Republic of the Philippines

Cebu Technological University

Dumanjug Extension Campus

SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT NOISE INTERFERENCE AND STUDENTS’ ACADEMIC

PERFORMANCE
LEAH C. GERONA
Cebu Technological University – Dumanjug Extension Campus
Abstract

The study determined the effects of noise in the school environment to the academic
performance of the Third year Bachelor of Elementary Education students of Cebu Technological
University, Dumanjug Campus during the Academic Year 2017-2018 towards developing an action
plan. It utilized the two group design method with the aid of an adapted questionnaire for the students’
perception on classroom noise, and a pre- test and post- test questionnaires taken from the Licensure
Examination for Teachers 2008 and 2012 reviewer. Distribution of questionnaires was done to gather
specific data needed. This study affirms the significant relationship between noise intensity level and
student academic performance. Primarily, there is a significant difference between the pre- test and
post- test results and the mean gained by both experimental and control group. Next, there is a
significant difference between the noise levels of two respondent groups. With the increasing noise
intensity levels comes decreasing score results conducted. This is caused by various sources of
noises present around the premises on the university, both inside and outside the school campus.

Keywords: Noise perception level, pre-test and post test scores, noise intensity level, control and
experimental group

INTRODUCTION
Noise is increasingly becoming a problem in schools worldwide and affects not just the audibility
of speech but also to the academic performance. Its effects hamper learning opportunities for learners.
Noise in elevated sound pressure levels has been indicated as a major risk factor for human health.
However, a great part of the population, especially teenagers and young adults have social and personal
habits that expose them to this risk, and are not always aware of how harmful it may be (Knobel KAB,
Lima MCMP, 2012).A lot has been spoken about noise, sound pollution, psycho-physic alternations in the
human being due to the noise and, therefore, a lot of students and school professionals have been asking
about the effect of noise over the day-to-day educational activities developed in the school.

Kempen et al. (2012) found that excess noise is harmful to the teaching-learning process, since it
is distracting, restricts attention level and cognition, and makes listening and understanding the teacher’s
voice more difficult for the students Woolner (2010) has found that noise has direct negative effects on
learning, due to distraction and irritability. The sources of these noises vary from those located in the
school’s external environment to background noise, coming from classrooms as well as the noise
generated by the student’s during class activities. Department for Education and Skills (2003) and O’Neil
D. (2002) indicated that the noise in a classroom is made up of external noise which is transmitted
through the building envelope, plus internally generated noise, so that students in school maybe exposed
to noise from a wide variety of sources. External noise is likely to consist of a range of environmental
noise including noise from transportation sources, industrial noise, plant noise and the noise of people
outside the school. An additional source of noise which is reputed to cause significant disturbance to
teaching is the noise of rain falling on lightweight school roofs.
 The Cebu Technological University-Dumanjug Campus is situated just 10 meters away from the
national highway. The school is located beside the national highway bound for Cebu south. Beside the
university is the Bitoon National Vocational High School, a public secondary high school supervised by
the Department of Education Cebu Province Division. Across the school is the Bitoon Gymnasium where
various activities are being held. The university’s small land area of approximately 500 square meters
contributed to the increasing noise level since classrooms are being congested and subdivided to
accommodate the increasing number of student enrolment. There are 28 rooms inside the university in
which 8 rooms are used for offices: Library, Clinic, SAO, ME, Faculty, Accounting, MIS, and Registrar
Office. Twenty rooms are used for classes for three departments: Education – 7 rooms, Engineering – 3
rooms, Technology Department: Hospitality Management – 2 rooms, Automotive – one room, and
Information Technology – 7 rooms. There are 1218 no of enrolees for the School Year 2017-2018 first
semester in which 835 no of students belong to the day program, and 383 students belong to the evening
program. Classrooms are not enough to accommodate such no. of students, with this, two lobby areas
from the ground and third floor are used for classes. The location of the university, its land area, and
congestions of students causes the different noises within the perimeter. Students complained that a
noisy environment can affect their academic performance. The researcher embarks on the study to
determine if noise has a significant effect on the performance students learning.

METHODS
This study is a quasi-experimental method which utilized two-group design. It utilized an adapted
questionnaire from Emilse Aparecida, Merlin Serviha and Marina de Almeida Delatti 2014 for the
students’ perception on classroom noise. It composed of three parts: Sources of Noise, Exposure to
Multimedia, and Effects of noise to learning process. For the academic performance of the students, a
pre- test and post- test questionnaires taken from the Licensure Examination for Teachers 2008 and 2012
reviewer were administered. Before administering the instruments to the target participants, permission
from the Campus Director and Instructor in Assessment of Student Learning 1 was done through a letter
(Appendices) to conduct a study and administer during free periods. Respondents were divided into two:
control and experimental group. Control group used the classroom while the experimental group was in
the lobby area. Actual noise level using sound level meter was taken twice regularly from their classroom
after 20 and 45 minutes during classes for two months. The researcher administered the pre-test and
post-test of the subject Assessment of Student Learning 1 and gathered the scores afterwards. During
vacant time, the researcher gave questionnaires for perception on sources of noise to the respondents.
The results were analysed accordingly.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The school noise has an average mean of 4.04 described as Oftentimes, the school environment
has an average mean of 3.61 described as Oftentimes and the Classroom has an average of 3.74
described as Oftentimes. The use of cellular phones during classes has an average mean of 2.94
described as Seldom, followed by browsing of the Internet and listening to music both described as
Seldom. The use of tablets and laptops are described as Never.
Becomes irritated if the classroom is noisy and cannot concentrate the lesson properly if the
classroom is noisy are described as Always. Other effects such as can't hear the teacher's voice clearly,
gives up on paying attention, make an effort to hear the teacher's voice, have more difficulty in
understanding, get mad if cannot hear the teacher's voice clearly, classroom noise can interfere
understanding, noise interference can destruct to learning and have more difficulty in understanding are
all described as Oftentimes. The experimental group has a pre- test MPS of 42.71 described as Fairly
Satisfactory and a post- test MPS of 50.89 described as Satisfactory. On the other hand, the control
group has a pre- test MPS of 48.28 described as Fairly Satisfactory and a post- test MPS of 58.07
described as Satisfactory.
 The control group has an average noise intensity level of 54.91 dB after 25 minutes of testing and
measuring; 55.91 dB after 45 minutes of testing and measuring, having an averaged noise intensity level
of 55.41 dB. The experimental group has an average noise intensity level of 75.03 dB after 25 minutes of
testing and measuring; 73.82 dB after 45 minutes of testing and measuring, having an averaged noise
intensity level of 76.66 dB. This study affirms the significant relationship between noise intensity level and
student academic performance. Primarily, there is a significant difference between the pre- test and post-
test results and the mean gained by both experimental and control group. Next, there is a significant
difference between the noise levels of two respondent groups. With the increasing noise intensity levels
comes decreasing score results conducted. This is caused by various sources of noises present around
the premises on the university, both inside and outside the school campus. With such significant
difference in noise intensity levels comes the result of the scores obtained by the student- respondents.
The higher the noise interference experienced by the respondents, the lower their score obtained from
the results. However, there were still areas, issues and concerns within the school premises in terms of
controlling noise and its sources that need to be addressed and enhanced.

REFERENCES

AmericanNational Standards Institute. American National Standard Acoustical Performance Critera,

Design, Requirements, and Guidelines for Schools (ANSI S12.602002). New York: American
National Standards Institute; 2002.

B. Berglund, T. Lindvall, and D. H. Schwela, Eds., Guidelines for Community Noise,WHO, Geneva,
Switzerland, 2000.

Department for Education and Skills (2003), Building Bulletin 93 Acoustic Design of Schools,
www.teachernet.gov/acoustics

Gaines KS, Curry ZD. The Inclusive Classroom: The Effects of Color on Learning and Behavior.
Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education 2011; 29(1), 46-57.

Kempen E, Fischer P, Janssen N, Houthuijs D, Kamp I, Stansfels S, et al. Neurobehavioral effects of

exposure to traffic-related air pollution and transportation noise in primary schoolchildren.
Environ Res. 2012;115:18-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2012.03.002

Knecht HA, Nelson PB, Whitelaw GM, Feth LL. Background noise levels and reverberation times in
unoccupied classrooms: predictions and measurements. Am. J. Audiol. 2002; 11:65-71
(PubMed)

Knobel KAB, Lima MCMP.Knowledge, habits, preferences, and protective behaviour in relation to
loud sound exposures among Brazilian children.Int J Audiol. 2012; 51 Supl 1:12-9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2011.637307

McKenzie, J., Pinger, R. R. and Kotecki, J. E. (2005).An Introduction to Community Health.Jones &
Bartlett Learning.

O'Neill,D. (2002) Experience of using Building Bulletin 87: Does Building Bulletin Resolve All The
Difficulties?Presented at School Acoustics meeting,Institute of Acoustics, October 15 2002.

SmaldinoJJ,Crandell CC, Kreisman BM, John AB, Kreisman NV. Room Acoustics For Listeners With
Normal Hearing And Hearing Impairment. In: Valente M, HosfordDunn H, Roesner R, editors.
Audiology.Treatment. 2 nded. New York: Thieme; 2008; 41851.

Woolner P, Hall E. Noise in Schools: A Holistic Approach to the Issue. Int J Environ Res Public
Health. 2010;7 (8):3255-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph7083255