The Impact of Sound-Field Amplification in Mainstream Cross-Cultural Classrooms: Part 1 Educational Outcomes

Abstract

The goal of classroom instruction is comprehension. In order for speech to be comprehended, the individual must be able to hear well enough to discriminate the word-sound distinctions of individual phonemes (Robertson, 2000). Normal hearing for children is 15 dB HL or better at all frequencies, and with normal middle ear function (Northern & Downs, 1991). A minimal or slight hearing loss extends from 16 dB HL to 25 dB HL (Clark, 1981). As noted by Flexer (1995), the prevalence of these lesser but educationally significant hearing losses is underestimated. Poor comprehension in the classroom is not, however, limited to those with hearing loss. Acoustical factors affecting classroom communicationIn a review of children at risk of poor comprehension in the classroom, Nelson and Soli (2000) concluded that young listeners perform more poorly in noisy situations than do adults, and the ability to listen when surrounded by noise is not fully developed until adolescence (Stelmachowicz, Hoover, Lewis, Kortekaas, & Pittman, 2000).Additionally, a child's auditory brain is not like an adult's until about the age of 15 (Chermak & Musiek, 1997). Therefore, children cannot rely on years of language and learning experiences to fill in the gaps of missed information.T he aim of this study was to examine the effects of sound-field amplification intervention on the acquisition of specific educational goals for children in mainstream cross-cultural classrooms. Twelve classes of Year 2 children participated in the project. For classes 1 to 8, the listening environments were alternated between amplified and unamplified conditions, each condition being for two terms (one semester) of the school year. Beneficial effects of amplification were obtained in all three skill areas of reading, writing and numeracy. The beneficial effects occurred irrespective of whether the children had English as a native language or as a second language. Classes 9 to 12 were alternated between single-channel and dual-channel transmission options, each condition being for one semester of the school year. The results indicated that using different numbers of microphones did not affect the rate of acquisition of educational outcomes.

Voice Amplification as a Means of Reducing Vocal Load for Elementary Music Teachers

“…[25][26][27] Research has also documented the role of voice amplification in school children's improvement in reading, writing, and math skills. 28 These beneficial effects occurred for native as well as nonnative English speakers in the classrooms. Furthermore, teachers reported observing improvement in attention, communication strategies, and classroom behavior when the amplification systems were operating, with students reporting that they could hear more clearly.…”

Classroom Sound Field Amplification Systems for Language Development During Early School Years In Contexts Of Socio-Economic Exclusion: The Neglected Role Of Classroom Contextual Dimensions

“…The sound field amplification literature to date has claimed the benefits of this intervention for a number of diverse dimensions including listening and learning behaviour in the classroom (Darai, 2000;McSporran, Butterworth & Rowson,1997;Rosenberg, Blake-Rahter, Heavner, Allen, Redmond, Philips & Stigers, 1999), speech recognition (Bradley & Sato, 2004;Jones et al, 1989;Zabel & Taylor, 1993), on-task behaviour in the classroom (Allen & Patton, 1990;Eriks & Brophy & Ayukawa, 2000) and a number of academic dimensions including phonemic awareness (Flexer, Kemp Biley, Hinkley, Harkema & Holcomb, 2002), writing and numeracy (Massie & Dillon, 2006) and reading literacy (Darai, 2000;Massie & Dillon, 2006). As these dimensions represent a diverse set of skills, one can conclude that this intervention has the potential to accelerate the learning in the classroom in general.…”

“…To date, classroom sound field amplification literature has presented either small size research (e.g., Crandell, 1996;Eriks-Brophy & Ayukawa, 2000;Flexer et al, 2002;Palmer, 1998) or has taken a cluster approach in an analysis of larger samples (e.g., Darai, 2000;Massie & Dillon, 2006;Rosenberg et al, 1999). The proposed analytical framework situated within a systems theory requires one to analyse a diverse and wide sample of individual classrooms, rather than take a cluster approach.…”

Investigating the acoustics of a sample of open plan and enclosed Kindergarten classrooms in Australia

“…This will help maintain, for all children, higher SNRs, STIs and speech perception, commensurate with those normally enjoyed by children at the front of the class. As a result, this will enhance the children's learning and minimize teacher's vocal strain [35,36]. (Note, however, that amplification systems are not appropriate for open plan classrooms (where the SNR distance effect is even more apparent) because of their disturbance to other classes.…”