An Evaluation of Primary School Students' Views about Noise Levels in School

Abstract

An effective education and teaching requires keeping classroom noise level within specific limits. The purpose of this study is to evaluate students’ views about noise level in school, its effects, and control of it at two primary schools (one public school and one private school) located in a district of Bursa province within the scope of the TÜBİTAK 1001 project numbered 114K738. The research sample consists of 432 third and fourth graders, 223 of whom are from the public school and 209 of whom are from the private school. To collect data, a 20-question questionnaire was administered to the students, and noise measurements were carried out in the schools. According to the findings obtained from the analysis of the answers given to the student questionnaire, the students think that noise level is high especially at break times. In parallel with the student views, average noise level at break time was found to be 74.56 dBA at the private primary school and 82.18 dBA at the public primary school. These values are much higher than the limits prescribed in the Regulation on Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise in Turkey (RAMEN) European Union Harmonization Laws. The research findings show that this important problem must be dealt with urgently, and concrete efforts and activities must be launched to reduce high noise levels in schools.

Full text

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 9(4), 725-740, June 2017.
ISSN:1307-9298
Copyright © IEJEE
www.iejee.com
An Evaluation of Primary School Students’ Views
about Noise Levels in School*
Nermin BULUNUZ a **
Mızrap BULUNUZ a
Ali Yurdun ORBAK a
Nejla MULU a
Ömer Faruk TAVŞANLI a
a Uludağ University, Turkey
Received: 30 November 2016 / Revised: 13 March 2017 / Accepted: 27 March 2017
Abstract
Effective education and teaching requires keeping classroom noise levels within specific limits. The
purpose of this study is to evaluate students’ views about the noise level in school, its effects, and
control of it at two primary schools (one public school and one private school) located in a district
of Bursa - within the scope of the TÜBİTAK 1001 project numbered 114K738. The research sample
consists of 432 third and fourth graders, 223 of whom are from the public school and 209 of whom
are from the private school. To collect data, a 20-question survey was administered to the students,
and noise measurements were carried out in the schools. According to the findings obtained from
the analysis of the answers from the student questionnaire, the students think that the noise level is
high especially during break times. In parallel with the student views, the average noise level at
break time during recess was found to be 74.56 dBA at the private primary school and 82.18 dBA at
the public primary school. These values are much higher than the limits prescribed in the
Regulation on Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise in Turkey (RAMEN) European
Union Harmonization Laws. The research findings show that this important problem must be dealt
with urgently, and substantive efforts and activities must be launched to reduce high noise levels in
schools.
Keywords: Noise in school, Noise pollution, Student views
Introduction
When the quality of education and teaching in schools is mentioned, what comes to mind
first are the physical and technical infrastructure of schools, classroom sizes, quality of
teachers, syllabi, and textbooks. Surely, each of these factors is very important. Another
factor, equally important but much less frequently noted, is the suitability of the school
climate. School climate is defined as the set of elements influencing teachers’ and students’
attitudes and behaviors (Ari, Tunçer & Demir, 2016; Çelik, 2002). According to Şentürk
* This study was conducted within the Scope of the TÜBİTAK 1001 Project numbered 114K738, titled “Noise
level in school, its causes and effects, and control of it” and orally presented at the “15th International Primary
Teacher Education Symposium” (USOS) held at Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University from 11 to 14 May 2016.
** Corresponding author: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nermin Bulunuz, Uludağ University, Faculty of Education, Bursa,
Turkey. Phone: +90 (224) 294 22 38, E-mail: nermin.bulunuz@gmail.com

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.9, Issue 4, 725-740, June 2017
726
and Sağnak (2012), the school climate is highly associated with the attitudes and
behaviors of students and teachers in school because students and teachers develop
attitudes and behaviors by breathing in the atmosphere of their school. Noise is one of the
main factors having a negative effect on school climate and learning environment (Akman,
Ketenoğlu, Evren, Kurt & Düzenli, 2000). Noise refers to sound waves with high energy. Its
intensity is measured by decibel meter. Noise pollution is defined as various sounds in the
physical space that prevent hearing sounds that are intended to be heard, annoy, distract
attention, and negatively affect physiological and psychological health (Arı & Saban, 1999;
Polat & Buluş-Kırıkkaya, 2004; Schlittmeier, Hellbrück & Klatte, 2008).
It is school administrators and teachers that play the most important role in creating the
school climate. School administrators can improve students’ and teachers’ motivation, and
enhance the productivity of education and teaching by leading the creation of a healthier
school climate. A healthy school climate offers a learning environment that supports
students’ academic, psychological, and behavioral development. In other words, a healthy
school climate is a must idiomatic for students’ academic achievement, psychological
health, and positive behavior acquisition (Çelik, 2000; Erwin, Fedewa & Ahn, 2013).
According to Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (1996), as physical environment provides a
frame for learning, it can both improve and prevent learning. Therefore, creation of a
quiet, peaceful, calm, and noiseless school climate from preschool to university stands as
one of the most important factors determining the quality of education and teaching
provided there. According to Varış (1998), a school must have a physical structure that
offers an effective communication environment in order to accomplish its goals. Noise is
not welcomed in school as it prevents auditory perception by covering sounds (Bilal,
2009). Güney (1998) defines noisy behaviors as signs of disrespect and lack of manners.
The effects of noise on human health fall into four categories: physical effects,
physiological effects, psychological effects, and performance effects (Yücel & Altunkasa,
1999). Main physical problem is hearing loss and tinnitus, which emerges as ciliated cells
in the inner ear are damaged as a result of exposure to intense noise. In physiological
terms, noise increases blood pressure, causes circulatory abnormalities, speeds up
breathing, and leads to sudden reflexes. In addition, the experiments carried out on mice
show that noise decreases and damps sexual desire (Güney, 1998). Among its
psychological effects are unhappiness, nervous breakdown, depression, behavioral
disorder, anger, boredom, and loss of attention. For example, students have difficulty in
concentrating and learning in excessively noisy classrooms (Güney, 1998). Lastly, noise
reduces performance or productivity at work by causing tiredness, weariness, loss of
concentration, and sleeplessness (Güney, 1998; Yücel & Altunkasa, 1999). Effective
education and teaching require keeping classroom noise level within specific limits.
According to Avşar and Gönüllü (2000), any noise level that exceeds determined limits
negatively affects the quality of education and teaching by leading to the following adverse
consequences:
 Masking of the speech and reduction in perception capability,
 Loss of psychological and physical attention,
 Longer duration of learning by reading,
 Bad temper and less interest in lessons among students,
 Teachers raising their voice due to noise and thus getting tired in a short period of
time.
Research conducted in primary and secondary schools in Turkey shows that noise
pollution in schools is much higher than the level determined by the Ministry of
Environment and Urbanization (Bilal, 2009; Bulunuz, 2014; Çelik, 2002; Özbıçakcı, Çapık,
Aydoğdu, Ersin & Kıssal, 2012; Polat & Buluş-Kırıkkaya, 2007; Şentürk & Sağnak 2012;

Noise Levels in School / Bulunuz, Bulunuz, Orbak, Mutlu & Tavşanlı
727
Tamer, Küçükçifçi & Şan, 2011; Tüzel, 2013; Varış, 1998). According to Regulation on
Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise in Turkey (RAMEN) European
Union Harmonization Laws, the indoor noise upper limit for classrooms is 35dB with
windows closed and 45dB with windows open; it is 40dB for theater halls; and it is 55dB
in dining halls (RAMEN, 2008). However, measurements carried out in schools in Turkey
indicate that noise levels in schools are much higher than the above-mentioned limits
(Bulunuz, 2014; Tamer-Bayazıt et al., 2011). For example, Tamer et al. (2011) conducted a
study on primary school students and found the level of noise experienced at break times
in 84% of the schools to be 76-89 dB. In their research on primary school students,
Özbıçakçı et al. (2012) found that the measured noise levels are so high that they can lead
to temporary hearing loss among students. Students are exposed to very high noise levels
at break times, which undermine the goal of giving the students a rest.are indeed reserved
for students to have a rest. In another study, in-class noise level was found to be 70.8-72.5
dB in primary and secondary schools (Polat & Buluş-Kırıkkaya, 2004).
Tüzel (2013) conducted a study to determine the degree to which in-class noise affects the
5th grade students’ skills of understanding and remembering what they listen to and made
146-person sample group listen to two texts, one in a noisy (79 dBA) classroom
environment and one in a noiseless classroom environment with sound insulation (36
dBA). He separately administered a test about understanding and recall for each text. He
found out that classroonoise had a strong effect on the 5th grade students’ levels of
understanding and remembering what was listened to and thus reduced their learning
performance. In the noiseless environment, in contrast, the students both understood
what they listened to better and remembered them at a higher level. In the study aiming to
reduce noise pollution in primary schools by providing training, Bulunuz (2014) training
did not result in a measurable reduction to the noise pollution level, which was measured
to be 80-90 dB at break times in particular, but students’ and teachers’ awareness and
consciousness of noise pollution was raised in the research process.
The international literature on this topic includes many studies that determine identify,
measure, and define noise pollution in schools and in the vicinity of schools (Choi &
McPherson, 2005; Grebenniko, 2006; İkenberrgy, 1974; Shield & Dockrell, 2004:2009),
which suggest the design of noise-reducing acoustic structures and use of sound absorbing
materials in schools (Ikenberrgy, 1974), and which investigate noise pollution and its
effects on student achievement in schools (Skarlatos & Manatakis, 2003; Shield &
Dockrell, 2008; Jewell, 1980). The studies about noise pollution in Turkey, on the other
hand, mostly focus on identifying noise pollution in cities and factories and its negative
effects on the environment (Kumbur, Özsoy, & Özer, 2003; Uslu & Yücel, 1997). Although
schools are among the places where noise pollution is experienced most intensely,
ULAKBİM (Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilim Merkezi) database contains very few studies
dealing with the size and effects of noise pollution in Turkey (Özbıçakçı & Çapık, 2012;
Polat & Buluş-Kırıkkaya, 2007; Tamer-Bayazıt, Küçükçiftçi & Şan, 2011).
The negative effects of noise pollution have been proved by previous research (Choi &
McPherson, 2005; Grebennikov, 2006; İkenberrgy, 1974; Shield & Dockrell, 2004:2009).
International studies indicate that noise pollution in school has a negative effect on
students’ learning and academic achievement (Jewell, 1980; Shield & Dockrell, 2008;
Skarlatos & Manatakis, 2003). Jewell (1980) conducted a study to determine the effect of
noise level on technical vocational high school students’ duration time of completing tasks
and found that high noise levels increased their duration time of completing tasks. This
finding is an important evidence of the harm caused by noise in students’ school
performance. Additionally, a previous research indicates that in-class noise significantly

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.9, Issue 4, 725-740, June 2017
728
reduces performance in learning how to read and write (Berg, Blair, & Benson, 1996;
Evans, & Lepore, 1993; Hetu, Truchon-Gagnon, & Bilodeau, 1990; Mackenzie, 2000).
Scopenhauer, a German philosopher, argues that a person’s strength to endure noise is
inversely correlated with his mental stability (Güney, 1998). Güney (1998) categorizes the
sources of noise into two groups: “inevitable noises” and “preventable noises stemming
from human behaviors”. While noises deriving from construction work and noises
deriving from road, airway, and seaway traffic can be considered inevitable noises, the
acts of people that do not respect one another in the environments they live in can be
considered to be preventable noises stemming from human behaviors. Some examples of
preventable noises are speaking loudly in indoor or outdoor environments, shouting,
running, listening to loud music, singing loudly, and screaming. As educational level,
consciousness, and knowledge level increase, noises stemming from human behaviors
decrease (Güney, 1998).
The purpose of this study is to evaluate student views regarding noise level in schools, its
effects, and control of it in two schools, one of which is a public school while the other is a
private school located in a district of Bursa. Research questions are as follows:
 What are the general views of students regarding noise levels in school?
 What percentages of students are affected by different types of noise coming
from inside and outside of the school?
 What are students’ views about the control of noise pollution in school?
Method
Sample
The study was conducted in two primary schools, one public school and one private
school, with similar socioeconomic levels located in the Nilüfer district of Bursa province.
Participants of the study were determined according to convenience sampling. The sample
of the study includes 223 students from the public school and 209 students from the
private school (i.e. a total of 432 students). The sample consisted of 222 female, and 210
male. They are third and fourth grade students. Their ages ranges between 9-10 years old.
Research Model
Survey modelling, which is a research method, was employed in the study. As is known,
survey models are the approaches aiming to define a situation in the past or present as the
way it was/is (Karasar, 1998). The responses given to the questionnaire by the primary
school students via survey method provided an insight to detect their current opinions
regarding noise levels in their schools.
Data Collection Tools
Two types of quantitative data were collected to analyze noise pollution level in the
schools. The first type of data was obtained through the student questionnaire including
20 questions developed within the scope of the project regarding noise levels in schools,
the reasons for it, and how to control it. Fourteen questions in the student questionnaire
are in the form of a 5 point Likert scale. The rest of the questions are in the form of
multiple choice questions. The second type of data was obtained through measurement of
noise in decibels via noise measurement devices (decibel meters) purchased within the
scope of the project.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to describe the findings from the student questionnaire.
Analysis results are presented via graphs and tables by comparing frequencies and

Noise Levels in School / Bulunuz, Bulunuz, Orbak, Mutlu & Tavşanlı
729
percentage values. The data collected via the noise measurement device (decibel meter)
were analyzed via “Noise at Work” software purchased within the scope of project. Noise
data collected from various spots of two schools are presented in decibels. More than one
data collection tools were used in the study to promote the validity of measurement by
using triangulation method (Cresswell, 2003). The data collection tools were the
questionnaire about students' opinions about the noise level of their school and the
measurements of actual noise level of the school determined by the decibel meter.
Findings
Findings Regarding the First Research Question
The first research question of the study is “What are the general views of students
regarding the noise level in school?”. The findings obtained from two data collection tools
to answer this question are given below:
1a. Findings Obtained from the Student Questionnaire
The responses given by the public school and private school students to the student
questionnaire were analyzed separately. Graph 1 below shows the views of third and
fourth grade students regarding noise levels in the private school:
Graph 1. The Private Elementary School Students’ Views Regarding the Noise Level in School
According to the results presented in Graph 1 above showing findings obtained from 108
3rd grade and 101 4th grade students (i.e. a total of 209), approximately 97% of the
primary school students think that there is noise pollution in their schools. In response to
the question “What do you think is the level of noise - in your school?”, 55.5% of the
students stated noise to be high, while 40.7% stated it to be medium, and 3.8% stated it to
be “low”.
The private elementary school students were asked not only about general noise levels but
also specifically about noise levels during lessons and break times. The private school
students considered the noise level during lessons to be high at a percentage of 29.3%,
medium at a percentage of 39.5%, and low at a percentage of 25.9%. The students think
that the noise level during break times is high at a percentage of 81.2%, medium at a
percentage of 16.9%, and low at a percentage of 2%.
Graph 2 below shows findings obtained from the public school students’ views regarding
noise levels in their school:
55,5
40,7
3,8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
High Medium Low
Noise Pollution Level According the Students' Answers
Private Elementary School
(N=209)

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.9, Issue 4, 725-740, June 2017
730
Graph 2. Public Elementary School Students’ Views Regarding Noise Level in Their School
The responses given by the public primary school students, 25 of whom are third grade
and 198 of whom are fourth grade (a total of 223), show that 66.7% of the students think
noise level in their school is high, 25.2% think it is medium, and 8.1% think it is low.
The public elementary school 3rd and 4th grade students were asked not only about general
noise level but also noise level during lessons and break times. 37.4% think that noise
level during lessons is high while 39.6% think it is medium and 23% think it is low. The
students’ views regarding noise level during break times are as follows: 83.6% think it is
high; 12.8% think it is medium; and 3.6% think it is low.
1b. The Findings Obtained from the Noise Measurement Device (Decibel Meter)
Separate measurements were made during the lessons, break times, in classrooms, halls,
and outdoor play areas of private and public primary schools. The values that appeared on
the measurement device were carefully recorded. Table 1 and 2 show values obtained
from the noise measurement device in decibels (dB) recorded in classrooms, halls, and
outdoor play areas of private and public primary schools during lessons and break times:
Table 1. Noise Measurement Values During the Lessons (dB)
Inside the classroom
Halls
Outdoor Play Areas
Private Primary
School
65.80
56.80
61.50
Public Primary School
66.66
58.30
61.79
The average noise levels that are shown in the Table 1 were recorded in winter months,
that is, when the windows were closed. According to the regulation of the Ministry of
Environment and Urbanization, the background noise level when the windows are closed
is normally 35 dB. Maximum noise level that is allowed for such places is 60 dB. As known,
66,7
25,2
8,1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
High Medium Low
Noise Pollution Level According to the Students' Answers
Public Elementary School
(N=223)

Noise Levels in School / Bulunuz, Bulunuz, Orbak, Mutlu & Tavşanlı
731
an increase of 10 dB means double the noise. In this sense, the findings show that noise
levels in the schools are twice as high as the normal level.
Table 2. Noise Measurement Values during the Break Times (dB)
Inside the classroom
Halls
Outdoor Play Areas
Private Primary
School
82.32
81.35
68.44
Public Primary School
80.54
82.67
76.04
The values shown in Table 2 indicate that noise levels in both schools during the break
times are far above the specified levels. The hall noise average of the schools during break
times is around 80 dB. This value corresponds to the range of 60-90 dB, which is
excessively annoying.
Findings Regarding the Second Research Question
The second research question is “What percentage of students are affected by different
types of noise coming from inside and outside of the school?”. The reasons for noise in
schools were divided into two: inside of the school and outside of the school. The reasons
for internal noise are: 1) the noises resulting from the students shouting, screaming,
singing inside the classrooms or halls; 2) the noises resulting from the students’ physical
behaviors such as pulling the desks, banging the doors, and running; and 3) the noises
resulting from possessions and devices such as lighting devices, electrical hard-surface
cleaning machines, ringing, and announcements. The noises coming from outside of the
school include: 1) car and traffic noises such as horns; 2) noises resulting from nearby
construction sites; and 3) industrial and commercial facility noise stemming from
factories, shopping places, entertainment places, and bazaars. Table 3 shows the findings
obtained from the private primary school students’ responses to this question.
Table 3. The Private Primary School Students’ Views Regarding Noise Levels in Their School
Private Primary School
It does not
annoy me.
It annoys me a
bit.
It is moderately
annoying me.
It annoys me.
It annoys me
very much.
NOISE SOURCES INSIDE
OF THE SCHOOL
Students’ voices (e.g.
shouting)
29
13.9%
36
17.2%
42
20.1%
50
23.9%
52
24.9%
Physical movements (e.g.
banging the door, pulling
the desks)
22
10.6%
46
22.1%
39
18.8%
58
27.9%
43
20.7%
Devices (ringing and
announcement)
129
54.5%
53
25.4%
15
7.2%
6
2.9%
6
2.9%
TOTAL

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.9, Issue 4, 725-740, June 2017
732
Table 3. Cont.
NOISE SOURCES OUTSIDE
OF THE SCHOOL
Traffic noise
62
29.7%
60
28.7%
27
12.9%
32
15.3%
28
13.4%
Noise of constructions, etc.
62
30%
52
25.1%
51
24.6%
15
7.2%
27
13.0%
Noise of industrial facilities,
etc.
107
51.4%
41
19.7%
33
15.9%
13
6.3%
14
6.7%
TOTAL
The findings obtained from the private primary school students’ responses show that 1)
24.9% of the students (52) are “annoyed very much” due to students’ voices (e.g.
screaming) while 23.92% (50) are “annoyed”; 2) 27.9% (58) are “annoyed” due to the
noises resulting from physical movements (e.g. banging the doors, pulling the desks) while
22.1% (46) stated that they are “annoyed a bit”; 3) 54.4% (129) of students are “not
annoyed” by ringing and announcements while 25.4% (53) are “annoyed a bit”. In
addition, 29.7% (62) of the students are “not annoyed” by traffic noises, which is one of
the noise sources outside of the school, while 28.7% (60) are “annoyed a bit”; 30% (62)
are “not annoyed” by the construction noises in the surrounding area; however, 25.1%
(52) are “annoyed a bit”; 51.4% (107) are “not annoyed” by the noise coming from
industrial facilities and so on while 19.7% (41) are “annoyed a bit”.
The findings obtained from the public primary school students’ responses regarding the
second research question are given in Table 4.
Table 4. The Public Primary School Students’ Views Regarding Noise Levels in Schools
Public Primary School
It does not
annoy me.
It annoys me a
bit.
It is moderately
annoying me.
It annoys me.
It annoys me
very much.
NOISE SOURCES INSIDE OF
THE SCHOOL
Students’ voices (e.g.
shouting.)
32
14.6%
22
10.0%
31
14.2%
43
19.6%
91
41.6%
Physical movements
(e.g. banging the door,
pulling the desks)
31
14.0%
31
14.0%
34
15.3%
50
22.5%
76
34.2%
Devices (ringing and
announcement)
101
45.7%
44
19.9%
31
14%
18
8.1%
27
12.2%

Noise Levels in School / Bulunuz, Bulunuz, Orbak, Mutlu & Tavşanlı
733
Table 4. Cont.
NOISE SOURCES OUTSIDE
OF THE SCHOOL
Traffic noise
51
23%
46
20.7%
35
15.8%
38
17.1%
52
23.4%
Noise of construction,
etc.
60
27.3%
37
16.8%
30
13.6%
38
17.3%
55
25%
Noises of industrial
facilities, etc.
107
48.2%
31
14%
28
12.6%
27
12.2%
29
13.1%
TOTAL
The students participating in the project from the public primary school are “annoyed very
much” at the rate of 41.6% (91) by the students shouting and screaming inside the school
while 19.6% (43) are “annoyed”. 34.2% (76) of the students are “annoyed very much” due
to noise resulting from physical movements (e.g. banging the door, pulling the desks)
while 225% (50) are “annoyed”. 45.7% (101) of the students are “not annoyed” due to
ringing and announcements while 19.9% (44) are “annoyed a bit”. 23.4% (52) of the
students are “annoyed very much” due to traffic noise, which is one of the noise sources
outside of the school, while 23% (51) are “not annoyed”. 27.3% of the students are “not
annoyed” due to the noise coming from the surrounding construction works while 25%
are “annoyed very much”. In addition, 48.2% of the students are “not annoyed” due to the
noise coming from industrial facility while 14% (31) are “annoyed a bit”.
Findings Regarding the Third Research Question
The third research question was “What are students’ views about the control of noise
pollution in school?”. Table 5 below compares private primary school and public primary
school students’ views regarding being affected by sources of noise:
Table 5. Students’ Views regarding Being Affected by Sources of Noise
Items
Options
Private Primary
School
Public Primary
School
f
%
f
%
How well can you hear your
friends at break times?
I do not hear at all
2
1
4
1.8
I have difficulty in
hearing
40
19.1
50
22.4
I hear normally
85
40.7
68
30.5
I hear well
26
12.4
40
17.9
I hear very well
56
26.8
61
27.4

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.9, Issue 4, 725-740, June 2017
734
Table 5. Cont.
What do you feel about noise
level at break times?
I am very annoyed
35
16.8
63
28.4
I am annoyed
92
44.2
79
35.6
I find it normal
60
28.8
52
23.4
I am comfortable
15
7.2
18
8.1
I am very comfortable
6
2.9
10
4.5
How well can you hear your
teacher during lessons in
general?
I do not hear at all
0
0
3
1.3
I have difficulty in
hearing
8
3.9
18
8.1
I hear normally
47
22.8
56
25.1
I hear well
42
20.4
40
17.9
I hear very well
109
52.9
106
47.5
What do you feel about noise
during lessons?
It does not annoy me at
all.
7
3.3
14
6.3
It does not annoy me.
17
8.2
12
5.4
Normal
68
32.9
56
25.3
It annoys me.
78
37.7
82
37.1
It annoys me a lot.
37
17.9
57
25.8
In response to the question “How well can you hear your friends at break times?”, 40.7%
(85) of the students attending the private primary school and 30.5% (68) of the students
attending the public school stated that they can hear their friends “normally”.
In response to the question “What do you feel about the noise level at break times?”,
44.2% (92) of the students attending the private primary school and 35.6% (79) of the
students attending the public school stated that they are annoyed by the noise.
In response to the question “How well can you hear your teacher during lessons in
general?”, 52.9% (109) of the students attending the private primary school and 47.5%
(106) of the students attending the public school stated that they can hear their teachers
very well.
In response to the question “What do you feel about noise during lessons?”, 37.7% (78) of
the students attending the private primary school and 37.1% (82) of the students
attending the public school stated that they are annoyed by the noise during lessons.
Table 6 below compares project participant private primary school and public primary
school students’ views regarding the control of noise pollution in school:

Noise Levels in School / Bulunuz, Bulunuz, Orbak, Mutlu & Tavşanlı
735
Table 6. Students’ Views Regarding the Control of Noise Pollution in School
Items
Options
Private Public
School
Public Primary
School
f
%
f
%
What kind of a relationship do
you think there is between the
noise you are exposed to at
school and your achievement in
lessons?
There is no relationship at
all
32
15.5
25
11.2
It is unrelated
27
13.1
25
11.2
It is somewhat related
72
35
43
19.3
It is related
43
20.9
45
20.2
It is very related
32
15.5
85
38.1
How often do you warn your
friends when you see them
displaying noisy behaviors in the
school building such as running
and speaking loudly?
I never warn
16
7.7
24
10.8
I rarely warn
35
16.8
35
15.7
I sometimes warn
102
49.0
83
37.2
I often warn
40
19.2
45
20.2
I always warn
15
7.2
36
16.1
How often do your teachers warn
you when they see you
displaying noisy behaviors in the
school building?
They never warn
15
7.3
19
8.6
They rarely warn
27
13.1
15
6.8
They sometimes warn
37
18.0
37
16.7
They always warn
52
25.2
90
40.7
Do you believe that noise level in
school can be reduced?
I do not believe by any
means
22
10.5
35
15.7
I do not believe
22
10.5
32
14.3
I am neutral
84
40.2
91
40.8
I believe
47
22.5
40
17.9
I definitely believe
34
16.3
25
11.2
In response to the question “What kind of a relationship do you think there is between the
noise you are exposed to at school and your achievement in lessons?”, 35% (72) of the
students attending the private primary school think that the noise they are exposed to at
school is somewhat related to their achievement in lessons while 38.1% (85) of the
students attending the private primary school think that the noise they are exposed to at
school is very related to their achievement in lessons. In response to the question “How
often do you warn your friends when you see them displaying noisy behaviors in the

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.9, Issue 4, 725-740, June 2017
736
school building such as running and speaking loudly?”, 49% (102) of the students
attending the private primary school and 37.2% (83) of the students attending the public
primary school stated that they “sometimes warn”.
In response to the question “How often do your teachers warn you when they see you
displaying noisy behaviors in the school building?”, 36.4% (75) of the students attending
the private primary school stated that their teachers warn them “often” while 40.7% (90)
of the students attending the public primary school stated that their teachers warn them
“always”. Lastly, in response to the question “Do you believe that noise level in school can
be reduced?”, 40.2% (84) of the students attending the private primary school and 40.8%
(91) of the students attending the public primary school stated that they are neutral about
the reduction of noise in their school.
Results
Results Related to the First Research Question
The first research question of the study is “What are the general views of students
regarding noise level in school?”. Student responses regarding the relevant question from
the questionnaire were descriptively analyzed in order to answer this question. Analysis
results show that a great majority of students studying in private and public primary
schools think that general noise levels in the schools are “high” during the break times.
The comparison of responses given by the students from both primary schools indicate
that 55.5% of the private school students and 66.7% of the public school students think
that noise levels in the schools are “high”. Consequently, the noise is “high during the
break times” according to primary school students participated in the study. Noise
measurement values obtained from private and public schools show that the private
school and the public school have equal levels of noise excluding field measurements that
depend on their physical conditions and locations (e.g. streets).
Students think that noise levels during the break times are much higher compared to the
noise level during the classes. Indeed, break times are the periods to let students have a
rest after an intense 40 minutes of class. However, they are the periods during which the
noise level is the highest. Higher values during the break times than the values recorded
during the classes are quite natural. However, the resulting noise annoys the students and
the teachers in the environment. In addition, it may be negatively influencing their ear
health. Noise level in the halls particularly during the break times does not allow students
and teachers to have a rest. On the contrary, it is a level that leads them to be more tired.
Comparison of audial check spelling on audial environments (acoustic comfort) of the
schools where the research took place show that all the classrooms of the private school
have “suspended ceilings” with high levels of sound absorption whereas the halls do not
have suspended ceilings. In addition, the grounds of the private school classrooms are
covered with “linoleum” to yield less sound when desks are pulled, students run, or hit. On
the other hand, the classrooms of public school are not equipped with suspended ceilings
and linoleum flooring. If the ceiling, ground and walls of a school are not covered with
sound absorbing materials, the sound goes backwards and forwards just like a bouncing
ball in the environment leading resonance to be rather disturbing and deteriorating our
health. Though the audial environment of the private school is better than the public
school, students studying at the private school also think that noise level in their school is
“high”. The responses given by the private school students show that covering only
classroom ceilings and grounds with sound absorbing materials are not sufficient to
reduce the noise.

Noise Levels in School / Bulunuz, Bulunuz, Orbak, Mutlu & Tavşanlı
737
The awareness of students and teachers that they were being measured also may have
influenced behavior. For instance, one teacher was heard to remind: “My boy, please be
quiet, they are measuring the noise!”. Therefore it may be that the measured values are a
bit lower than the natural environment of the classrooms. In spite of this fact, the
measured values were higher than the maximum values. The noise level range is between
45 to 50 dB when the students are in classrooms. The school halls have a noise of 55 dB or
over when the students are in the classrooms and the doors are closed. This can be
explained by poor acoustic design of the classrooms and the halls, high levels of speaking
in the classrooms by students as well as the teachers, or common noisy behaviors of the
students during the classes. The noise level measured in the field of the school when the
students were in the classrooms is high and over the 55 dB specified in the regulation.
This is associated with the noise stemming from traffic of the nearby housing complexes
or apartment buildings and the noisy location of the school. The obtained results are in
line with the results of previous studies indicating that noise levels in the schools of
Turkey are high (Bulunuz, 2014; Özbıçakçı & Çapık, 2012; Polat & Buluş-Kırıkkaya, 2007;
Tamer-Bayazıt, Küçükçiftçi & Şan, 2011).
Results Related to the Second Research Question
The second research question is “What percentages of students are affected by different
types of noise coming from inside and outside of the school?”. The responses given by the
students attending the private and public school show that 52% of the private school
students are “annoyed very much” due to students’ shouting whereas 58% of the students
are “annoyed” due to the noise resulting from physical movements such as banging the
doors, pulling the desks and so on. However, the same group stated that they are “not
annoyed” by the noise resulting from the devices (announcements, ringing), traffic, nearby
construction, and industrial facilities. These results are were highly consistent with the
responses given by the public school students. Similarly, public school students are
annoyed by the extreme “noise” resulting from human voices and movements. However,
students do not perceive other sound sources as “noise” and do not feel annoyed. The
results obtained from these findings indicate that students are particularly annoyed due to
the noise resulting from students’ random shouting, calling, or screaming especially during
the break times within the school building. On the other hand, students of both schools
seem to have accepted the noise created by the noise sources outside the school and
emphasize that they do not feel annoyed. It is obvious that the participants are not aware
what is called “noise” and what is not.
Results Obtained from the Third Research Question
The third research question was “What are students’ views about the control of noise
pollution in school?”. In response to the question “What kind of a relationship do you think
there is between the noise you are exposed to at school and your achievement in your
lessons?”, 35% (72) of the students attending the private primary school and 38.1% (85)
of the students attending the private primary school think that the noise they are exposed
to at school is very related to their achievement in lessons. This implies that the students
do not have enough knowledge of how the level of noise they are exposed to in school
negatively affects their achievement in their lessons. The students’ answers show that they
are not aware of the physical and psychological dangers of noise and how it threatens
their health.
How to they respond to noise? Do they warn their friends against making noise? In this
matter, 49% of the students attending the private primary school and 37.2% of the
students attending the public primary school stated that they “sometimes warn” their
friends. What about the way teachers respond to students making noise? On this issue,

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.9, Issue 4, 725-740, June 2017
738
36.4% of the students attending the private public school stated that their teachers warn
them “often” while 40.7% (90) of the students attending the public primary school stated
that their teachers warn them “always”. In other words, less than half of the students of
both schools stated that they were warned them by their teachers. This implies that
teachers do not have a decisive and strict attitude towards students displaying e
generating behaviors and do not warn students. Lastly, students from both schools (40.2%
and 40.8%) reported neutral feelings about the reduction of noise in their schools. It
seems that it will take many years for students to have the following perspective: “Yes, if
we are sufficiently educated - and if we -comply with rules to curb noise in our school,
noise in our school can be reduced”.
Recommendations
Based on the research results, the following recommendations can be put forward:
1. The way of eliminating the source of noise is to teach students how to behave as of the
first day they take a step into the school building for nursery class or primary school first
grade. School administrators, teachers, and students should be informed that student
behaviors should be well-disciplined in school buildings with heavy use.
2. Meetings should be conducted with school administrators for the elimination of
announcements through loudspeakers and loud ring bells in the school building. Schools
where no-bell school projects are carried out and effective results are obtained should be
shown as examples. Alternative practices that regulate student and teacher entrance and
exit through light systems similar to traffic lights, which are in use in some countries,
rather than bells should be introduced to school administrators and teachers.
3. School administrators should be informed of possible OR available acoustic
improvements. They should be informed that indoor noise level is mostly reduced through
sound-absorbing materials for example porous absorbents can be used in surfaces as a
covering.
• • •
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Akbari, E., & McCuaig, K. (2014) Early Childhood Education Report 2014. Toronto: ON: Institute for
Studies in Education.
Amoroso, J. (2010). From women to children: Reframing child care in Canada. Queen’s Policy Review,
1(1), 30–46.
Akman, Y., Ketenoğlu, O., Evren, H., Kurt, L., & Düzenli, S. (2000). Çevre kirliliği [Environmental
Pollution] Ankara: Palme Yayıncılık.
Arı, R., & Saban, H. (1999). Sınıf Yönetimi [Clasroom Management] Konya: Günay Ofset.
Ari, E., Tunçer, B. K., & Demir, M. K. (2016). Primary School Teachers' Views on Constructive
Classroom Management. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8(3), 363-378.
Avşar, Y., & Gönüllü, M.T. (2000). "İstanbul İli Örneğinde Bazı Okullarda İç ve Dış Ortam
Gürültülerinin Eğitim Kalitesi Açısından Değerlendirilmesi" [The Evaluation of Indoor and
Outdoor Noise Pollution Interms of the Quality of Education in Istanbul], GAP 2000
Sempozyumu. 16-18 Ekim 2000.

Noise Levels in School / Bulunuz, Bulunuz, Orbak, Mutlu & Tavşanlı
739
Berg, F. S., Blair, J. C., & Benson, P. V. (1996). Classroom acoustics: The problem, impact, and
solution. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 27, 16–20.
Bilal, F. (2009). Okullarda Akustik Düzenleme ve Gürültü [Acoustics Improvement and Noise at
Schools], Yalıtım Dergisi, 78, 66-67.
Bulunuz, N. (2014). Noise Pollution in Turkish Elementary Schools: Evaluation of Noise Pollution
Awareness and Sensivity Training. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education.
9(2), 345-360.
Choi, C.Y., & Mc Pherson, B. (2005). Noise levels in Hong Kong Primary Schools: Implications for
classroom listening, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 52(4), 345-
360.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (1996). A Guide to Teaching Practice. Routledge, Great Britain
By Clays Ltd, St Ives Plc, Fourth Edition. London & New York.
Cresswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods approaches
(3rd Edition). SAGE Publications: California.
Çelik, V. (2000). Okul kültürü ve yönetim [School Culture and Management]. Ankara: Pegem A
Yayıncılık.
Çelik, V. (2002). Sınıf yönetimi [School Management]. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
Erwin, H., Fedewa, A., & Ahn, S. (2013). Student academic performance outcomes of a classroom
physical activity intervention: a pilot study. International Electronic Journal of Elementary
Education, 5(2), 109-124.
Evans, G. W., & Lepore, S. J. (1993). Nonauditory effects of noise on children: a critical review,
Children’s Environments Quarterly, 10(1), 31–51.
Grebennikov, L. (2006). Preschool teachers’ exposure to classroom noise. International Journal of
Early Years Education, 14 (1), 35-44.
Güney, E. (1998). Çevre sorunları [Environmental Problems] Ankara: Hatipoğlu Yayınları.
Hetu, R., Truchon-Gagnon, C., & Bilodeau, S. A. (1990). Problems of noise in school setting: a review
of literature and the result of an exploratory study. J. Speech, Lang, Pathol. Audiol. 14, 31-38.
Ikenberrgy, L.D. (1974). School noise and its control. Journal of Environmental Health, 36(5), 493-
499.
Jewell, L. R. (1980). Effects of noise on students’ performance. Journal of Vocational Education
Research, 5(3), 47-53.
Karasar, N. (1998). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi [Scientific Resarch Methods] Ankara: Nobel Yayın
Dağıtım.
Kumbur, H., Özsoy, H. D., & Özer, Z. (2003). Mersin ilinde hassas bölgelerde gürültü düzeylerinin
1998-2002 yılları arasındaki değişiminin araştırılması [The investigation of the change of noise
levels in sensitive areas in Mersin between 1998-2002] Ekoloji çevre dergisi, 13(49), 25-30.
Mackenzie, D. (2000). Noise sources and levels in UK schools. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Noise Control and Acoustics for Educational Buildings, Proceedings of the
Turkish Acoustical Society, 97–106 (Istanbul, May).
Özbıçakçı, Ş., Çapık, C., Aydoğdu, N., Ersin, F., & Kıssal, A. (2012). Bir Okul Toplumunda Gürültü
Düzeyi Tanılaması ve Duyarlılık Eğitimi [Noise Level Identification and Sensitivity Training in a
School Community], Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(165), 223-236.
Polat, S., & Buluş-Kırıkkaya, E. (2004). Gürültünün Eğitim Öğretim Ortamına Etkileri [Effects on the
Environment of Noisy Education], XIII. Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kurultayı İnönü Üniversitesi,
Eğitim Fakültesi.
Polat, S., & Buluş-Kırıkkaya, E. (2007). İlk ve ortaöğretim okullarındaki ses düzeyleri [Sound levels
in primary and secondary schools]. İzalasyon Dergisi, 66, 78-82.

International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education Vol.9, Issue 4, 725-740, June 2017
740
Schlittmeier, S. J., Hellbrück, J., & Klatte, M. (2008). Does irrelevant music cause an irrelevant sound
effect for auditory items? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20(2): 252-271.
Shield, B., & Dockrell, J. (2004). External and internal noise surveys of London primary schools.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115(2), 730-738.
Shield, B., & Dockrell, J. (2006). Acoustical barriers in classrooms: the impact of noise on
performance in the classroom, British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 509-525.
Shield, B., & Dockrell, J. (2008). The effects of environmental and classroom noise on the academic
attainments of primary school children. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123(1), 133-
144.
Skarlatos, D., & Manatakis, M. (2003). Effects of classroom noise on students and teachers in Greece.
Perceptual & Motor Skills, 96(2), 539-545.
Şentürk, C., & Sağnak, M. (2012). İlköğretim Okulu Müdürlerinin Liderlik Davranışları İle Okul
İklimi Arasındaki İlişki [The Relationship between Leadership Behaviors and School Climate of
Elementary School Principals]. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 29-47.
Tamer, N., Küçükçifçi, S., & Şan, B. (2011). İlköğretim Okullarında Gürültüden Rahatsızlığın Alan
Çalışmalarına Bağlı Olarak Saptanması [Determination of noise disturbance in elementary
schools due to field work], İTÜ Dergisi, 10(2), 169-181.
Tüzel, S. (2013). Sınıf İçi Gürültünün Öğrencilerin Dinleme Sürecindeki Bilişsel Performansına
Etkisi [The Impact of Classroom Intensity on the Cognitive Performance of the Listening
Process]. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 9(4), 363-378.
Uslu, A. G. C., & Yücel, M. (1997). Adana kentinde gürültü kirliliği üzerine bir araştırma [A survey on
noise pollution in the city of Adana]. Çevre Koruma Dergisi, 7(25), 9-13.
Varış, F. (1998). Eğitim Bilimine Giriş [Introduction to Educational Science], İstanbul: Alkım
Yayınları.
Yücel, M., & Altunkasa, M.F. (1999). Çevre: Kız meslek liseleri için temel ders kitabı [Environment:
Basic course book for girls vocational high schools] İstanbul: Milli Eğitim Basım Evi.