Improvements in the school environment—results of a Swedish school project 2005–2011

Abstract

Summary To examine whether a public health project to reduce problem behavior in schools and improve the classroom climate, undertaken among eight secondary schools in a municipality in Sweden, was accompanied by favorable changes in the school environment over time. Data were collected from ninth grade students (aged 15–16 years) at three different time points: the year before the project began (2005), during the project (2008) and when the project finished (2011). Changes in the school environment, measured as damage, littering, noise and classroom disorder, were compared between the project municipality and a comparison group of other municipalities in the same county, using multinomial logistic regression analysis. Descriptive comparisons were made between the schools within the project municipality. The school environment improved significantly from 2005 to 2011 in the project municipality compared with the other municipalities. The school environment was improved in all schools within the project municipality. The biggest improvements took place in two schools which systematically worked with one program incorporated into the school schedule. This study demonstrates that it may be possible to improve the school environment by implementing health programs. Further studies based on experimental designs are required in order to confirm the potential and efficiency of school health programs.

The effect of classroom acoustics and noise on high school students’ listening, learning and well-being: a scoping review

“…Thirteen of the studies involved students typically found in mainstream classrooms (Astolfi and Pellerey, 2008; Avsar and Gonullu, 2010; Sörqvist, 2010; Connolly et al , 2013, 2019; Hurtig et al , 2016; Minichilli et al , 2018; Wen et al , 2019; Goldschagg and Bekker, 2020; Tabuenca, Borner and Kalz, 2021; Yang and Mak, 2021; Persson and Hagquist, 2021; Çankaya Topak and Yılmazer, 2022). The remaining study (Nelson et al , 2020) only included students who were deaf or hard of hearing.…”

“…Thirteen studies investigated the effect of noise on students’ listening, learning and well-being (Astolfi and Pellerey, 2008; Avsar and Gonullu, 2010; Sörqvist, 2010; Connolly et al , 2013, 2019; Minichilli et al , 2018; Wen et al , 2019; Goldschagg and Bekker, 2020; Nelson et al , 2020; Tabuenca et al , 2021; Yang and Mak, 2021; Persson and Hagquist, 2021; Çankaya Topak and Yılmazer, 2022). Table 3 shows how the noise levels were measured for the classroom-based studies.…”

“…In total, 10 studies examined the effect of chronic exposure, i.e. long-term exposure to reverberation or noise (Astolfi and Pellerey, 2008; Avsar and Gonullu, 2010; Connolly et al , 2013; Minichilli et al , 2018; Wen et al , 2019; Goldschagg and Bekker, 2020; Nelson et al , 2020; Persson and Hagquist, 2021; Tabuenca et al , 2021; Çankaya Topak and Yılmazer, 2022), while 4 examined the effect of acute exposure, i.e. short-term exposure to reverberation or noise (Sörqvist, 2010; Hurtig et al , 2016;Connolly et al , 2019; Yang and Mak, 2021).…”

“…Goldschagg and Bekker (2020) found that the majority of students reported that noise (mostly consisting of student and traffic noise) makes them irritated/stressed. Persson and Hagquist (2021) found that higher proportions of students reported never or seldom being disturbed by noise after programs aiming to improve the school environment were implemented including social emotional training, encouraging positive behaviour, and classroom management. Wen et al (2019) found a significant negative relationship between road noise and students' acoustic comfort.…”

“…Speech 2008) Indoor 3-6 min L Aeq recordings in the center of the room with the students silent Avsar and Gonullu (2010) Outdoor 1 h L eq measurements 1.0 m from the wall and 1.20 m height Indoor unoccupied and occupied 10 min L Aeq measurements average of the front, middle and back row Çankaya Topak and Yılmazer (2022) Indoor unoccupied and occupied 40 min L Aeq recordings at the centre of the classroom and computer laboratory at a height of 100 cm for 9th-grade students and 110 cm for 10th-grade students Note that only the subjective ratings were used in the analysis, however Connolly et al (2013) Subjective ratings Goldschagg and Bekker (2020) Indoor unoccupied and occupied L Aeq recordings at least 1 m from the wall, on a tripod at the height of an average seated person's ear level. Time period not specified Note that only the subjective ratings were used in the analysis, however Minichilli et al (2018) Outdoor L Aeq,DAY recordings from 6am to 10 pm for 7 days at 1 m from the main outside façade of the school, at a height of 4 m Indoor 30 min L Aeq recordings at the centre of the classroom and 1 m from the open window Nelson et al (2020) Subjective ratings Persson and Hagquist (2021) Subjective ratings Tabuenca et al (2021) Mobile app collected 60 612 occupied samples every second over 24 sessions Note that only the subjective ratings were used in the analysis, however Wen et al (2019) Outdoor 20 min L Aeq, recordings made at four locations 1.5 m away from the outdoor walls and 1.2 m from the ground Indoor 20 min L Aeq, recordings made at three locations 1 m away from the indoor walls and 1.2 m from the ground with students silent Source: Authors' own creation F 42,5/6 intelligibility also increases as age increases for a given SNR. Hurtig et al (2016) found that second language listening comprehension was poorer when listening at a far versus close listening position.…”