OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE SURVEYS OF SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Transcription

1 OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE SURVEYS OF SECONDARY SCHOOLS B. Shield and R. Conetta London South Bank University D. Connolly and J. Dockrell Institute of Education, University of London T. Cox University of Salford

2 Outline Description of project Questionnaire survey Summary results of questionnaire survey Acoustic survey Summary results of acoustic survey Comparison of questionnaire and acoustic data Conclusions Current and future work

3 Identifying a sound environment for secondary schools (ISESS) Questions What are typical noise levels and room acoustics in UK secondary schools do they comply with BB93? How do pupils and teachers perceive the acoustic environment? What is the impact of the acoustic environment on secondary school pupils and teachers academic performance, annoyance, interference etc Are pupils with HI, EAL, SEN etc differentially affected? What factors mitigate/exacerbate any effects? classroom/teacher factors, environmental conditions etc

4 Identifying a sound environment for secondary schools (ISESS) Programme of research Noise and acoustic surveys of secondary schools unoccupied during lessons Questionnaire surveys of pupils and teachers Cognitive testing of pupils in various noise and acoustic conditions Measurement of other environmental parameters in classrooms

5 Identifying a sound environment for secondary schools (ISESS) Programme of research Noise and acoustic surveys of secondary schools unoccupied during lessons Questionnaire surveys of pupils and teachers Cognitive testing of pupils in various noise and acoustic conditions Measurement of other environmental parameters in classrooms

6 Survey data to date Detailed noise and acoustic surveys during 80 classes in 30 rooms in 5 secondary schools Questionnaire surveys of pupils and teachers in 6 schools 2000 completed pupil questionnaires received from 3 schools Unoccupied noise and acoustic surveys of 63 spaces in 6 schools Ongoing comparison of acoustic and questionnaire data in 2 schools

7 Development of the questionnaire Interviews Special Educational Needs Coordinators (SENCOs) Teachers of the Deaf Closed/Open Questions Completed online (Surveymonkey) Pilot survey to validate questionnaire

8 Categories of questions Personal information (form/tutor group; school year; hearing problems/hearing aid use; learning support) School spaces and how easy or difficult it is to hear in these spaces Common sound sources/events (talking; sounds from other classrooms; corridors; teachers; loudspeakers; external sounds) Activities and annoyance (reading; writing; working with numbers) Situations in which it is difficult to hear the teacher when the teacher has back to me, when other students are talking The effects of noise and the consequences of not being able to hear I leave the lesson feeling more tired, I ask the teacher to repeat what they have just said. The subject and classroom/space in which it is hardest/easiest to hear Reasons why

9 Questionnaire sample question

10 Questionnaire sample question

11 Unoccupied (furnished) Acoustic survey Room volume, physical details RT, IANL, STI Classroom unoccupied during school day Occupied (during lessons) Room details Numbers of pupils and staff Times on different activities LAeq, LA90, LAmax etc throughout lessons

12 Overview of two schools with questionnaire and acoustic data School Location Age range No. of pupils Specialist status Ofsted rating 1 Brighton Sports Outstanding 2 Farnham Science Outstanding Both built pre BB93; suburban locations Neither affected by significant levels of environmental noise School 2 near railway line

13 Summary of pupil respondent profiles School No of pupil respondents No of respondents with HI No of respondents with EAL No of respondents with Learning Support % % % % % % % % Total % 52 4% % % Majority of pupils in both schools aged 12 to 14 Approximately 50% male. 50% female in each school

14 Summary of responses School No of pupils citing rooms as hard No of pupils citing rooms as easy No of rooms cited as hard No of rooms cited as easy No of rooms with acoustic data % % % %

15 Unoccupied acoustics survey All rooms School Average Tmf Average STI Average IANL Total

16 Unoccupied acoustics survey Classrooms only School n Average Tmf Average STI Average IANL s dba s dba Total s dba BB93 spec 0.8 s (0.6) 35 dba

17 Unoccupied acoustics survey Mid-frequency reverberation time Tmf in 33 unoccupied rooms in 2 schools Seconds Mid-frequency reverberation time, s

18 Unoccupied acoustics survey Mid-frequency reverberation time Tmf in 33 unoccupied rooms in 2 schools Seconds School 1: 2.5 9/16 rooms comply with BB93 1 School 2: 13/17 rooms comply with BB Mid-frequency reverberation time, s

19 Unoccupied acoustics survey Speech transmission index STI in 33 unoccupied rooms in 2 schools STI Speech tranmission index

20 Unoccupied acoustics survey Speech transmission index STI in 33 unoccupied rooms in 2 schools 0.9 Excellent BB93 spec for open plan classrooms STI Good Fair Poor Bad Speech tranmission index

21 Unoccupied acoustics survey Indoor ambient noise level Indoor ambient noise levels 9 No of rooms School 1 School IANL, db LAeq

22 Unoccupied acoustics survey Indoor ambient noise level Indoor ambient noise levels School 1: 5 9/16 rooms comply 4 with BB93 No of rooms 3 2 School 2: School 1 7/17 rooms comply School 2 with BB IANL, db LAeq

23 Two approaches to analysis of questionnaire and acoustic data Consideration of subjects and teaching factors which affect hearing and listening Comparison of questionnaire data with occupied lesson noise levels and activity levels Consideration of ease of hearing and listening on a room by room basis Comparison of questionnaire data with unoccupied noise and room acoustic data

24 Two approaches to analysis of questionnaire and acoustic data Consideration of subjects and teaching factors which affect hearing and listening Comparison of questionnaire data with occupied lesson noise levels and activity levels Consideration of difficulty/ease of hearing and listening on a room by room basis Comparison of questionnaire data with unoccupied noise and room acoustic data

25 Comparison of questionnaire and acoustic data Harder and easier rooms all rooms No of rooms Average volume Average IANL Average Tmf Average STI Harder rooms Easier rooms

26 Comparison of questionnaire & acoustic data Harder and easier rooms classrooms only No of rooms Average volume Average IANL Average Tmf Average STI Harder rooms Easier rooms BB93 spec (0.6)

27 Comparison of questionnaire & acoustic data Relationships between hard and easy scores and RT and STI School 1: Significant negative correlation between easy score and Tmf (r = -.488) Positive trend between easy score and STI (r =.410) School 2: Significant positive correlation between hard score and Tmf (r =.718) Significant negative correlation between hard score and STI (r = -.527)

28 Comparison of questionnaire & acoustic data Relationships between hard and easy scores and RT and STI School 1 School 1 - easy score v Tmf School 1 - easy score v STI easy score Tmf (s) easy score STI r = r =.410 (ns)

29 Comparison of questionnaire & acoustic data School 2 Relationships between hard and easy scores and RT and STI School 2 - hard score v Tmf School 2 - hard score v STI hard score hard score Tmf (s) STI r =.718 r = -.527

30 Reasons for rooms/subjects being hard and easy to hear in The teacher is too far away The room is echoey HARD The teacher does not speak loudly and/or clearly enough The students make too much noise by talking to each other There is too much noise from outside the classroom There is too much noise from inside the classroom (such as machines, equipment) The teacher cannot get the class to be quiet The sound is too muffled

31 Reasons for rooms/subjects being hard and easy to hear in EASY The teacher speaks loudly and clearly The classroom is small There aren't many students in this class Students in this lesson are very quiet The teacher is good at getting everyone to be quiet There's no noise from outside the classroom

32 Reasons for rooms/subjects being hard to hear in Reasons given for 'hard to hear' 40 Percentage of respondents School 1 School 2 Sound too muffled Teacher cannot quieten class Too much noise inside classroom Too much noise outside classroom Too much student talk Teacher not loud/clear Room echoey Teacher too far away

33 Reasons for rooms/subjects being hard to hear in Reasons given for 'hard to hear' 40 Percentage of respondents School 1 School 2 Sound too muffled Teacher cannot quieten class Too much noise inside classroom Too much noise outside classroom Too much student talk Teacher not loud/clear Room echoey Teacher too far away

34 Reasons for rooms/subjects being easy to hear in Reasons given for 'easy to hear' 70 Percentage of respondents School 1 School 2 No noise outside classroom Teacher can quieten class Students very quiet Not many students Classroom small Teacher loud and clear

35 Reasons for rooms/subjects being easy to hear in Reasons given for 'easy to hear' 70 Percentage of respondents School 1 School 2 No noise outside classroom Teacher can quieten class Students very quiet Not many students Classroom small Teacher loud and clear

36 Detailed acoustic survey 80 lessons in 30 classrooms in 5 schools Details of rooms volume, %ge glazing etc Measures of humidity, temperature, C02 etc Numbers of students and adults, ages of students Times spent on different activities within lessons Overall noise levels Noise levels of individual activities Main activities individual work teacher instruction/discussion group work

37 Maths lesson 100 Teacher instruction 64 db LAeq Activity preparation 69 db LAeq Individual work 52 db LAeq Packing away 74 db LAeq dba LAeq LA90 LAMax Whole lesson 67 db LAeq 0 Period (samples)

38 Comparison of lesson LAeq with room acoustic data Significant relationships between average LAeq per room and Tmf and STI Positive trend between average LAeq per room and Tmf and IANL Average lesson noise and Tmf 100 Lesson noise level dblaeq r = Mid-frequency RT, seconds

39 Comparison of lesson LAeq with room acoustic data Average lesson noise and STI Lesson noise level dblaeq Average lesson noise and IANL STI r = Lesson noise level dblaeq Indoor ambient noise level dba r =.321 (ns)

40 Conclusions Students in secondary schools are able to identify rooms that are easy and hard to hear in, and the reasons for the ease/difficulty of hearing in those rooms The most common reasons for finding rooms hard/easy to hear in are that other students make too much noise (hard) the teacher speaks loudly and clearly (easy) Preliminary analysis of the acoustic data suggests that the BB93 specification of 0.8 s Tmf may be the appropriate value that the BB93 specification of 0.6 STI (for open plan classrooms) may not be stringent enough Preliminary results suggest that classroom noise is related to RT, STI and IANL Ease of hearing depends on many factors acoustics, teacher, subject, activity, classroom management

41 Current and future work Further collection and analysis of questionnaire data Collection of acoustic data related to questionnaire data Collection of further lesson noise/activity data Analysis of activity noise levels and relationships with room acoustics Analysis of subjects/room reasons and acoustic data Cognitive testing in different noise conditions numeracy, reading comprehension Analysis of noise and other environmental conditions

42 Acknowledgements Thanks to the heads, staff and students at the schools participating in the project and to EPSRC for funding the project For further information contact Rob Conetta Dan Connolly