LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Shield, BM; Conetta, R; Dockrell, J; Connolly, D; Cox, TJ; Mydlarz, CA
Publisher: Acoustical Society of America
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: built_and_human_env
Identifiers:doi:10.1121/1.4904528
An acoustic survey of secondary schools in England has been undertaken. Room acoustic parameters and background noise levels were measured in 185 unoccupied spaces in 13 schools to provide information on the typical acoustic environment of secondary schools. The unoccupied acoustic and noise data were correlated with various physical characteristics of the spaces. Room height and the amount of glazing were related to the unoccupied reverberation time and therefore need to be controlled to reduce reverberation to suitable levels for teaching and learning. Further analysis of the unoccupied data showed that the introduction of legislation relating to school acoustics in England and Wales in 2003 approximately doubled the number of school spaces complying with current standards. Noise levels were also measured during 274 lessons to examine typical levels generated during teaching activities in secondary schools and to investigate the influence of acoustic design on working noise levels in the classroom. Comparison of unoccupied and occupied data showed that unoccupied acoustic conditions affect the noise levels occurring during lessons. They were also related to the time spent in disruption to the lessons (e.g., students talking or shouting) and so may also have an impact upon student behavior in the classroom.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 22J. Romero and D. Lliso, “Perception and acoustic conditions in secondary Spanish schools,” in Proceedings of the 15th International Congress on Acoustics, Trondheim, Norway (1995), pp. 271-274.
    • 23H. Sato and J. Bradley, “Evaluation of acoustical conditions for speech communication in working elementary school classrooms,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123(4), 2064-2077 (2008).
    • 24M. Hodgson. “UBC-classroom acoustical survey,” Can. Acoust. 22(4), 3-10 (1994).
    • 25D. MacKenzie, “Noise sources and levels in UK schools,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Noise Control and Acoustics for Educational Buildings, Proceedings of the Turkish Acoustical Society, Istanbul (May 2000), pp. 97-106.
    • 26B. Hay, “A pilot study of classroom noise levels and teachers' reactions,” Voice 4, 127-134 (1995).
    • 27A. Moodley, “Acoustic conditions in mainstream classrooms,” J. Br. Assoc. Teachers Deaf 13(2), 48-54 (1989).
    • 28J. Bradley, “Speech intelligibility studies in classrooms,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 80(3), 846-854 (1986).
    • 29M. Hodgson, R. Rempel, and S. Kennedy, “Measurement and prediction of typical speech and background-noise levels in university classrooms during lectures,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105(1), 226-233 (1999).
    • 30P. Lundquist, K. Holmberg, and U. Landstrom, “Annoyance and effects on work from environmental noise at school,” Noise Health 2, 39-46 (2000).
    • 31Y. Avsar and M. Gonullu, “The influence of indoor acoustical parameters on student perception in classrooms,” Noise Control Eng. J. 58(3), 310-318 (2010).
    • 32B. Shield, E. Greenland, and J. Dockrell, “Noise in open plan classrooms: A review,” Noise Health 12, 225-234 (2010).
    • 33E. Greenland and B. Shield, “A survey of acoustic conditions in semiopen plan classrooms in the United Kingdom,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 130(3), 1399-1410 (2011).
    • 34D. Connolly, J. Dockrell, B. Shield, R. Conetta, and T. Cox, “Adolescents' perceptions of their school's acoustic environment,” Noise Health 15, 269-280 (2013).
    • 35C. Mydlarz, R. Conetta, D. Connolly, T. Cox, J. Dockrell, and B. Shield, “Comparison of environmental and acoustic factors in occupied school classrooms for 11-16 year old students,” Build. Environ. 60, 265-271 (2013).
    • 36ISO 3382-2000, Measurement of reverberation time with reference to other room acoustical parameters (International Standards Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2000).
    • 37IEC 60268-16-2011, Sound system equipment. Part 16: Objective rating of speech intelligibility by speech transmission index (International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland, 2011).
    • 38J. S. Bradley, H. Sato, and M. Picard, “On the importance of early reflections for speech in rooms,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113, 3233-3244 (2003).
    • 39E. E. Greenland, “Acoustics of open plan classrooms in primary schools,” Ph.D. thesis, London South Bank University, London, UK, 2009.
    • 40S. P. Banbury and D. C. Berry, “Office noise and employee concentration: Identifying causes of disruption and potential improvements,” Ergonomics 48(1), 25-37 (2005).
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article