(Comment on this article)Classroom Impaired anymore.Author Bio: Territory Manager and consultant for Phonic Ear Canada working to improve the classroom learning environment through the promotion of active learning and classroom amplification. Article Topics: Instruction, Visual/Spatial, Attention, Communication,
Article types: Editorial, General Information, Literature Review,
Submitted By: MArko Cote View Submitter's Profile (sweaters) Classrooms are auditory-verbal environments with listening serving as the cornerstone of the educational system (Flexer, 1993). When we take a minute to think about it, the majority of learning takes place through speaking and listening in the classroom. Actually, children spend 45% of the school day engaged in listening activities (Berg, 1987). The teacher does most of his or her teaching by talking, students ask questions, and students listen to both the teacher and other students. Multimedia materials which are now an important tool in modern classrooms also depend on students listening to a sound signal.
The intent of this discussion is to address the issue of poor sound in the classroom and how the lack of amplified speech signals can negatively impact the learning environment for special needs students, general education students and their educators. Based on this discussion we will understand why sound field amplification is an important solution to augment the ideal learning environment and compliment a quality learning agenda. Can inclusion be complemented with sound field amplification?
It is easy to assume that in order to do well in school, a child must be able to receive all auditory signals. In the case of students with a diagnosed hearing loss, we are quick to provide special devices to make the sound audible or to provide special assistance to accommodate the hearing loss and transform the audible signal into a visual signal with sign language. However, we do not usually think about the ability of the average student in the typical classroom to hear the spoken messages. What about children with middle ear infections? What about those sitting at the back of the classroom? We assume that all the normally hearing students can hear. Unfortunately, we are often wrong.
As indicated previously children learn a great deal through the auditory system. Classroom instruction is presented primarily through the teacher’s speech, or through video or tape recordings. Many students are auditory learners: They learn best when information is presented to them verbally. Think about toddlers that seem to be in their own world but are listening to every word you say. Students with hearing loss or other learning disabilities, however, may have difficulty with comprehension of auditory information (Beattie & Zipp, 1990;Woglemuth, Kamhi, & Lee, 1998 “What Does the Literature Say?”). As an educator, you always wonder if you’re getting through. Now, research indicates that most students catch only about three-quarters of what you say. That’s a pretty remarkable statistic. But it’s not entirely surprising considering today’s larger class sizes and poor classroom acoustics. Even in smaller environments, background noise can mask the voice of the teacher and make comprehension a real challenge. Sound field amplification systems can help to overcome these variables that negatively affect the learning environment.
Teachers need to talk approximately 15 dB louder than the background noise in the classroom (ASHA, 1995). However, this is rarely achieved throughout the day in a typical classroom (Crandell & Smaldino, 1994). We know that in most cases teachers generally attempt to deliver speech signals effectively. Many, however, are not able to produce a signal that is loud enough to overcome the noise background even when they speak loudly all day long. This may result in teachers with laryngitis, hoarse voices, and sore throats. Teachers who find themselves with extremely hoarse or weak voices often have to take a few days off because they know that their voice is their primary teaching and managing tool in the classroom.
Hearing loss, Auditory processing disorders (APD), attention deficit/hyperactivity disorders (ADD/ADHD), autism spectrum disorders (ASD)/ pervasive developmental disorders (PDD) share many similarities. All are low incidence disorders within the general education environment. These are children who are different from their age peers in terms of “attending”, “focusing,” or being able to “cope” in less than optimal listening environments (Whitelaw “FM Candidacy Issues and the “Alphabet Soup””)
Luckily today we are seeing more and more legislation that requires the least restrictive classroom environment which has resulted in a greater number of students being educated in the general classroom. This inclusion concept is intended to reduce the negative effects of special education and resource room teaching (Kaufman & Pullen, 1996). Having to attend special classes or receive individual tutoring may cause the students to develop low self-esteem because, unlike their classmates, they need additional help to learn. Also, teachers may become frustrated when their teaching efforts are ineffective in producing the desired result (Greyerbiehl, 1993). The assumption is made that these students are not motivated or that they are lazy and unwilling to learn. According to Richard Levoie of the FAT City Workshop (1989), however, there are several legitimate reasons for the student’s lack of understanding. Unfortunately, this sometimes becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and students unable to learn may become unwilling to learn.
Research has shown benefits from the use of amplification devices in classrooms of students who demonstrate learning disabilities, as well as in regular classroom settings (Arnold & Canning, 1999;Blake, Field, Foster, Platt & Wertz,1991; Flexer, Richards, Buie, & Brandy, 1994; Rosenberg, Allen,Redmond, Phillips, & Stigers, 1995). Results of these studies show that the listening and attending behaviors of these students improved after implementation of the amplification system.
The acoustic and auditory conditions of the classroom typically result in difficult listening conditions that can have a significant negative impact on learning. Acoustic variables that have been found to produce negative effects on the classroom listening environment include reverberation time, the distance from the teacher to the student, and the level of the teacher's voice in relation to the background noise that is present in the classroom (Berg, 1993; Crandell, Smaldino, & Flexer, 1995; Finitzo, 1988; Flexer, 1995; Palmer, 1997). Normal hearing levels alone do not, therefore, guarantee optimal audibility and intelligibility of the speech signal in classrooms. 1992; Neuss, Blair, & Viehweg, 1991; Palmer, 1998; Zabel & Tabor, 1993). In particular, a 3-year study conducted by Ray (1992) compared the academic performance of students with mild hearing loss placed either in sound field amplified classrooms or in unamplified classrooms supplemented by resource instruction. Results showed significantly greater academic gains among students in the amplified classrooms, particularly in the areas of reading and language arts. Other studies have also highlighted the increase in test scores and literacy in children with no learning disabilities vs. peers in an unamplified classroom.
Sound field FM systems have also been shown to have a positive impact on classroom behavior and attentiveness. Students with and without hearing loss have demonstrated increased on-task behavior and have been found to be less distractible and more attentive in sound field amplified classrooms (Allen & Patton, 1990; Gilman & Danzer, 1989; Palmer, 1998). Classroom amplification systems have been used successfully in classrooms of students with learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, and developmental delays, as well as with students learning a second language (Blake, Field, Foster, Platt, & Wertz, 1991; Crandell, 1996; Flexer et al., 1990; Ray, Sarff, & Glassford, 1984). Positive benefits of sound field amplification for teachers include less frequent teacher absences from school and teacher reports of decreased vocal strain and fatigue (Crandell et al., 1995; Flexer, 1989; Gilman & Danzer, 1989).
Classrooms are largely auditory learning environments. In the typical classroom, a number of environmental and student factors interfere with listening. Berg (1993) reported that the use of soundfield equalization systems is the most cost-effective and acceptable technology for facilitating classroom listening. The use of a wireless microphone by the teacher and loudspeakers placed appropriately in the room may result in reduced student fatigue, increased on-task student behavior, improved classroom management, and decreased teacher vocal fatigue. Soundfield amplification is also a beneficial solution for inclusion strategies since the system is worn by the teacher only and special need students are less likely to be stigmatized which is assumed to be another stumbling block for an effective strategy.
Phonic Ear, has been improving communication and learning in schools since 1963. Today, the company provides innovative hearing and voice enhancement solutions in over 60 countries. With over 45000 systems installed in every classroom environment conceivable, Phonic Ear has been able to conceptualize a number of products that meet the needs of today’s learning agendas, inclusion programs, literacy campaigns and teacher health initiatives. Phonic Ear is currently working with a number of school districts and governments within both Canada and the United States to consult and help develop solutions which enhance literacy, teacher health, inclusion and hearing initiatives.
Bibliography:
Allen, L., & Patton, D. (1990, November). Effects of sound field amplification on students' on-task behavior. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language Hearing Association, Seattle, WA
Beattie, R. C., & Zipp, J. A. (1990). Range of intensities yielding PB max and the
threshold for monosyllabic words for hearing-impaired subjects. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 417- 426.
Berg, F. (1993). Acoustics and sound systems in schools. San Diego, CA: Singular
Berg, F. S. (1987). Facilitating classroom listening: A handbook for teachers of normal and hard of hearing students. Boston, MA: College-Hill Press/Little, Brown.
Blake, R., Field, B., Foster, C., Platt F., & Wertz, P. (1991). Effect of FM auditory trainers on attending behaviors of learning-disabled children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 111-114.
Crandell, C., Smaldino, J., & Flexer, C. (1995). Sound-field FM amplification: Theory and practical applications. San Diego, CA: Singular
Crandell, C. (1996). Effects of sound field amplification on the speech perception of ESL children. Educational Audiology Monograph, 4, 1-5
Crandell, C., & Smaldino, J. (1994). An update of classroom acoustics for children with hearing impairment. The Volta Review, 96, 291-306.
Flexer, C., Millin, J., & Brown, L. (1990). Children with developmental disabilities: The effect of sound field amplification on word identification. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 21, 177-182.
Flexer, C. (1995). Classroom amplification systems. In R. Roeser & M. Downs (Eds.), Auditory disorders in school children (3rd ed., pp. 235-260). New York: Thieme.
Flexer, C. (1989). Turn on sound: An odyssey of sound field amplification. Educational Audiology Association Newsletter, 5, 6-7.
Flexer, C. (1993, June 13). Decisions in the selection and management of classroom amplification systems. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Audiology Update, St. Petersburg, FL.
Gilman, L., & Danzer, V. (1989, November). Use of FM soundfield amplification in regular classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual convention of the American Speech-LanguageHearing Association, St. Louis, MO
Greyerbiehl, D. (1993). Educational policies and practices that support the inclusion of
students with disabilities in the general education classroom. Charleston: West Virginia Developmental Disabilities Planning Council
Kaufman, J. M., & Pullen, P. I. (1996). Eight myths about special education. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 28(5), 1-12.
Levoie, R. (Presenter). (1989). Understanding learning disabilities: How difficult can this
be? [Videotape]. (Available from Peter Rosen Productions, Washington, DC).
Neuss, D., Blair, J., & Viehweg, S. (1991). Sound field amplification: Does it improve word recognition in a background of noise for students with minimal hearing impairments? Educational Audiology Monograph, 2, 43-52.
Palmer, C. (1998). Quantification of the ecobehavioral impact of a soundfield loudspeaker system in elementary classrooms. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 819-833
Ray, H., Sarff, L., & Glassford, F. (1984). Soundfield amplification: An innovative educational intervention for mainstreamed learning disabled students. The Directive Teacher, 6(2), 18-20.
Ray, H. (1992). Summary of MARRS adoption data validated in 1992. Norris City, IL: Wabash & Ohio Valley Special Education District.
Zabel, H., & Tabor, M. (1993). Effects of classroom amplification on spelling performance of elementary school children. Education Audiology Monograph, 3, 5-9. |
Related Links:These links open in a new window.
|
About the LDRC
