of noise level intensity. Due to excessive noise, university students are facing disorders like irritation, headache, nervousness, insomnia, anxiety, hearing problem, and hypertension. Controlling noise pollution is an absolute necessity for BAU to ensure noise-less academic culture whilst the dwellers of BAU is in the risk of serious noise related health hazards. The results would be very useful for BAU authority to monitor and formulate a structural noise management policy, and to control excessive noise at our beloved BAU.
... In the classroom, noise may adversely affects educational atmosphere (Hodgson et al., 1999) and may cause hypertension, hampers teaching-learning process, obstruct cognitive development, and depreciate learning performance of students. Students exposed to high levels of noise may suffer from attention loss, social compliance and increased conflicting interactive relation (Seetha et al., 2008). ...
The Bangladesh Agricultural University (BAU) is a prime campus of agricultural study on 488 hectares of scenic land on the western array of the old Brahmaputra River. This study aimed to measure the prevailing levels of traffic generated noise pollution at the core academic points and to assess the impacts of noise pollution on students' health at BAU. The recorded Lave ranges from 55-85 dB. The Lave ranges from 79-85 dB throughout the whole day at FoA and FoAH. The Lave at these two core academic points are almost the double than the permissible limit of 45 dB. The Lmax pressure (96 dB) at Jobber moor during the noon is the maximum inside the whole BAU campus. The movement of traffic vehicles is responsible as the main sources of these noises. The noise level indices and their degree of fluctuation as given by Leq, Lnp, and NC are higher in roadside locations namely at FoA, FoAH, FoAERS. In terms of noise pollution, three of the sampled areas namely FoA, FoAH, and KR market show 'moderate risk' (Lave: 81 dB) during the morning whilst, the FoAH possessed the 'high risk' with the Lave of 85 dB. The results show that the FoA, FoAH, KR market, Jobber moor, and administration building can be labelled as the highest zone of noise level intensity. Due to excessive noise, university students are facing disorders like irritation, headache, nervousness, insomnia, anxiety, hearing problem, and hypertension. Controlling noise pollution is an absolute necessity for BAU to ensure noiseless academic culture whilst the dwellers of BAU is in the risk of serious noise-related health hazards. The results would be very useful for BAU authority to monitor and formulate a structural noise management policy, and to control excessive noise at our beloved BAU.
... In the classroom, noise may adversely affects educational atmosphere (Hodgson et al., 1999) and may cause hypertension, hampers teaching-learning process, obstruct cognitive development, and depreciate learning performance of students. Students exposed to high levels of noise may suffer from attention loss, social compliance and increased conflicting interactive relation (Seetha et al., 2008). ...
The Bangladesh Agricultural University (BAU) is a prime campus of agricultural study on 488 hectares of scenic land on the western array of the old Brahmaputra River. This study aimed to measure the prevailing levels of traffic induced noise pollution at the core academic points and to assess the impacts of noise pollution on students’ health at BAU. The recorded Lave ranges from 55–85 dB. The Lave ranges from 79–85 dB throughout the whole day at FoA and FoAH. The Lave at these two core academic points are almost the double than the permissible limit of 45 dB. The Lmax pressure (96 dB) at Jobber moor during the noon is the maximum inside the whole BAU campus. The movement of traffic vehicles is responsible as the main sources of these noise. The noise level indices and their degree of fluctuation as given by Leq, Lnp, and NC are higher in roadside locations namely at FoA, FoAH, FoAERS. In terms of noise pollution, three of the sampled areas namely FoA, FoAH, and KR market show ‘moderate risk’ (Lave: 81 dB) during the morning whilst, the FoAH possessed the ‘high risk’ with the Lave of 85 dB. The results show that the FoA, FoAH, KR market, Jobber moor, and administration building can be labelled as the highest zone of noise level intensity. Due to excessive noise, university students are facing disorders like irritation, headache, nervousness, insomnia, anxiety, hearing problem, and hypertension. Controlling noise pollution is an absolute necessity for BAU to ensure noise-less academic culture whilst the dwellers of BAU is in the risk of serious noise-related health hazards. The results would be very useful for BAU authority to monitor and formulate a structural noise management policy, and to control excessive noise at our beloved BAU.
... According to the Ministry of Environment, Water, and Agriculture, the desirable range for noise in classrooms and laboratories is 40-50 dBA [40]. Other organizations, such as WHO, have recommended that acoustic levels be held below 35 dBA to ensure a productive teaching and learning environment [41]. However, the present study's analysis indicated that the university settings investigated had noise levels of 50-70 dBA, which is well above recommended levels and could negatively affect student performance. ...
This study measured noise levels in Saudi university laboratories and classrooms to determine whether they meet international standards. The study was conducted by highlighting primary noise components and their combined influence. A design of experiments (DoE) approach was employed for nine noise components in university classrooms and laboratories. In total, 1024 readings were obtained from Saudi university classrooms and laboratories using a sound-level meter. Using analysis of variance (ANOVA), nine noise variables were evaluated for their effects both independently and through mutual interactions. The study found that the noise level in classrooms and laboratories was 50–70 dBA, which is above the tolerable level (40–50 dBA). Although the noise variables analyzed had minor primary impacts, the study revealed eleven statistically significant interactive effects, indicating the variables’ combined effects for classroom and laboratory noise. This study fills a research gap on classroom noise in Saudi university settings, equipping educational leaders with the understanding needed to apply noise-abatement techniques, which will improve teaching and learning.
This article reports on two studies that examined how typical student behavior patterns contribute to predicting burnout among teachers in general (Study 1) and among male and female teachers possessing different pupil control ideologies (Study 2). The sample for Study 1 involved 348 teachers from both religious and secular schools in Israel and 356 of their students. The sample for Study 2 involved 391 elementary and secondary schoolteachers (122 were classified “humanistic” and 119 “custodial”). The teachers sampled completed a questionnaire composed of an adapted version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory, the Pupil Behavior Patterns Scale (Studies 1 and 2), and an adapted version of the Pupil Control Ideology scale (Study 2). The students in Study 1 filled out an open-ended questionnaire. The typical student behaviors—disrespect, inattentiveness and sociability—accounted for 22% of teacher burnout variance for the whole sample and for 33% of burnout variance in teachers in religious schools. Humanistic teachers were affected mainly by disrespect, whereas custodial teachers were affected mainly by inattentiveness. Burnout among male teachers was mainly affected by students' inattentiveness, whereas burnout among female teachers was mainly affected by students' disrespect.
SUMMARY An analysis of German and international reference works shows that classroom acoustics have been sadly neglected worldwide. This is just as true for German as for other countries. In the United States, however, classroom acoustics has become increasingly important. From all parts of the world, values for noise levels are being reported which are no longer permissible in industrial and commercial places of work. That means: while parents are protected at their places of work, their children are ex- pected to endure such conditions for years. The investigations also show that children suffer from learning difficulties under such stressful condi- tions. On occasions these can even lead to children doing significantly worse in tests in their noisy classrooms than under quiet conditions. Our report summarizes the verifiable difficulties children have when learning to read and speak in noisy surroundings. Today there appears to be justifi- cation for the assumption that poor performance at school has, to a great extent, to be put down to the inadequate ergonomic conditions found in schools. Noise caused in schools themselves together with the dreadful acoustics are mainly responsible for that.
This paper reports a preliminary investigation into the vocal health of primary, secondary and grammar school teachers. Data is specific to Northern Ireland and was obtained through the use of specially designed questionnaires which were sent to speech and language therapists and a group of teachers and non-teachers outside the clinical setting. The findings show that teachers run a considerably higher risk of presenting in clinic with a voice problem. There is evidence of marked differences in self-reported symptoms, perceived causative factors and attitudes to management of voice problems among teachers compared to non-teachers. These findings support the implementation of specific voice conservation and care for those in the teaching profession.
A comprehensive survey of teacher stress, job satisfaction and career commitment among 710 full-time primary school teachers was undertaken by Borg, Riding & Falzon (1991) in the Mediterranean islands of Malta and Gozo. A principal components analysis of a 20-item sources of teacher stress inventory had suggested four distinct dimensions which were labelled: Pupil Misbehaviour, Time/Resource Difficulties, Professional Recognition Needs, and Poor Relationships, respectively. To check on the validity of the Borg et al. factor solution, the group of 710 teachers was randomly split into two separate samples. Exploratory factor analysis was carried out on the data from Sample 1 (N = 335), while Sample 2 (N = 375) provided the cross-validational data for a LISREL confirmatory factor analysis. Results supported the proposed dimensionality of the sources of teacher stress (measurement model), along with evidence of an additional teacher stress factor (Workload). Consequently, structural modelling of the 'causal relationships' between the various latent variables and self-reported stress was undertaken on the combined samples (N = 710). Although both non-recursive and recursive models incorporating Poor Colleague Relations as a mediating variable were tested for their goodness-of-fit, a simple regression model provided the most parsimonious fit to the empirical data, wherein Workload and Student Misbehaviour accounted for most of the variance in predicting teaching stress.
Exposure to noise constitutes a health risk. There is sufficient scientific evidence that noise exposure can induce hearing impairment, hypertension and ischemic heart disease, annoyance, sleep disturbance, and decreased school performance. For other effects such as changes in the immune system and birth defects, the evidence is limited. Most public health impacts of noise were already identified in the 1960s and noise abatement is less of a scientific but primarily a policy problem. A subject for further research is the elucidation of the mechanisms underlying noise-induced cardiovascular disorders and the relationship of noise with annoyance and nonacoustical factors modifying health outcomes. A high priority study subject is the effects of noise on children, including cognitive effects and their reversibility. Noise exposure is on the increase, especially in the general living environment, both in industrialized nations and in developing world regions. This implies that in the twenty-first century noise exposure will still be a major public health problem.
Images
Figure 2
This article reports two studies intended to develop and assess conceptual models of how different factors mediate and moderate the annoyance reaction in school environments. In the first, a survey of 207 pupils was conducted where assumptions about mediators and moderators were formulated and tested. In the best model, general sensitivity and adaptation led to a higher degree of annoyance causing stress symptoms. In the second study, focus group interviews with 16 pupils were performed to set up a model of mediating and moderating factors from pupils’statements in the formation of annoyance. The objectivewas also to get their opinions aboutways to improve the sound environment in school. The interviews indicated a serial arrangement in which stress symptoms and distraction mediated between chatter and disturbance. Thus, the two studies suggested different models for the prediction of the annoyance reaction. The pupils’ views about how to improve the school sound environment are discussed in the framework of an empowerment model.
The purpose of this study was to create guidelines for stress management intervention by investigating the relationship of 12 factors with stress reactions (emotional exhaustion and irritation) and feelings of mastery among Swedish comprehensive school teachers. Data were collected via a questionnaire distributed to 928 teachers in 27 schools. The response rate was 89%. Multiple regressions were conducted on colleague support, cooperation, coordination problems, goal clarity, learning orientation, manager support, negative feedback, positive feedback, pupil misbehaviour, teacher age, work control and perceived work demands, all as independent variables. Perceived work demands was treated as a dependent variable in an additional regression analysis. Teacher stress reactions were best predicted by perceived work demands, pupil misbehaviour and negative feedback. Feelings of mastery were best predicted by learning orientation, positive feedback and goal clarity. In the additional analysis perceived work demands was best predicted by pupil misbehaviour, coordination problems and (low) work control. Practical implications are discussed.
School teaching is regarded as a stressful occupation, but the perception of the job as stressful may be influenced by coping responses and social support.
To assess the associations between teacher stress, psychological coping responses and social support, taking into account the plaintive set engendered by negative affectivity.
Questionnaire survey of 780 primary and secondary school teachers (53.5% response rate).
In stepwise multiple regression, social support at work and the coping responses behavioural disengagement and suppression of competing activities predicted job stress independently of age, gender, class size, occupational grade and negative affectivity. High job stress was associated with low social support at work and greater use of coping by disengagement and suppression of competing activities.
It is suggested that behavioural disengagement and suppression of competing activities are maladaptive responses in a teaching environment and may actually contribute to job stress. Coping and social support not only moderate the impact of stressors on well-being but influence the appraisal of environmental demands as stressful.
Recordings were made at the beginning and end of workdays of teachers who experience vocal fatigue (n = 22) and those who do not experience fatigue (n = 17). Those who experienced fatigue were recorded on days in which they did and did not fatigue. Both groups evaluated their vocal characteristics, each time they made a recording. Subsequently, a listener panel evaluated the same characteristics from the recordings. Both groups estimated the amount and characteristics of their talking time, completed a psychological evaluation and provided medical histories. The authors interpret the data obtained as indicating that the vocal characteristics of teachers who fatigue and those who do not fatigue are similar on days the former group does not fatigue and that the two groups are similar in the amount and loudness of their talking time, at work and at home. However, teachers who fatigue tend to spend more time in activities that appear to be vocally demanding and are more likely to perceive situations as being anxiety producing. Teachers who fatigue tend to be in good health, but have had more hearing problems and allergies than their colleagues and more of their family members have had voice problems.
This study compared the frequency and effects of voice symptoms in teachers to a group of individuals employed in other occupations. Teachers were more likely to report having a voice problem (15 vs. 6%), having 10 specific voice symptoms, and having 5 symptoms of physical discomfort. They averaged almost 2 symptoms compared with none for nonteachers. Likewise, teachers were more likely to perceive that a voice problem would adversely affect their future career options, had done so in the past, and was limiting their current job performance. Over 20% of teachers but none of the nonteachers had missed any days of work due to a voice problem. These findings suggest that teaching is a high-risk occupation for voice disorders and that this health problem may have significant work-related and economic effects.