Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Journal of Scientific & Industrial

SEETHA Research
et al: EFFECTS TO TEACHING ENVIRONMENT OF NOISE IN SCHOOLS
Vol. 67, September 2008, pp. 659-664 659

Effects to teaching environment of noise level in school classrooms


P Seetha1, K Karmegam2*, M Y Ismail2, S M Sapuan2, N Ismail2 and L Tamil Moli3
1
Jelai (F) National Secondary School, 73490 Gemas, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia
2
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang,
Selangor, Malaysia
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Polytechnic of Sultan Azlan Shah, 35950 Behrang, Perak, Malaysia

Received 17 December 2007; revised 11 June 2008; accepted 03 July 2008

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.

Keywords: Classroom noise, Decibels (dB), Sound level meter, Teaching environment

Introduction moderate sound levels between 50-70 dB(A) Leq 3


Noise annoyance includes feelings of irritation, (equivalent sound level). Tesarz & Kjellberg8 observed
discomfort, distress, frustration, or offence when noise that teachers perceived irrelevant speech and its
interferes with someone’s thoughts, feelings or ongoing interference with their work as the most serious noise
activity 1. Road traffic noise 2 causes stress among problem. Boman & Enmarker4 highlighted that perception
students in school. Lundquist et al3 and Boman & of annoyance was associated with stress symptoms for
Enmarker 4 stated that pupils rated noisy activity younger pupils in school environment. Schick et al9
(chatting) is one of the most annoying types of noise in analyzed acoustics of 16 classrooms and found that
school environment. In term of human health, intense teachers (25%) felt annoyed by noise and children faced
noise or prolong stay in a noisy environment can also attention disorders.
lead to a permanent reduction of hearing sensitivity, According to World Health Organization (WHO)
due to damage to sensory organs of inner ear, which guideline value for schools, critical effects of noise in
may result in permanent hearing loss. classrooms are on speech interference, disturbance of
information extraction (comprehension and reading
Effects of Noise acquisition), message communication and annoyance. In
Noise is an unwanted sound5, which is a form of order to be able to hear and understand spoken messages
energy, transmitted through air and is measured in in classrooms, background sound pressure level should
decibels (dB). Following 4 different aspects6 can make not exceed 35 dB LAeq (maximum permissible sound
noise unacceptable in working environment: i) Noise level) during teaching sessions. Average daily exposure10
can cause hearing loss; ii) Noise can affect performance for a child at school is 72 dB(A) LAeq. In Malaysia, LAeq
and productivity; iii) Noise can be annoying; and iv) near the school area during daytime is 50 dBA.
Noise can interfere with spoken communication. Similar This study determines noise level in school
to this, Schönpflug7 highlighted effect of noise, which classrooms during school hours, and identifies the effects
exists in school environment. School settings of indoor of noise to teaching environment in classrooms.
sound levels for different school activities show that
Methodology
*Author for correspondence Noise monitoring in classrooms was carried out using
E-mail: megam76@gmail.com Sound Level Meter (SLM) and a questionnaire on
660 J SCI IND RES VOL 67 SEPTEMBER 2008

70° S o u n d L e v e l M e te r

1 .3 m
W a ll

S ta n d

2 .5 m

Fig. 1 — Set up of apparatus

Table 1 — Mean measurement taken according to Blocks

Lmax, dBA Lmin, dBA Leq, dBA


7.30 10.30 12.30 7.30 10.30 12.30 7.30 10.30 12.30
am am pm am am pm am am pm

Block B 88.14 93.74 95.18 51.9 54.62 50.74 69.48 73.72 72.00

Block C 91.36 94.24 92.76 52.56 52.06 43.44 73.74 74.68 72.6

teachers (44) and students (150) at Jelai (F) Gemas level (Lmin) and equivalent sound level (Leq) (Table 1).
National Secondary School, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia. The t-test shows that there are no significant differences
Five classrooms in Block B & C of school were chosen on noise level between Block B and Block C. Mean noise
randomly and noise level was measured using SLM level in Block B and Block C was: Lmax, 88.14-95.18 dBA;
(Fig. 1). Data was collected from 7.30 am until 1.30 pm and Lmin, 43.44-54.62 dBA. Higher-level noise in Block
(3 measurements, each of 20 min) for 1 month. B can be related because Block B is located near roadsides
Questionnaire was adopted from Stacie Reck-Ward and with high volume flow of transport. One sample t-test
Amanda Murray questionnaire from Faculty of (Table 2) indicated that mean noise level in each block
education, University of Alberta and Sturgeon Heights exceeded WHO guideline value (35 dBA), suggesting that
School 11 . By comparing means of responses, school under study is not in a conducive environment for
respondent’s perceptions on the effect of noise on teaching and learning purpose. This result is similar with
learning activities were obtained. the report of Department of Environment (DOE),
Using t-test, one sample t-test and one-way ANOVA Malaysia12.
(Tukey’s HSD Post Hoc Test), data was analyzed on
teachers and students, both male and female of different Effects of Noise to Teaching Environment Using Questionnaire
age groups.
Teachers
Results and Discussion As per result of teachers’ questionnaire, reliability value
Noise Level Measurement using Sound Level Meter (SLM) (0.825) is acceptable for this study purpose. The
Noise measurement in Block B and Block C were t-test showed that teachers were disturbed by noise level
taken as maximum sound level (Lmax), minimum sound (Fig. 2).
SEETHA et al: EFFECTS TO TEACHING ENVIRONMENT OF NOISE IN SCHOOLS 661

Table 2 — One sample t-test with test value 35 dBA

Test value = 35 [df, 4; Sig. (2-tailed), 0.000]

95% Confidence
interval
t Mean of difference
difference Lower Upper

Block B
Leq.7.30 am 30.749 34.48000 31.3667 37.5933
Leq.10.30 am 41.719 38.72000 36.1431 41.2969
Leq.12.30 pm 15.691 37.00000 30.4532 43.5468
Block C
Leq.7.30 am 13.127 38.74000 30.5461 46.9339
Leq.10.30 am 14.681 39.68000 32.1757 47.1843
Leq.12.30 pm 15.457 37.60000 30.8463 44.3537

2.50

2.00
M ea n sc o r e

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
T eac h ers h ealth No is e an d teach ers T each ers no is e N ois e effect o n T each ers attit u d e
moo d an n o yan ce teach in g p ro ces s to w ard clas s ro om
n o is e

Te a c he rs no is e qu e s t ionna ire

M ale Fem a le

Fig. 2 — Teachers mean perception score according to gender

Several studies show that teachers report that their voice


i) Teachers Health problems have a negative effect on their performance at
The t-test showed that male and female teachers were work 20,21.
both affected by noise level with the mean value of 2.2
and 2.1 respectively. But in term of “stress or headache”, ii) Noise and Teacher’s Mood
female teachers scored (2.0) more compared to male The t-test showed that both male and female teachers’
teachers (1.5), indicating that female teachers health is internal motivation to have a pleasant teaching process
more affected compared to male teachers. Psychological was affected when the noise level increased. Factors such
stress contributes to voice problems among teachers as pupils’ disrespectful behavior and noisy classes also
13-15
. Numerous stress factors16-19 that have been linked contribute to stress reactions among teachers19. As this
to teachers work include disrespectful behavior of pupils disrupts teaching, student misbehavior has been found to
and noise in classrooms caused by misbehaving pupils. be a significant variable for predicting and causing
662 J SCI IND RES VOL 67 SEPTEMBER 2008

3.00

2.50

2.00

Mean score
1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
Teachers health Noise and teachers Teachers noise Noise effect on Teachers attitude
mood annoyance teaching process toward classroom
noise
Teachers noise questionnaire

20-30 years old 31-40 years old 41-50 years old

Fig. 3 — Teachers mean perception score according to age group

teaching stress16,18 and a cause for burnout among main question items that have identified with high score
teachers17. Compared to male teachers, female teachers’ by this group age were “noise has harmful effects on
score of t-test was higher, and hence female teachers physical, emotional or mental health, noise makes you
had more difficulty in concentrating in noise level irritable, makes you anxious, makes you sad and noise
environment. Jones & Davies22 found that females rated interfering on conversation in classroom”. Second highest
annoyance higher than males did, but they found no group of age (31-40 y) stated that “they feel stress, mental
gender differences in hearing status and noise sensitivity. or emotional health disturbed after teaching a noisy
classroom” as their main item which affected them the
iii) Noise Effect on Teaching Process most. This group normally involved senior teachers;
In t-test on noise effect on teaching process, female therefore, they expect the teaching environment to be in
teachers’ score was higher than male teachers, indicating a conducive mode.
that female teachers have to raise their voice during noisy Less affected group of age (41-50 y) stated that
environment, and this indirectly affect flow of teaching “facing hearing problem” and “voice related illness
and learning process. Teachers have to speak loud increased as the size of the class has increased”. The
because of background noise and poor acoustic reason for this problem can be related to the age factor
conditions in the classrooms. and human body stability as the age increase. Old
teachers (41-50 y) compared to young teachers
v) Teachers Attitude Toward Classroom Noise (21-30 y) demonstrate a higher impaired ability to interpret
A higher significant value for female teachers difficult and spoken messages with low linguistic
compared with male teachers showed that female redundancy. The Tukey’s HSD Post Hoc Test also
teachers were more likely to react during noisy classroom highlighted that the noise effects on teachers decreases
compared to male teachers. This result can also be related as the age increases, may be due to maturity and
to higher score of female teachers in “raised your voice experience of teachers.
or shouted to be heard in classroom”, “become more
angry and sensitive” and “speak less and give more Students
assignment to students” in the questionnaire. This The t-test on students’ showed that female students
indicated that female teachers need a more pleasant were more affected than male students (Fig. 4). Students’
environment for teaching purposes. from lower forms (13-15 y) are more affected (Fig. 5) in
Score value for the age group of 20-30 y, 31-40 y and all aspects compared to students from upper forms
41-50 y are 2.20, 2.18 and 2.02 respectively. One-way (16-17 y). The age group 13-15 y is significantly different
ANOVA (Tukey’s HSD Post Hoc test) showed that from age group 16-17 y. Studies verified that poor
teachers in age group of 20-30 y were highest group classroom acoustics might also have a negative effect
affected by classroom noise (Fig. 3), may be because on disciplinary issues, as it might have an impact on the
such teachers have less experience in teaching. Among pupils’ concentration and thus raise noise levels23.
SEETHA et al: EFFECTS TO TEACHING ENVIRONMENT OF NOISE IN SCHOOLS 663

2.50

2.00

Mean score
1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
Student's health and Noise and student's Student's noise Noise effect on Teachers attitude
classroom noise mood annoyance teaching process toward classroom noise

Student's noise questionnaire


Male Female

Fig. 4 — Student’s mean perception score according to gender

2.50

2.00
Mean score

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
Student's health Noise and Student's noise Noise effect on Teachers attitude
and classroom student's mood annoyance teaching process toward
noise classroom noise

13-15 years old 16-17 years old

Fig. 5 — Student’s mean perception score according to age group

i) Student’s Health and Classroom Noise significant mean score value in the item of “feel irritable,
Based on t-test, female students have a higher depressed and sad” due to noise level.
significant value in aspects “they could hear their
teachers’ voice clearly during normal teaching and iii) Student’s Noise Annoyance
learning process and during group activities”. This can The t-test on female students noise annoyance has
be related to the findings by Bland24. The study stated highlighted that there are higher significant mean score
that female hears better than male, and female are twice value in the item of “noisy sport activity in the school
as sensitive to noise as male. Male students’ score field” with mean value of 1.64. Female students stated
significantly higher in aspects, “emotionally and that sports activities in their school field were very noisy
mentally disturbed” and “they stated that their classroom and affect teaching and learning environment in
is very noisy”. The t-test indicates higher significant classroom. Young group (13-15 y) has shown higher
values4 for young students’ (13-15 y), who cannot cope significant value in the item of “next door classroom are
up with external disturbance during learning process. very noisy and overall noise level in the school”
respectively, as confirmed by Boman & Enmarker4.
ii) Noise and Student’s Mood
Female students stated that they felt irritable and iv) Noise Effect on Teaching Process
depressed due to noise level in classroom. The t-test The t-test result highlighted that the female student’s
also highlighted that young group (13-15 y) have a higher have to sit near to their teacher so that they can hear
664 J SCI IND RES VOL 67 SEPTEMBER 2008

properly. They also have the opinion that noise affects 6 Helander M, A Guide to Human Factors and Ergonomics
their teachers’ lesson delivery in the classroom. Young (Taylor and Francis Group, CRC Press, Boca Raton) 2006, 20-
24.
group (13-15 y) has stated that noise always disrupt their
7 Schönpflug W, Continuous noise, discontinuous noise, and
concentration on learning process, and also lesson delivery performance: Contributions to Psychological Acoustics, in 6th
in classroom. This can be related to students, who are Oldenburg Symp Psych Acous, Oldenburg, 1993, 615-626.
still new to secondary school environment compared to 8 Tesarz M & Kjellberg A, Perceived Noise Problems by Teachers
senior group (16-17 y), who have experienced noise in and Other Personnel at Nursery Schools, Elementary School
and High School (National Institute for Working Life,
school classroom.
Arbetslivsrapport) 1998, 28.
9 Schick A, Meis M & Reckhardt C, Contributions to
v) Teachers Attitude Toward Classroom Noise Psychological Acoustics, in 8th Oldenburg Symp Psycho Acous,
The t-test shows that most of female students have Oldenburg, 2000, 533-569.
the opinion that, their teachers are reacting badly toward 10 Berglund B, Lindvall T & Schwela D H, Guidelines for
classroom noise. Students stated that their teachers have Community Noise (World Health Organization, Geneva) 1999;
to raise their voice or shout in order to be heard by them, http://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/guidelines2.html
11 Stacie R & Murray A, Pretest Questionnaire for Teachers;
and also ask next-door classroom students to be quite
http://www.quasar.ualberta.ca/AISI/
during lesson. According to earlier studies3,4,8, teachers Pretest%20Questionnaire%20for%20Teachers.htm, assessed
perceived irrelevant speech and its interference with their on July 2005, 2001.
work as the most serious noise problem. Hence, based 12 Lubis A R, The A-Z of the Malaysian Environment; http://
on study findings on teachers and students noise www.surfover.com/sam/a2z/content4.html#levels, assessed on
July 2005, 2002.
questionnaire, healthy teaching environments are
13 Gotaas C & Starr C D, Vocal fatigue among teachers, Folia
disturbed because of noise level produced in school Phoniatrica et.Logopaedic, 45 (1993) 120-129.
classrooms. 14 Morton V & Watson D R, The teaching voice: problems and
perceptions, Logopedics, Phoniatrics, Vocology, 23 (1998) 133-
Conclusions 139.
Noise level in school classrooms during school hours 15 Sapir S A, Keidar & Mathers-Smith B, Vocal attrition in teachers:
exceeded WHO guideline value. Both male and female survey findings, Eur J Disord Commun, 28 (1993) 177-185.
teachers are disturbed by noise level. Female students 16 Boyle G J, Borg M G, Falzon J M & Baglioni A J, A
are more affected than male students. Noise effects on structural model of the dimensions of teacher stress, British J
Edu Psych, 65 (1995) 49-67.
teachers increases as age increases. Very noisy
17 Friedman I A, Student behavior patterns contributing to teacher
classrooms would create difficulty for children to hear burnout. J Edu Res, 88 (1995) 281-289.
and understand their lessons. To improve school teaching 18 Griffith J A, Steptoe & Cropley M, An investigation of coping
environment, higher school authority should take into strategies associated with job stress in teachers, British J Educ
consideration in term of school design in order to reduce Psych, 69 (1999) 517-531.
undesirable background noise. Sound barriers have to 19 Jacobsson C A, Pousette & Thylefors I, Managing stress and
feelings of mastery among Swedish comprehensive school
be build to avoid excessive road traffic noise along the
teachers, Edu Res, 45 (2001) 37-53.
road adjacent to school classrooms. 20 Roy N, Merrill R M, Thibeault S, Gray S D & Smith E M,
References Voice disorders in teachers and the general population: effects
1 Passchier-Vermeer W & Passchier W F, Noise exposure and on work performance, attendance, and future career choices, J
public health, Environ Health Perspect Suppl 108 (2000) 123- Speech, Language & Hearing Res, 47 (2004) 542-551.
131. 21 Smith E, Gray S D, Dove H, Kirchner L & Heras H, Frequency
2 Evans G W, The motivational consequences of exposure to and effects of teachers’ voice problems, J Voice, 11 (1997) 81-
noise, in Carter, Noise Effects, Congr on Noise as a Public 87.
Health Problem, 1 (Sydney) 1998, 311-320. 22 Jones D M & Davies D R, Individual and Groups Differences
3 Lundquist P, Holmberg K & Landstrom U, Annoyance and in the Response to Noise (Noise and Society, Chichester: Wiley)
effects on work from environmental noise at school, Noise 1984, 125-153.
Health, 8 (2000) 39-46. 23 Knecht H A, Nelson P B, Whitelaw G M & Feth L L,
4 Boman E & Enmarker I, Factors affecting pupils’ noise Background noise levels and reverberation times in unoccupied
annoyance in schools: the building and testing of models, classrooms: Predictions and measurements, Am J Audiology, 11
Environ Behav, 36 (2004) 207-228. (2002) 65-71.
5 Evans G W & Hygge S, Noise and performance in children and 24 Bland J, About Gender: The Biosocial Approach; http://
adults, in Handbook of Noise and Health, edited by D Prasher, www.gender.org.uk/about/02psycho/24_biosc.htm, assessed on
2000. July 2005, 2001

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi