i

UNIVERSITY OF BUEA

FACULTY OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF CURRICULUMSTUDIES

AND TEACHING

THE EFFECT OF CLASSROOM NOISE ON THE PHYSIO-

EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE OF PRIMARY SCHOOL
PUPILS IN LIMBE 1 SUB-DIVISION

A Long Essay Submitted to the Faculty of Education Department of

Curriculum Studies and Teaching in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Award of a Bachelor
Of Education ([Link].) Degree in Nursery
And Primary Education.
BY

Tangwi Wubnyonga Ajong Marynette

(DE18A027)

SUPERVISOR:
Liengu Lyonga Josephine
Epse Jackai (PhD) JULY, 2022
ii
 iii

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that this long essay entitled: “The Effect of Classroom Noise on the Physio-

Educational Performance of Primary School Pupils in Limbe 1 Sub-Division” is the

original work of Tangwi Wubnyonga Ajong Marynette (DE18A027) of the Distance

Education Programme of the Department of Curriculum Studies and Teaching in the Faculty

of Education, University of Buea, under the supervision of:

_____________________ ___________________________

Liengu Lyonga Josephine ( Date )

Epse Jackai (PhD)

(Supervisor)
 iv

DEDICATION

To the Ajong’s Family.

 v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Jakai Josephine my supervisor for her

advanced and critical professional attention, guidance, support, assistance and encouragement

in the development of the present work.

My sincere gratitude also goes to the dean of the faculty of education Professor Endeley

Margaret for her relentless effort to ensure that we get the best at the faculty. I am also grateful

to the Head of Department of CST Nekang Fabian (AP) for his day to day effort to ensure all

is moving well at the faculty.

I am grateful to all the administrative staff and Lectures of the University of Buea who in one

way or the other contributed towards my successful completion of my research study.

I wish to thank my course mates in the University of Buea for helping cope with the pressures

of this program and their various assistance towards me during the course of my work,

especially in this piece of writing.

I would further express appreciation to my lovely sister Wakuna Ajong Quinta for her financial

and moral support to make this project a success. I am extremely grateful to my mother, father

brothers, sisters, aunty, Che Collins, for their love, prayers, care, sacrifices in assistance during

this project.

I am also thanking the school administrators and respondents who facilitated the collection of

data and provided the data I needed for this project respectively.

Equally I am thanking all those who rendered their time support and assistance towards the

completion of the current study. I would thank the almighty God for guiding me throughout

this difficult moment.

 vi

ABSTRACT

This study was designed to determine the influence of classroom noise on the physio-

educational performance of primary school pupils in Limbe I Sub-division. In order to

effectively handle the study, five research questions were formulated to guide the study. The

descriptive statistical method and correlational research design was employed so as to

determine the effect of classroom noise. Using the simple random sampling technique, a sample

of 50 respondents from 10 primary schools were selected to represent the population of the

study. The Data was collected using semi-structured questionnaire to be filled by teachers, were

analyzed and summarized in statistical tables and charts. The descriptive statistical tools used

are frequency count, percentages and multiple responses set which aimed at calculating the

summary of findings for each variable. The Spearman’s rho test was used to ascertain the effect

of classroom noise on pupils academic and Physiological performance and managing of

classroom noise on pupils physio-educational performance. Finally, findings were presented

using frequency distribution tables, and on charts, with all inferential statistics presented at

95% level of confidence interval with alpha set at 0.05 levels, accepting 5% margin of [Link]

result of the findings revealed that intermittent, impulsive and continuous noise are the types

of noise experienced in the classroom. It was also revealed that pupils, machines, pedestrians,

loud music and phones were the causes of classroom noise. In addition, it was revealed that

noise affect pupils educational and physiological performance and finally the results indicated

that classroom noise could be mitigated if pupils are quiet, focused during lessons and teachers

make use of effective classroom management practices. It was recommended that all stake

holder education which include Policy makers, curriculum planners and designers, Ministry of

Town Planning and Urban Development, School administrator, School proprietors, PTAs must

contribute their own quarter to ensure sufficient provision and maintenance of effective

learning through noise reduction and mitigation regulation and facilities.

 vii

TABLE OF CONTENT

CERTIFICATION .................................................................................................................. iii

DEDICATION......................................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................... v
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. vi
TABLE OF CONTENT......................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. x
LIST OF ABBREVIATION................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
Background of the Study ........................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem ..................................................................................................... 12
Objective of the Study .......................................................................................................... 13
Research Questions .............................................................................................................. 13
General Research Question .............................................................................................. 13
Justification of the Study ...................................................................................................... 14
Significance of the Study ..................................................................................................... 15
Scope of the Study................................................................................................................ 16
Operational Definition of Terms .......................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 18
Conceptual Review ........................................................................................................... 18
Theoretical review ............................................................................................................ 33
Empirical Review ............................................................................................................. 39

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research design .................................................................................................................... 48
Area of study ........................................................................................................................ 48
 viii

Population of the study......................................................................................................... 49

Target population ................................................................................................................. 49
Accessible population of the study....................................................................................... 50
Sample Population................................................................................................................ 51
Sampling Technique ............................................................................................................. 52
Research instrument ............................................................................................................. 53
Validity of research instrument ............................................................................................ 53
Reliability of instrument....................................................................................................... 53
Administration of the instrument ......................................................................................... 54
Demographic Information of Respondents .......................................................................... 55
Data presentation and Analysis ............................................................................................ 56
Ethical consideration ............................................................................................................ 58
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 59
Presentation of Research Findings with respect to specific research Questions .................. 59
Summary of Research findings ............................................................................................ 72
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 73
Discussion of Findings ......................................................................................................... 73
Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 79
Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 79
Limitations of the Study ....................................................................................................... 80
Suggestions for Further Research ........................................................................................ 80
REFERENCE ........................................................................................................................... 81
APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................. 83
 ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1a: Government schools ........................................................................................ 50

Table 1b: Lay Private schools .......................................................................................... 50
Table 1c: Denominational schools .................................................................................. 50
Table 2: Accessible population......................................................................................... 51
Table 3: The sample size .................................................................................................. 52
Table 4: Reliability Analysis Report for Teachers ........................................................... 54
Table 5: Reliability Analysis Report for Pupils................................................................ 54
Table 6: Demographic Information of Teachers .............................................................. 55
Table 7: Demographic Information of Pupils ................................................................... 56
Table 8: Mathematical expression used for calculating multiple response set................. 58
Table 9: Teachers’ Opinion on the Different Type of Noise in the Classroom
Environment ..................................................................................................................... 59
Table 10: Pupils’ Opinion on the Different Type of Noise in the Classroom Environment
.......................................................................................................................................... 60
Table 11: Teachers’ Opinion on the Causes of Noise in the Classroom Environment .... 62
Table 12: Pupils Opinion on the Causes of Noise in the Classroom Environment .......... 63
Table 13: Teachers’ Opinion of Noise on Pupils Academic Performance ....................... 64
Table 14: Pupils’ Opinion of Noise on their Academic Performance .............................. 65
Table 15: Effect of Noise on Pupils’ Academic Performance .......................................... 66
Table 16: Teachers’ Opinion of Noise on Pupils Physiological Performance ................. 66
Table 17: Pupils’ Opinion of Noise on their Physiological Performance ........................ 67
Table 18: Effect of Noise on Pupils’ Physiological Performance .................................... 68
Table 19: Teachers’ Opinion on Noise Management and Pupils Physio-educational
Performance ...................................................................................................................... 69
Table 20: Pupils’ Opinion on Noise Management and Pupils Physio-educational
Performance ...................................................................................................................... 70
Table 21: Effect of Noise on Pupils’ Physio-educational Performance ........................... 71
Table 22: Summary of Findings ....................................................................................... 72
 x

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1: Astin model ........................................................................................................... 29

Fig. 2: Broadbent Bottle Neck theory ............................................................................... 34
Fig. 3 : Treismann Theory of Attenuation (McLeod, 2018). ............................................ 35
Fig. 4: Bronfenbrenner Ecological Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) ................................ 36
Fig. 5 Map of Limbe ......................................................................................................... 49
Figure 6: Teachers and Pupils Opinion on the Type of Noise Experience in Classroom 61
Figure 8: Classroom Noise and Pupils’ Academic Performance ..................................... 65
Figure 9: Classroom Noise and Pupils Physiological Performance ................................. 68
Figure 10: Managing Classroom Noise and Pupils Physio-Educational Performance .... 71
 xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

ONAC Office of Noise Abatement and Control

PTA Parents Teachers Association

WHO World Health Organization

 1

CHAPTER ONE

GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Introduction

Noise is the most persistent physical contaminant in human (Fernandez et al 2009). It can cause

a series of detrimental health effects on human beings, such as hearing loss, annoyance,

cardiovascular disease, sleep disturbance, immune effects, biochemical effects, reproductive

effects and performance effects, among which the best studied effect produced by the

overexposure to noise is loss of hearing (Fernandez et al 2009). Besides the risk of hearing

damage, noise may cause on memory, performance, headache, increase blood pressure, and

disturbance with activities (Berglund et al, 1990).

In the learning context, noise affects the behavior and understanding of students, and very noisy

places are unfavorable for learning and make teaching exhaustive (Hagen et al, 2002). Poor

acoustical condition and high noise levels can cause many problems for the instructors and

students. High sound levels may not only affect the verbal quality of communication but also

contribute to serious problems in the intellectual development of students, such as impaired

learning, writing and speaking difficulties, limitations in reading comprehension and

development of vocabulary (Berglund et al, 1990).

one law of the Cameroon educational constitution states that students have the right to go to

school but now depend on the school environment in which they find themselves effective

teachers tend to display strong classroom management skills, while the hallmark of the

inexperienced or less effective teachers in a disorderly classroom filled with students who are

not working or paying attention because of the environment or the nature of the class size

(Project House, 2020).

 2

Beyond the direct effects that poor facilities have on students’ abilities to learn in Cameroon,

the combination of poor facilities which create an uncomfortable and uninviting workplace for

teachers, combined with frustrating behavior by students including poor concentration and

hyperactivity, lethargy, or apathy, creates a stressful set of working conditions for teachers.

Because stress and job dissatisfaction are common pre-cursors to lower teacher enthusiasm and

by extension the academic performance (Project House, 2020).

Research concerning the effects of classroom noise on student performance has resulted in

conflicting reports. For example, Broadbent (1958), Jerison (1959), and Lehmann, Creswell,

& Huffman (1965) reported that noise has a negative effect on performance. The effects of

noise pollution may impact learning, as well as physical and mental health. Therefore, the

purpose of the current research is to examine the effects of classroom noise on pupils’

performance with respect to various intellectual tasks.

This chapter consists of Background of the Study, Statement of the Problem, Objectives of the

Study, Research Questions, Research Hypotheses, Justification of the Study, Significance of

the Study, Scope of the Study and Operational Definition of Terms.

Background of the Study

This section reviews the historical, conceptual, theoretical and contextual background of the

study.

Historically, as late as the 1950s, most of the sounds on the planet Earth were probably still of

natural origin rather than derived from technological sources. Today, however, the opposite

appears to be true (Bragdon and Clifford, 1970). Noise pollution is today accepted as a

significant part of the larger problem of environmental pollution, and is considered an area of

concern with respect to community health. The increasing attention directed to noise is

reflected in the growing literature on the subject (Ramazzini, 1964).

 3

The problem of the noisy environment is not new, however, and noise has been recognized for

hundreds of years as hazardous to health. Impairment of hearing due to excessive noise was

described by Bernardino Ramazzini in the 1713 edition of his treatise on the diseases of

workers (Ramazzini, 1964). In the chapter on coppersmiths, he observes that "In every city,

e.g., at Venice, these workers were all congregated in one quarter and were engaged all day in

hammering copper to make it ductile so that with it they may manufacture vessels of various

kinds (Ramazzini, 1964). From this quarter there rises such a terrible din that only these

workers have shops and homes there; all others flee from that highly disagreeable locality." As

a result, "the ears are injured by that perpetual din, and in fact the whole head, inevitably, so

that workers of this class become hard of hearing and, if they grow old at this work, completely

deaf. In fact, the same thing happens to them as to those who dwell near the Nile in Egypt, for

they are all deaf from the excessive uproar of the falling water." (Ramazzini, 1964).

According to Pomeau (1966), before the Industrial Revolution, however, most people lived in

an agricultural environment, and comparatively few were exposed to excessive noise. Cities,

on the other hand, have always been noisy. Horse-drawn vehicles clattering down the narrow

cobblestoned streets of 18th century Paris contributed in no small measure to the noisy

commotion noted by visitors such as Lady Mary Wortley Montagu nor was the situation

radically different in Augustan Rome or Boss Tweed's New York, but in general little or no

action was taken to deal with the noisy environment.

The situation changed rapidly, however, as cities grew in size during the 19th century, as

industry increasingly employed power-driven machinery, and as the technology of

transportation was transformed first by the steam engine and then by the internal combustion

engine. As a result, by the early 20th century recognition of noise and its effects as a health

problem could no longer be overlooked, and it began to be examined in the industrial countries

of Europe and in the United States (Pomeau, 1966).

 4

On the one hand, noise was studied in relation to occupation with particular attention to such

aspects as fatigue, nervous strain, and hearing impairment. Occupational deafness was found

in canners, rope makers, machinists, smiths, boilermakers, coppersmiths, sewing machine

operators, and workers in cotton mills. As industrial mechanization spread so did the number

of noisy occupations, so that by 1938 over 560 occupations were classified by the Detroit

Health Department under this heading. Today the number of such occupations is even greater,

and as numerous surveys have revealed, occupational deafness is a widespread industrial

hazard (Bell,1966).

Because noise pollution caused so many problems, the United States government passed laws

to regulate noise. In 1987, for example, Congress passed the National Overflights Act. This

law called for studies to determine the effect of air traffic over national parks. It also prohibited

low-flying planes from flying over certain parts of Grand Canyon National Park. Since 1972,

when the Noise Control Act was passed, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been

responsible for researching and regulating noise pollution in the United States. The Noise

Control Act reads in part as follows: "The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United

States to promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health

or welfare." Between 1972 and 1981, EPA's Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC)

issued hundreds of reports about the severity of noise pollution in America, trained community

leaders in ways to reduce noise pollution, and recommended numerous regulations to reduce

the impact. Its work was designed to educate communities and set uniform emission standards

throughout the country (Bragdon and Clifford, 1970).

In 1982, however, ONAC was shut down as part of President Reagan's deficit reduction plan.

The Noise Control Act was never repealed or amended, but it was no longer enforced at the

federal level. By 1999, the poorly funded ONAC was maintaining only a "skeleton" office. At
 5

the same time, some sections of the Noise Control Act pertaining to labeling, noise emission

standards, and noise sources were in need of updating (Bragdon and Clifford, 1970).

As of 2006, noise pollution is viewed as an environmental problem in the United States and

many other industrialized countries. Federal, state, and local laws and standards have been

enacted to minimize noise. Road development and urban planning must take into consideration

the noise that they will generate during the construction and maintenance of such projects.

Building codes specifically state restrictions to noise (Bragdon and Clifford, 1970).

Internationally, as late as the 1950s, most of the sounds on the planet Earth were probably still

of natural origin rather than derived from technological sources. Today, however, the opposite

appears to be true. Noise pollution, sometimes called environmental pollution, is human or

machine sounds that are created, which disrupt the natural environment and society in general

(Hansen & Colin, 2005). Cars, trucks, lawn mowers, leaf blowers, chain saws, power drills,

television, radio, video games, computers, and so forth adds to an almost endless list of noise

makers in modern life. Moreover, the world keeps getting noisier. Noise—which can be

defined as unwanted sound waves that were not present in the pre–modern electromagnetic

spectrum—is one of the most common forms of pollution, one that can easily damage the

hearing and general health of people and animals (Hansen & Colin, 2005).

Conceptually, noise refers to sounds that hinder an individual's ability to listen to what they

want or need to hear (Staples, 2014). Classroom noise can arise from several possible sources,

including external noise such as traffic noise and internal noise such as students running in

corridors and room noise as students talking. Noise has many definitions depending on where

the sounds exist and its effect to the recipient. The definitions of noise by Christopher are

"sound which is consequently it can be considered as the wrong sound in the wrong place at

the wrong time (Kiely, 1997). Noise refers to an unwanted sound that is judged to be
 6

unpleasant, loud or disruptive to hearing. The Oxford Dictionary’s definition of ‘noise’ is ‘a

sound, especially when it is loud, unpleasant or disturbing’ (Flemming, (2021).

Noise also is any sound that interferes with: Physical transmission of sound, physiological

comfort during communication, mental process of thinking about communication, and

symbolic meaning systems (Norris, 2016). Studies have shown that prolonged and regular

exposure to excessive noise results to both physical and psychological health consequences

which among others include hearing impairment, hypertension, ischemic heart disease,

annoyance, and sleep disturbance (Norris, 2016).

According to Gillelege, (2022) when categorizing noise, there are generally four main types:

continuous, intermittent, impulsive, and low-frequency. The main differentiating factor

between these types is how the noise changes with time. Continuous Noise as is obvious by the

name, continuous noise is the noise that remains stable and constant over a given period. For

instance, machinery that operates without interruption produces continuous noise. As opposed

to continuous noise, noise is said to be variable or intermittent if it is a mixture of somewhat

noisy and quiet periods. Intermittent noise levels tend to increase and decrease rapidly;

different operations or variable noise sources can cause the intermittent sound to change over

time. Impulse or impact noise is defined as extremely short bursts of loud noise that last for no

more than a second. This may seem to be a rather negligible period, but in a usually calm and

peaceful environment, a single, extremely loud noise can also cause sufficient hearing damage.

Physiological performance can be defined as changes in the structure and function of the body

(Chegg, 2021). Educational or academic performance is the extent to which a student, teacher

or institution has attained their short or long-term educational goals (Annie, Stoke r& Murray-

Ward ,1996). Thus physio-educational performance of a pupil has to do with pupils’ health and

academic welfare.
 7

Theoretically, three theories will guide this study: Bottle neck Theory of selective attention by

Donald Broadbent (1992), Attenuation theory by Treisman (1964), Bronfenbrenner Ecological

systems theory (1974)

Bottle neck Theory of selective attention by Donald Broadbent (1992)

The bottleneck theory suggests that individuals have a limited number of attentional resources

that they can use at one time. Therefore, information and stimuli are 'filtered' somehow so that

only the most salient and important information is perceived. This theory was proposed by

Broadbent in 1958. Picture a large bottle filled with sand that is turned upside down. The

bottleneck restricts the flow of sand so that it slowly pours out instead of coming out all at

once. Stimuli in our environment in the same way - if we perceived every visual, auditory,

olfactory, and tactile sense all at once all of the time our brains would be overflowing

(Alleydog, 2020).

In line with this study and according to Broadbent, people pay attention to one stimulus from

the environment at a time through selective attention, as such when noise from the environment

gets the attention of the learner at the time when a lesson is going on, learning is impeded and by

extension decline in academic performance.

Multitasking has a loophole of encouraging the rush in decision making. In most cases, the

controllers, such as a student in the classroom, may often have a hard time dealing with all the

required activities during the lesson.

Anne Treisman proposed her selective attention theory in 1964. His theory is based on the

earlier model by Broadbent. Treisman also believed that this human filter selects sensory inputs

on the basis of physical characteristics. However, she argued that the unattended sensory inputs

(the ones that were not chosen by the filter and remain in the sensory buffer) are attenuated by

the filter rather than eliminated. Attenuation is a process in which the unselected sensory inputs
 8

are processed in decreased intensity. For instance, if you selectively attend to a ringing phone

in a room where there's TV, a crying baby, and people talking, the later three sound sources are

attenuated or decreased in volume. However, when the baby's cry goes louder, you may turn

your attention to the baby because the sound input is still there, not lost (Sincero, 2013).

Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory views child development as a complex system of

relationships affected by multiple levels of the surrounding environment, from immediate

settings of family and school to broad cultural values, laws, and customs. To study a child's

development then, we must look not only at the child and her immediate environment, but also

at the interaction of the larger environment as well.

Bronfenbrenner divided the person's environment into five different systems: the microsystem,

the mesosystem, the exosystem, the macrosystem, and the chronosystem. The microsystem is

the most influential level of the ecological systems theory. This is the most immediate

environmental settings containing the developing child, such as family and school.

In support of this study, Bronfenbrenner purports that children’s development are not only

affect by the people and culture of their environment but by activities that goes on in their

environment and why not environmental hazards like noise pollution. All these has the

potential of influencing their physical and academic welfare.

Contextually, according to the findings of the World Health Organisation (WHO), noise is the

second largest environmental cause of health problems, just after the impact of air quality

(particulate matter). Nowadays, society is growing day by day, the development of industry,

traffic transport and entertainment have produced a higher quality of life for humans. A person

can own high technology electronic devises in their house, go to work and study easily by

public transports or go everywhere by trains and airplanes and usually participate parties and

meetings in modern life. Is that a good life? Humans have to build many factories and
 9

workshops for enough products supplying, public transports must be created what are bigger

and stronger, Parties and meetings lead to so much waste and noise. Consequently, it can be

the development of society bring people both a good life and damages. For example, damages

are air pollution, water pollution. And noise pollution is a new one. Noise is unwanted sounds

what are generated from factories, workshops, traffic jams, train whistles, airplanes, parties,

meetings with high level of loudspeakers and talking loudly (Nguyen, 2013).

Noise pollution is being a big issue in the world, because it directly affects health, working

efficiency and relationship. Noise causes the heart diseases, disturb and also cause bad

behavior. In that case, an individual has to regard and be careful about noise when working,

communicating. Do not talk too much and use loudspeakers at parties and meeting during

overtime. Rather, the government has to improve both traffic system to avoid traffic jam and

working quality of vehicles and public transports is better and working of factories and

constructions to control noise at low level. Life can be better when people achieve reduced

noise levels and live in healthy and peaceful environment. Awareness among all and

determination to implement the noise standards can lead to a silent atmosphere without any

disease and disturb from noise (Nguyen, 2013).

According to Arku (2021) Urban growth in Cameroon like in other Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)

countries is largely unplanned and marked by significant environmental pollution. The few

measurement studies in the region show that air and noise pollution, which come from diverse

sources, are now a major growing public health concern in cities. The diversity of sources in

SSA cities influences the air pollution mixture and noise levels, creating large exposure

disparities in relation to spatial and socioeconomic factors, with potentially huge impacts on

health inequalities and by socioeconomic status. Yet, there is little information on urban air

and noise pollution impacts in the SSA setting to support policy and behavioral decisions.
 10

Noise pollution from same/related sources/factors is on the rise in SSA cities and may impact

child growth and development through pathways like stress and sleep disturbance; sleep is a

critical health outcome, related to immune health, mental health, and cognitive function in early

childhood. Despite the differences in exposure and additional risks, the evidence of

associations between air and noise pollution exposures with adverse birth outcomes, and sleep

health in early childhood are mostly from populations in exposure settings quite different from

those in urban SSA. Lack of data in this population represent a major gap in our knowledge

and a barrier to the formulation and evaluation of policies to reduce environmental exposures

in the region (Arku, 2021).

According to Adedeji, (2013) in Africa among the problem associated with technological

advancement made by man in modern times which is not receiving enough attention from those

responsible for the planning and designing of the built environment is noise pollution. Noise

from industrial areas is often overlooked and has received very little attention over the years.

In Africa, many industrial estates are located within the heart of towns and cities, while

residential and commercial buildings might just find their way into industrial zones as a result

of poor enforcement of town planning laws. Without strict environmental regulation and

control laws in many developing countries, industrial noise sources can pose severe health risks

(Nwobodo et al., 2004). The observed effects of noise on motivation, as measured by

persistence with a difficult cognitive task, may either be independent or secondary to cognitive

impairments (SRC, 2007). Homes, schools, hospitals and other structures found in industrial

areas could be adversely affected by environmental noise. Depending on its duration and

volume, the effects of noise on human health and comfort are divided into four categories;

physical effects, such as hearing defects; physiological effects, such as increased blood

pressure, irregularity of heart rhythms and ulcers; psychological effects, such as disorders,

sleeplessness and going to sleep late, irritability and stress; and finally effects on work
 11

performance, such as reduction of productivity and misunderstanding what is heard (Ozer,

2009)

In Cameroon, there are several indicators that noise pollution is really a problem. For instance,

noise complaints, professional field observations and comments of noise discussion events

indicate the existence of the problem in the city. Preliminary quantitative noise pollution survey

in the city does also indicate that the city has been entertaining the problem (Kucha, 2011).

Many studies addressing the problem of noise pollution in educational institutes throughout the

world have been conducted. Ikenberry (1974) has analyzed some effects of noise pollution to

school students, such as students found difficult to hear the teacher, lectures, classroom

discussions, and other activities.

Slater (1968) in his research work showed that students can perform better under quite

condition than under noisy condition. In Cameroon most educational institutes are located near

the busy places such as bus stand, market area, busy roads etc. Therefore, these educational

institutes may suffer from noises and hence disturbing in school activities like teaching,

learning & discussion session. Like hospitals and nursing homes educational institutions are

categorized as a silence zone, because in educational facilities people teach and people learn.

In the urban city of Limbe which is an industrial zone, many schools are located beside

factories, markets and busy surrounding and all these have. The environment emit noise that

filter in learning environment, be they nursery, primary or secondary educational institution.

All these might have adverse effect on the teaching learning processes and the efficiency of the

learners.
 12

Statement of the Problem

Hearing and understanding are important parts of the learning process. Reducing the ambient,

intrusive noise in our schools will lead to an improved learning experience for students, but

also improve their long-term health (Simonsen,2020).

A quiet classroom helps teachers and students. It is especially important to have a quiet room

if a student has hearing loss in one or both ears; an ear infection or fluid in the ear; a learning

disability; auditory processing disorder; speech and language delay; and/or attention problems.

Teachers also do better if there are good classroom acoustics. Talking in a loud classroom

strains the teacher’s voice and may lead to voice problems.

Over the years in Limbe, the academic environments of educational institutions have been

characterized with noise (from poor acoustic, poor classroom management) and this has posed

a serious problem to learning process. Noise has a detrimental effect on academic environment

and learning behaviour of students. Activities affected by noise include memory, reading,

motivation, and attention.

Being a worker in Limbe for close to a decade, the researcher observed that the academic

performance pupils in primary school are below expectation. The pupils graduate from primary

schools without mastery or effective acquisition of the pre-requisite knowledge, skills, values

and competences for secondary education. Most of them can read, spell and write effectively

and efficiently. More so, they can’t solve problems that require creativity and critical thinking.

A lot of factors are responsible for better academic performance of primary school pupils. They

include the appropriateness of the physical and social environment of class, motivation of

teachers and students for teaching and learning, and students’ cognitive, emotional and motor

preparation. Others are sound management of class by teachers, teachers’ mastery over the

subject, and their passion for the work as well as students’ progress.
 13

There is increasing evidence that poor classroom acoustics can have a particularly negative

effect on students with special needs. These effects include hearing impairment, irritability,

stress, memory loss, inability to read and distraction during lessons.

As a result of the foregoing, the researcher seeks to find out if classroom noise affects the

physio-educational performance of primary school pupils in Limbe 1 sub-division.

Objective of the Study

General Objective

The general objective of this study is to find out how classroom noise affects the physio-

educational performance of primary school pupils in Limbe1 sub-division.

Specific Objectives

Specifically, the study set out to achieve the following:

- Find out the different type of noise in the classroom environment

- Determine the causes of noise in the classroom environment

- Examine the effect of noise on the physiological performance of pupils

- Investigate the effect of noise on the academic performance of pupils

- To what extent noise can be managed to enhance pupils’ physio-academic

performance.

Research Questions

General Research Question

The general research question for this study is: How does classroom noise affects the physio-

educational performance of primary school pupils in Limbe1 sub-division.

 14

Specific Research Questions

The specific research questions for this study are:

1. What are the different types of noise in the classroom environment?

2. What are the causes of noise in the classroom environment?

3. To what level does classroom noise affect the academic performance of pupils?

4. To what extent does classroom noise affect the physiological performance of pupils?

5. To what extent can noise be managed to enhance pupils’ physio-educational

performance?

Justification of the Study

The teaching and learning quality are highly influenced by the internal factors, such as the

teacher’s performance, environment factor in which learning take place affects the student

performance. The social atmosphere of a school is a potential and important contributing factor

to the student outcomes (Shield, 2011).

Very few persons have written with respect to classroom noise in Cameroon and Limbe 1

municipality in particular. This present study will go a long way to add to existing literature on

this topic and to adequately and explicitly bring out the effects of classroom noise on the

physio-educational performance of pupils in an africentric context.

Considering the relevance of a conducive social environment in enhancing physio-academic

performance of pupils, it is hoped that this study will challenge and inspire stake holders in the

educational community to provide the needed regulations and resources to ensure children

learn in a conducive social and noise – free classroom environment. It is for these reasons that

the researcher seeks to find out the effects classroom noise on the physio-educational

performance of primary school pupils in Limbe 1 sub-division.

 15

Significance of the Study

This research is intended to be of significance to the following groups of people: The

Government and curriculum designers, Policy makers, School administrator, School

proprietors, teachers, Parent Teachers' Associations and students, the Ministry of labour, Town

planning and territorial administration

Studying the effect of classroom noise on the physio-educational performance of primary

school pupils, will remind the government, curriculum designers and policy makers to ensure

that regulations and resources are put in place to ensure that pupils learn in a noise free

environment to boost their physiological and academic performance.

Moreover, the findings of this study will challenge school administrators to that school are

managed in such a way that school environment are conducive and noise-free by coming up

and enforcing regulations that reduce noise in school environment and the classroom in

particular.

Furthermore, this study will motivate school proprietors to develop regulations and provide

resources to see to it that their schools and especially classroom are serene and noise free to

boost academic and physiological performance.

The findings of this study will equally provoke teachers to put in place rules and regulation or

classroom management practices in the classroom that will reduce or eliminate unhealthy noise

in the classroom to bring about effective and efficient teaching and the classroom.

For parents, the findings of this study will compel parents and Parents Teachers Associations

to working in synergy with the schools of their children in enforcing regulations and providing

resources that will eliminate unhealthy noise in the classroom thereby boosting physiological

academic performance.

Importantly, the finding of this study will remind the ministries of the Ministry of labour, Town

planning and territorial administration the make available classroom that have noise reduction
 16

facilities and open schools in areas that are not noisy to impede the physio-educational welfare

of young learners.

Finally, the finding of this study will challenge pupils to work with or cooperate with their

teacher to ensure a noise free classroom to promote their physiological and academic

performance.

Scope of the Study

Geographically, the scope of this study was limited to Limbe 1 sub-division, Fako Division,

Southwest Region Republic of Cameroon.

Contentwise, the scope of this study will be limited to the effect of classroom noise on the

physio-educational performance of pupils in primary schools (type of noise in the classroom

environment, the causes of noise in the classroom environment, the effect of noise on the

physiological performance of pupils, the effect of noise on the academic performance of pupils

and how far noise can be managed to enhance pupils’ physio-academic).

Theoretically, the study examines three theories which are Bottle neck Theory of selective

attention by Donald Broadbent (1992), Attenuation theory by Anne Treisman (1964),

Bronfenbrenner Ecological systems theory (1974).

Methodologically, the study will make use of the quantitative methods and correlation research

design.

Operational Definition of Terms

Classroom Noise

Classroom noise refers to sounds in the classroom that hinder an individual's ability to listen to

what they want or need to hear. (The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2022).

This definition is adopted for this study.

 17

Physiological performance

Physiological performance can be defined as changes in the structure and function of the body.

This relates to one’s physical fitness, endurance, mechanical and metabolic efficiency, etc. via

structural and biochemical changes to your physiology (Jem, 2017). This definition is adopted

for this study.

Educational performance

Educational performance is the extent to which a student, teacher or institution has attained

their short or long-term educational goals (Coladarci, & Cobb, 1996). This definition is adopted

for this study.

Primary school

Primary education is typically the first stage of formal education, coming after

preschool/kindergarten and before secondary school (Barker, 2021). This definition is adopted

for this study.

 18

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

This chapter reviews literature on the concepts, theories, and empirical studies. The conceptual

literature addresses the variables and indicators of this study including the dependent (Physio-

Educational performance) and independent variables (classroom noise) are review. On

theoretical review, theories like Gagne’s Conditions for learning theory (1992), Carl Roger’s

Personality development theory (2014), Miller’s Information Processing theory (2008) are

being reviewed. On the empirical front, there will be the review of studies on the effects of

classroom noise on the physio-educational performance of primary school pupils which will

be done with following the objectives of the study.

Conceptual Review

In this section the following concept will be reviewed. They include: Classroom noise,

academic performance, physiological performance, sources of classroom noise, effects of

classroom noise on physiological performance, effect of classroom noise on academic

performance, managing or mitigating classroom noise to enhance physiological and academic

performance.

The concept of Noise

Noise is a psychological concept and is defined as sound that is unwanted by the listener

because it is unpleasant, bothersome, interferes with important activities or is believed to be

physiologically harmful (Kryter, 1970). Sounds can be unwanted because of their physical

properties, e.g., intensity, frequency, and intermittency, or because of their signal properties,

i.e., their meaning. Unwanted effects of sound that are related to its physical properties include
 19

the masking of wanted sound, auditory fatigue and hearing damage, excessive loudness,

bothersome and startle (Kryter, 1970).

The Concept of Classroom Noise

Classroom noise are sounds that hinder learners’ ability to hear and understand spoken

messages during teaching and learning sessions. Noise in the classroom refers to sounds that

hinder an individual's ability to listen to what they want or need to hear (WHO, 2013). Hearing

and understanding are important parts of the learning process. A noisy classroom can make

these tasks difficult. Noise in the classroom is more than students talking. There are other

factors that make it hard to hear and understand in the classroom (The American Speech-

Language-Hearing Association, 2022).

Lunquist, (2003) posits that all children must have access to education of equal value and the

curriculum points out the importance of a good environment for development and learning. In

the classroom, as many as 30 pupils and a teacher are working together. Modern working

methods differ a lot from the traditional. Teaching nowadays is focused on problem solving.

Students are more interactive, working in groups and projects. The teacher has become a

supervisor, guiding not lecturing. Hearing loss, vegetative responses, biochemical effects,

speech interference, behavioural effects and subjective reactions are all part of the problem of

noise exposure. There is no unequivocal method of assessing noise and its effects. The most

common method of noise assessment and appraisal of negative noise reactions is based on

measurement of acoustic characteristics.

Schools, business premises, service institutions and offices are examples of environments

where speech is often regarded as a serious problem (Kjellberg and Landström 1994;

Landström et al. 2002). A study by Kjellberg and Sköldström (1991) indicates speech to be

more disturbing than meaningless random noise and in a recent study speech was found to be
 20

more disturbing than meaningless noise when difficult verbal tasks were being performed

(Landström et al. 2002). Annoyance and effort ratings were higher and performance ratings

lower in speech than in broadband noise conditions. The effects were more pronounced during

verbal tasks than during work without verbal information. Irrelevant speech may also cause

annoyance and interfere with the performance of several tasks requiring retention of verbal

material (Jones and Morris 1992, Tremblay et al. 2000).

Causes and types of classroom noise

Classroom background noise can arise from several possible sources, including external noise

(such as traffic noise), internal noise (students running in corridors), and room noise, such as

students talking (Smaldino, Crandell, Kreisman, John & Kreisman, 2009).

Two things cause poor classroom acoustics: too much background noise and/or too much

reverberation. Background noise is any sound that makes it hard to hear. In a classroom,

background noise can come from many places, including the following: sounds from outside

the building, such as cars and lawnmowers, sounds from inside the building, such as students

talking in the hallway, sounds from inside the classroom, such as air conditioning units and

students in the room. Reverberation describes how sounds act in a room after they first happen.

Sounds stay in the room when they bounce off desks or walls. If many sounds do this at once,

it can get very loud (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2022).

According to Flemming, (2021) the noise is caused by air conditioning, traffic and activities in

other parts of school facilities. During studying, the level of noise in the classroom depends on

the size of the group and their ways of working. Noise pollution, also known as environmental

noise or sound pollution, is the propagation of noise with ranging impacts on the activity of

human or animal life, most of them harmful to a degree. The source of outdoor noise worldwide

is mainly caused by machines, transport, and propagation systems.

 21

Slater (1968) study on noise revealed that some human activities resulting to noise pollution

include: mobile sources such as cars, buses, planes, trucks, and trains: Stationery sources such

as power plants, oil refineries, industrial facilities, and factories.

A specific type of noise exposure in the classroom is that caused by footsteps, chairs, tables

and doors. The hazard of this type of activity is complicated by the prominent risk of

transmission through the building structure, i.e., the propagation of structure-borne noise. Due

to its temporal character, sounds from footsteps, doors, etc. may be a critical part of the sound

climate in the classroom. Generally, noise emitted from individual equipment, computers,

projectors, etc. is restricted in time and probably responsible for only a minor part of the noise

in classrooms. Practically all types of indoor environments are equipped with a ventilation

system. A large number of people are affected and complaints about ventilation noise have

increased in recent years. Ventilation noise has attracted particular attention in environments

such as offices, schools, and public areas (Landström 2001). Ventilation noise originates

primarily from fans and the air turbulence generated inside ducts and around air supply and

exhaust. Studies on effects of ventilation noise point out increased negative effects such as

disturbance with increasing level, at higher frequencies, increased exposure time and when the

ventilation noise is intermittent (Landström et al. 1991; 1994; 1996; Holmberg et al. 1993).

Noise from outdoor sources are another part of the noise exposure in classroom environments.

In school environments road traffic as well as air traffic, railways and construction work may

also contribute to annoyance and effects on performance (Hygge et al. 2003).

The Effects of Classroom Noise

Until the mid-seventies, knowledge of and conclusions about effects of noise exposure on

children were for the most part based on extrapolations from studies on adults. Such

extrapolations are questionable. Airey et al. (1998), for example, claim that children's listening
 22

skills are not yet fully developed and that they are more easily distracted by background noise

than adults. Today interest in studying environmental noise effects on children is growing,

although most research on the effects of noise on pupils has dealt with air, rail, and road traffic

noise (Bronzaft and McCarthy 1975; Hygge et al. 1993; Evans and Lepore 1996; Haines et al.

2000)

Hearing Loss

Very high sound pressure levels may burst the eardrum, cause immediate damage to the middle

ear structure and instantly and permanently damage hair cells in the inner ear. Long-term

exposure to high sound levels may destroy the hair cells of the inner ear resulting in a cochlear

hearing loss (Johansson 2003). In studies where the sound exposure level was known, a clear

relationship was seen between increasing incidence of hearing loss and increasing sound level

(Berglund and Lindvall 1995). Hearing loss among workers in noisy industries has been known

for a long time. A common estimation is that 15 - 20% of the working population are affected

by sound pressure levels of 75 - 85 dB(A) in industrialized countries (Berglund and Lindvall

1995). ISO 1999 presents standardised risk criteria based on sound levels to represent the risk

of damage to the inner ear (International Standardization Organization 1990). The risk of noise-

induced hearing loss depends on the duration of the exposure. The critical level, based on a

dose-effect assumption, is set at 85 dB(A) for 8 hours per day. According to the equal-energy

principle an increase by 3 dB would halve the duration. This implies a maximum of 28 seconds

of noise exposure at 115 dB(A). For impulse sounds of short duration, the peak level may cause

a permanent threshold shift regardless of the total energy. The Swedish legislation for

occupational environments (Swedish National Board of Occupational Safety and Health 1992)

specifies the exposure values for noise with reference to the risk of hearing impairment. The

limit for exposure to equivalent sound pressure level during 8 hours, five days a week, is set at
 23

85 dB(A), for exposure to maximum sound pressure level at 115 dB(A) and for exposure to

maximum peak level of impulse sound at 140 dB(C).

On the basis of the sound level/effect relationship for hearing loss and the known exposure

levels in classrooms it would seem that the risk of hearing damage is likely to be low. Critical

noise levels may be attained during music lessons, gymnastics and woodwork instruction.

Tinnitus, the perception of a sound without cause in an acoustical signal, is often associated

with hearing loss, although it is considered that factors other than sound exposure may be the

cause (Johansson 2003).

Vegetative Responses and Biochemical Effects of Noise

Rehm (1983) has summarized results from studies that have been focused on physiological

effects of noise. Sudden changes in acoustic surroundings may activate several physiological

systems leading to such changes as increase in blood pressure (Andrén et al. 1978) and

circulatory effects (Borg 1981). Verbeck et al. (1987) found that workers exposed to sound

levels exceeding 80 dB(A) had increased blood pressure. Cohen et al. (1980) show that high

aircraft noise exposure, in school, is associated with an increase in blood pressure. Other studies

show an effect on levels of noradrenaline and adrenaline (Cavatorta et al. 1987) and in a study

of aircraft-noise exposure in school children by Evans et al. (1995) noise induced an increase

in epinephrine and norepinephrine levels. Some studies also indicate that noise should be

included as a potential reproductive hazard (Baird 1985) and a risk factor for the unborn child

(McDonald et al. 1986).

Speech Interference

Speech interference is the specific situation where speech is masked by another sound. Masking

is primarily an interaction between two simultaneous sounds where the masking effect is

biggest within the frequencies of the masking sound. However, there is also a masking effect
 24

outside the background frequency area, mainly upwards in frequency. It has been shown that a

low frequency sound masks a speech signal more than a high frequency sound (Gelfand 1981).

Another masking phenomenon is temporal masking where a signal is masked by another sound

presented immediately before or after the signal (Moore 1997). It is difficult to estimate the

extent of speech interference from an A-weighted sound. However, the interference of speech

communication is of special interest in school settings since the daily activities in the classroom

are based on communication and concentration. Berg (1987) reports that pupils spend about

45% of the school day engaged in listening activities. Talk is used to organize classroom

settings, to initiate and facilitate learning situations and to constitute the framework for

classroom organisation and management (McSporran 1997). Children generally have a less

precise speech, a more limited vocabulary, and less familiarity with language rules than adults.

Masking effects of noise may therefore be particularly critical both for the perception of

children's speech and for the children's perception of speech. Exposure to high levels of noise

during the period in which the children are acquiring speech, language, and listening skills may

have effects on scholastic performance (DeJoy 1983). The average voice level for a teacher is,

according to Pekkarinen and Viljanen (1990), 57 dB(A). In environments with a sound level

exposure representing a typical sound level in an occupied classroom of 60 dB(A), as reported

by Berg et al. (1996), and noise levels as high as 70 dB(A), as reported by Markides (1986)

and Pekkarinen and Viljanen (1991), 75 - 85 dB(A), as measured by Ross (1982) and Finitzo

(1988), or, to quote the series of measurements by Airey et al. (1998), 60 - 84 dB(A) in open-

plan schools and 52 - 101 dB(A) in cellular classrooms, there is an obvious risk that the

teacher's voice will not be clearly perceived. To determine if the pupils in a classroom can hear

the necessary information there are six issues to be taken into consideration (Palmer 1997): the

teacher's speech signal, which according to Crandell and Smaldino (1994) rarely achieves a

satisfactory level throughout the day in a typical classroom, the noise in the classroom, the
 25

reverberation time, the distance from teacher to pupil, the pupil's hearing status, and the

linguistic experience of the pupils.

The Concept of Physiological Performance

Huppert, (2009) defines physiological performance as the combination of feeling good and

functioning effectively. High psychological well-being is about feeling happy and doing well.

People with high psychological well-being report feeling capable, happy, well-supported, and

satisfied with life (Morin, 2022). It is defined as one's ability to carry out activities that require

physical actions, ranging from self-care (activities of daily living) to more complex activities

that require a combination of skills, often with a social component or within a social context.

Physical function is a multidimensional concept, with four related subdomains: mobility (lower

extremity function), dexterity (upper extremity function), axial ability (neck and back

function), and ability to carry out instrumental activities of daily living (Promis, 2014)

Physiological performance can be defined as the study of how exercises/activities change the

structure and function of the body. These activities done by individual, influences the metabolic

activities. Vigorous exercises and activities boost up the metabolism of a person and increase

the basal metabolic rate (Chegg, 2003).

The Concept of Academic Performance

According to Narad and Abdullah (2016) academic performance is the knowledge gained

which is assessed by marks by a teacher and/or educational goals set by students and teachers

to be achieved over a specific period of time. They added that these goals are measured by

using continuous assessment or examinations results. Annie, Howard and Midred (as cited in

Arhad, Zaidi & Mahmood, 2015) also indicated that academic performance measures education

outcome. They stressed that it shows and measures the extent to which an educational

institution, teachers and students have achieved their educational goals. Similarly, Yusuf,
 26

Onifade and Bello (2016) opined that academic performance is a measurable and observable

behaviour of a student within a specific period. He added that it consists of scores obtained by

a student in an assessment such as class exercise, class test, mid-semester, mock examination,

and end of semester examination. Again, Martha (2009) emphasized that academic

performance of students is defined by a student’s performance in an examination, tests, and in

a course work.

In other words, the amorphous concept of Academic Performance can be defined in terms of

gaining knowledge; acquiring skills and competencies; securing high grades and similar

academic achievements; securing a progressive career; and intention and persistence towards

education. Also, when one seeks to acquire information regarding academic performance of

students, the magnitude of significance accorded to the abovementioned versions of Academic

Performance, is highest for academic achievement followed by knowledge gained as well as

skills and abilities acquired (York et al., 2015). Academic performance is the measurement of

student achievement across various academic subjects. Teachers and education officials

typically measure achievement using classroom performance, graduation rates and results from

standardized tests (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2014).

The Effects of Noise on Academic Performance

The World Health Organization (WHO) reported that for students to be able to hear and

understand spoken messages, the background sound levels (BSL) should not exceed 35 dB

during teaching sessions (Ibrahim & Richard, 2000; Berglund et al., 1995). Several sound

monitoring sessions recently conducted in various learning environments in Northern

Mindanao and Western Visayas have recorded continuance and individual BSLs exceeding the

accepted range and reaching levels considered by audiologists harmful to the ear (Diaco, 2013).
 27

Scientific findings have established that noise pollution poses threats not only to human health

but also to the cognitive abilities of the learners (Clark & Stansfeld, 2007).

Ikenberry (1974) has analyzed some effects of noise pollution to school students, such as

students found difficulty hearing the teacher, lectures, classroom discussions, and other

activities. Slater (1968) in his research work showed that students can perform better under

quite condition than under noisy condition. Hockey and his colleagues (Hockey & Hamilton,

1983; Hockey, 1984) reviewed a large body of literature on the effects of different types of

stressors on several components of cognitive performance. Although commonalities exist

across stressors (e.g., alcohol, depressant drugs, and fatigue all cause a reduction in general

alertness and activation), each stressor was considered to have a unique signature pattern when

all performance indicators were considered.

Hockey (1997) also distinguished between the structural and the strategic effects of stress.

Structural changes are those that occur in basic processing components (e.g., attentional

narrowing), and strategic effects manifest as compensatory response (e.g., increased effort,

speed–accuracy trade-offs). Hence, noise may affect performance by impairing information

processing or, alternatively, by inducing shifts in strategic response. There is evidence of both

forms of stress effect. Specifically, noise increases levels of general alertness/activation and

attentional selectivity. It does not influence performance speed, but it reduces performance

accuracy and short-term/working memory performance.

Many studies have shown the negative impact of loud noises on reading and memory in

children (Theakston, 2011). Based on WHO’s Guidelines for Community Noise, noise

pollution interferes with spoken communication, affects comprehension, impairs task

performances including reading attention and memory, and leads to problems with

concentration and communication (Goines & Hagler, 2007; Hagler, 1999). Studies established
 28

that reading attention, problem solving, and memory are most strongly affected by noise, which

also affects communication skills, leading to misinterpretation of instructions, decreasing

motivation, and increasing rates of error (Lane, 2009; Hagler, 1999).

Recent data also suggest that the meaning of a sound plays an important role in determining its

effects on annoyance, performance and possibly health (Borsky, 1980; S. Cohen, 1980a; S.

Cohen, Glass & Phillips, 1979). Thus, even fairly loud sounds may sometimes be viewed as

desirable, while relatively soft sounds can be viewed as noisy. For example, while your

neighbor might enjoy listening to an album of rock music at 110 decibels, you might find the

same physical stimulus quite aversive, and while the sound of a couple whispering during a

theater performance may be barely audible, it may also be reacted to as an intruding noise.

Factors that Enhance Academic Performance

On the whole, securing and inculcating a meaningful change (psychological, affective,

cognitive as well as behavioural) in the students, is the ultimate goal of the education system

across the world. This fact finds its explanation in the Astin’s Model of change, which holds

that the outcome pertaining to students, i.e., learning is a function of the personal characteristics

of students- the “INPUT” as well as the “ENVIRONMENT” which they confront while

attending an institution for education.

 29

Fig. 1: Astin model

As such, the concept of Academic Performance can be considered as a reflection of the

outcome of education.

The Effect of Noise On Physiological Performance

According to Flemming, (2021) noise in classrooms leads to increased stress and the teacher

having to raise their voice louder. It also leads to a negative feedback loop of noise; to hear

what’s being said young people have to talk louder and louder. This could in the long term

affect students and teachers hearing. The after effects of the noise pollution are much more

than you can think. Loss of hearing is the worst thing that can happen to a human being as the

effect of noise pollution.

Another mechanism that possibly underpins noise effects on performance is the degradation of

working memory (Hockey, 1986). Jones (1993), for example, argued that it is in the context of

working memory tasks that the strongest noise effects are likely to occur. One reason may be

the distraction of attention away from the task at hand or a particular component of it (in this

case, the rehearsal of the information held in the working memory) and toward the task-

irrelevant noise stimuli. Thus, the material held in the working memory at that point in time

becomes degraded (Brown, 1958; Peterson & Peterson, 1959). This effect, which is not specific
 30

to noise alone, is thought to be closely linked to the observed effects of stress on situation

awareness (Orasanu, 1997).

Broadbent (1978) invoked an arousal induced attentional narrowing mechanism to explain

noise effects. From this perspective, noise (as well as other sources of stress) increases arousal

which decreases the breadth of attention (Easterbrook, 1959; Hebb, 1955). At relatively lower

levels of arousal, the attentional narrowing facilitates performance because it causes the

individual to exclude irrelevant cues. Beyond an optimal level, however, increases in arousal

cause increased narrowing so that task-relevant cues are also excluded, and performance is thus

impaired.

In addition to the physical damage caused by exposure to excessive noise, continued exposure

has been associated with elevated levels of stress, high anxiety, increased annoyance,

depression, and fatigue (Doherty 1999, Evans & Johnson 2000, Glass & Singer 1972, Kalveram

2000, Kryter 1994). Stress, in turn, has been observed as contributing to a number of

psychosomatic conditions, including asthma, digestive tract disorders, heart diseases,

migraines, chest and back pain (Bacon et al. 1994, Barsky 1988, Doherty 1999, Donoghue &

Siegel 1994, Galloway, Panckurst, Boswell, Boswell & Green 1984b, Maddi & Kobasa 1984,

Romanova & Grebennikov 1996, Wilder & Plutchik 1984). Hans Selye, whose research first

demonstrated that the continuing presence of stressors modified the immune system, labelled

these conditions “diseases of adaptation” (Selye 1956).

However, Park & Payne (1963) and Slater (1968) found that performance is not significantly

affected by noise level. In spite of this body of conflicting research, many schools around the

world have moved from traditional arrangements toward "open" settings (Rivlin & Rothenberg,

1976) which produce relatively high levels of classroom noise. Still other schools have spent

funds for acoustical control in the classroom (Cohen; Evans, Krantz, Stokols, & Kelly,1981).
 31

Studies examined by the World Health Organization (WHO) have found that children exposed

to continuous disruptive noise can experience poorer reading ability, memory and academic

performance (Knauf, 2020).

According to World Health Organization (WHO) guideline value for schools, critical effects

of noise in classrooms are on speech interference, disturbance of information extraction

(comprehension and reading acquisition), message communication and annoyance. In order to

be able to hear and understand spoken messages in classrooms, background sound pressure

level should not exceed 35 dB LAeq (maximum permissible sound level) during teaching

sessions. Average daily exposure10 for a child at school is 72 dB(A) LAeq. (WHO, 1999)

Managing or Mitigating Classroom Noise

Starting from the learning environments, improving the school climate will contribute to the

creation of positive school culture. As a result, there is a consensus that it will contribute

positively to students' development and increase their academic success. In this context, it is

crucial that physical spaces where communication and interaction between students, teachers,

administrators and employees take place and where the curriculum is implemented have a

suitable climate. There are many studies that reveal, with quantitative data, that the noise

phenomenon is one of the main factors affecting the school climate. These studies show that

the noise level in the school is quite high (Grebennikov, 2007; Jaramillo, 2014; Jaramillo,

Ermann, & Miller, 2013; Lindstrom, Waye, Södersten, McAllister & Ternström, 2011).

Noise level in school classrooms during school hours exceeded WHO guideline value. Both

male and female teachers are disturbed by noise level. Female students are more affected than

male students. Noise effects on teachers increases as age increases. Very noisy classrooms

would create difficulty for children to hear and understand their lessons. To improve school

teaching environment, higher school authority should take into consideration in term of school
 32

design in order to reduce undesirable background noise. Sound barriers have to be built to avoid

excessive road traffic noise along the road adjacent to school classroom (WHO, 1999).

Similarly, it is possible to reduce the noise by making acoustic arrangements in environments,

such as schools, hospitals and libraries where it is necessary to be silent and at a low noise

level, and the sound that comes out can come to our ears in the most orderly and quality way.

Considering this information, it is possible to reduce the noise generated by using sound-

absorbing materials in the ceilings, floors and walls in school buildings. This result is similar

to the results of other studies (Bulunuz, Bulunuz, & Tuncal, 2017; Saher & Karaböce, 2019).

For example, according to Saher and Karaböce (2019, p. 386), "good classroom acoustics that

can meet the auditory needs of all students can make learning more effective and students'

academic performance higher. This can be considered as providing a democratic right to

education for all children.

Studies emphasize that noise education should not be limited to teachers in schools, but should

continue to be given by family members in homes where children spend the most time (Bulunuz

& Akyun, 2019; Bulunuz et al., 2017). In order for this education to continue at home, first of

all, it is necessary to raise the awareness of the households on how to prevent noise and protect

themselves from it. When we look at the sociocultural background of the society we live in,

somebody’s definitely in the room watching television loudly, while the child is trying to study

in the other room, or when the child is resting, falling asleep and reading a book, talking loudly

or even hosting guests. Habits like these are pretty common place. These habits negatively

affect both the family order and the psychological development and school success of the child.

Thus, providing noise education to families is of considerable importance. It will be easier for

children who grow up in a calm environment at home to exhibit similar behaviours at school.
 33

Theoretical Review

In these section three theories will be reviewed: Bottle-neck theory of selective attention by

Donald Broadbent (1992), Attenuation theory by Anne Treisman (1964), Bronfenbrenner

Ecological system theory (2008)

Bottle -Neck Theory of Selective Attention Broadbent (1992)

We are constantly bombarded by an endless array of internal and external stimuli, thoughts,

and emotions. Given this abundance of available data, it is amazing that we make sense of

anything! In varying degrees of efficiency, we have developed the ability to focus on what is

important while blocking out the rest.

Selective attention is the process of directing our awareness to relevant stimuli while ignoring

irrelevant stimuli in the environment. This is an important process as there is a limit to how

much information can be processed at a given time, and selective attention allows us to tune

out insignificant details and focus on what is important. This limited capacity for paying

attention has been conceptualized as a bottleneck, which restricts the flow of information. The

narrower the bottleneck, the lower the rate of flow (McLeod, 2018)

Broadbent (1958) proposed that physical characteristics of messages are used to select one

message for further processing and that all others are lost. Information from all of the stimuli

presented at any given time enters an unlimited capacity sensory buffer. One of the inputs is

then selected on the basis of its physical characteristics for further processing by being allowed

to pass through a filter. Because we have only a limited capacity to process information, this

filter is designed to prevent the information-processing system from becoming overloaded.

 34

Fig. 2: Broadbent Bottle neck theory

Broadbent wanted to see how people were able to focus their attention (selectively attend), and

to do this he deliberately overloaded them with stimuli. One of the ways Broadbent achieved

this was by simultaneously sending one message to a person's right ear and a different message

to their left ear. This is called a split span experiment (also known as the dichotic listening

task). He actually found that people made fewer mistakes repeating back ear by ear and would

usually repeat back this way (McLeod, 2018).

Relevance of Theory to the Study.

In line with this study, according to Broadbent, people can respond or pay attention to one

stimuli from the environment at a time through selective attention as such noise from the
 35

environment get the attention of the learner thus impacting academic performance especially

if it’s interesting to him/her.

Treisman's Attenuation Theory- Treisman (1964)

Treisman (1964) agrees with Broadbent's theory of an early bottleneck filter. However, the

difference is that Treisman's filter attenuates rather than eliminates the unattended material.

Attenuation is like turning down the volume so that if you have 4 sources of sound in one room

(TV, radio, people talking, baby crying) you can turn down or attenuate 3 in order to attend to

the fourth. This means that people can still process the meaning of the attended message(s).

Fig. 3 : Treismann Theory of Attenuation (McLeod, 2018).

In her experiments, Treisman demonstrated that participants were still able to identify the

contents of an unattended message, indicating that they were able to process the meaning of

both the attended and unattended messages. Treisman carried out dichotic listening tasks using

the speech shadowing method. Typically, in this method participants are asked to

simultaneously repeat aloud speech played into one ear (called the attended ear) whilst another

message is spoken to the other ear. For example, participants asked to shadow "I saw the girl

furniture over" and ignore "me that bird green jumping fee", reported hearing "I saw the girl
 36

jumping over". Clearly, then, the unattended message was being processed for meaning

(McLeod, 2018).

Relevance of theory to the Study

In support of the study, Triesman posits that all information we get from the environment are

all process or we try to process all which can constitute a huge distraction as in the experiment

above where there were errors in processing, hindering effective communication in the

classroom and by extension academic performance.

Bronfenbrenner (1977) suggested that the environment of the child is a nested arrangement of

structures, each contained within the next. He organized them in order of how much of an

impact they have on a child. Because the five systems are interrelated, the influence of one

system on a child’s development depends on its relationship with the others.

Fig. 4: Bronfenbrenner Ecological Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1977)

 37

The Microsystem

The microsystem is the first level of Bronfenbrenner's theory, and are the things that have direct

contact with the child in their immediate environment, such as parents, siblings, teachers and

school peers. Relationships in a microsystem are bi-directional, meaning the child can be

influenced by other people in their environment and is also capable of changing the beliefs and

actions of other people too. Furthermore, the reactions of the child to individuals in their

microsystem can influence how they treat them in return. The interactions within microsystems

are often very personal and are crucial for fostering and supporting the child’s development. If

a child has a strong nurturing relationship with their parents, this is said to have a positive effect

on the child. Whereas, distant and unaffectionate parents will have a negative effect on the

child.

The Mesosystem

The mesosystem encompasses the interactions between the child’s microsystems, such as the

interactions between the child’s parents and teachers, or between school peers and siblings.

The mesosystem is where a person's individual microsystems do not function independently,

but are interconnected and assert influence upon one another. For instance, if a child’s parents

communicate with the child’s teachers, this interaction may influence the child’s development.

Essentially, a mesosystem is a system of microsystems. According to the ecological systems

theory, if the child’s parents and teachers get along and have a good relationship, this should

have positive effects on the child’s development, compared to negative effects on development

if the teachers and parents do not get along

The Exosystem

The exosystem is a component of the ecological systems theory developed by Urie

Bronfenbrenner in the 1970s. It incorporates other formal and informal social structures, which
 38

do not themselves contain the child, but indirectly influence them as they affect one of the

microsystems. Examples of exosystems include the neighborhood, parent’s workplaces,

parent’s friends and the mass media. These are environments in which the child is not involved,

and are external to their experience, but nonetheless affects them anyway. An instance of

exosystems affecting the child’s development could be if one of the parents had a dispute with

their boss at work. The parent may come home and have a short temper with the child as a

result of something which happened in the workplace, resulting in a negative effect on

development.

The Macrosystem

The macrosystem is a component of Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory that focuses

on how cultural elements affect a child's development, such as socioeconomic status, wealth,

poverty, and ethnicity. Thus, culture that individuals are immersed within may influence their

beliefs and perceptions about events that transpire in life. The macrosystem differs from the

previous ecosystems as is does not refer to the specific environments of one developing child,

but the already established society and culture which the child is developing in. This can also

include the socioeconomic status, ethnicity, geographic location and ideologies of the culture.

For example, a child living in a third world country would experience a different development

than a child living in a wealthier country.

The Chronosystem

The fifth and final level of Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory is known as the

chronosystem. This system consists of all of the environmental changes that occur over the

lifetime which influence development, including major life transitions, and historical events.

These can include normal life transitions such as starting school but can also include non-

normative life transitions such as parents getting a divorce or having to move to a new house.
 39

In support of this study, Bronfenbrenner argues that development is a function their interactions

and relationship with people and objects in different contexts or ecologies/environment. This

highlights the fact that the setting in which pupils find themselves has an impact on their

development. Where there is noise, distraction and sound pollution the pupils will develop

differently that when there is none and the environment is calm and serene.

Empirical Review

This section reviews related studies with respect to the specific objective.

The Different Type of Noise in the Classroom Environment

Shield, (2008) conducted a study on to examine the impact, if any, of chronic exposure to

external and internal noise on the test results of children aged 7 and 11 in London (UK) primary

schools. External noise was found to have a significant negative impact upon performance, the

effect being greater for the older children. The analysis suggested that children are particularly

affected by the noise of individual external events. Test scores were also affected by

internal classroom noise, background levels being significantly related to test results. Negative

relationships between performance and noise levels were maintained when the data were

corrected for socio-economic factors relating to social deprivation, language, and special

educational needs. Linear regression analysis has been used to estimate the maximum levels of

external and internal noise which allow the schools surveyed to achieve required standards of

literacy and numeracy. The study also indicated that while at school children are exposed to

various types of noise including external, environmental noise and noise generated within

the classroom.

Connolly and Dockrell, (2019) carried out a study to examine the impact of different levels

of classroom noise on adolescents' performance on reading and vocabulary-learning tasks. A

total of 976 English high school pupils (564 aged 11 to 13 years and 412 aged 14 to 16 years)
 40

completed reading tasks on laptop computers while exposed to different levels of classroom

noise played through headphones. The tasks consisted of reading science texts, which were

followed by multiple-choice questions probing comprehension and word learning. Number of

questions attempted, times taken to read the texts and to answer questions were recorded, as

well as correct answers to different types of question. The study consisted of two similar

experiments, the first comparing performance in classroom noise at levels of 50 and 70 dB

LAeq; and the second at levels of 50 and 64 dB LAeq. The results showed that the performance

of all pupils was significantly negatively affected in the 70 dB LAeq condition, for the number

of questions attempted and the accuracy of answers to factual and word learning questions. It

was harder to discern effects at 64 dB LAeq, this level of noise having a detrimental effect upon

the older pupils only.

Shield, (2004) carried out Internal and external noise surveys around schools in London, UK,

to provide information on typical levels and sources to which children are exposed while at

school. Noise levels were measured outside 142 schools, in areas away from flight paths into

major airports. Here 86% of the schools surveyed were exposed to noise from road traffic, the

average external noise level outside a school being [Math Processing

Error]57 dB LAeq. Detailed internal noise surveys have been carried out in 140 classrooms in

16 schools, together with classroom observations. It was found that noise levels

inside classrooms depend upon the activities in which the children are engaged, with a

difference of [Math Processing Error]20 dB LAeq between the “quietest” and “noisiest”

activities. The average background noise level in classrooms exceeds the level recommended

in current standards. The number of children in the classroom was found to affect noise levels.

External noise influenced internal noise levels only when children were engaged in the

quietest classroom activities. The effects of the age of the school buildings and types of

window upon internal noise were examined but results were inconclusive.
 41

The Causes of Noise in the Classroom Environment

Grebennikov, (2007) conducted a study on Preschool teachers’ exposure to classroom noise.

He examined exposure to classroom noise of 25 full‐time teaching staff in 14 preschool settings

located across Western Sydney. The results indicated that one teacher exceeded the maximum

permissible level of daily noise exposure for employees under the health and safety legislation.

Three staff approached this level and 92% of teachers were subjected to daily noise exposure

which, if occurs repeatedly, is considered potentially harmful. Nine staff recorded peak noise

rates in excess of the permitted limit. High levels of noise were evident when large numbers of

students were located in confined areas, when they were involved in rough play or were

distressed, when the students dropped heavy play equipment, and during music sessions.

Further research on noise in early educational settings across different nations appears to be

valuable for understanding both the scope of the problem and possible remedies.

Servilha and Dellatti, (2014) carried out an investigation to identify the perceptions of

university students about the noise in the classroom and its consequences on learning quality.

The participants were 100 healthcare undergraduate students from ten noisy classrooms

indicated by their teachers. They completed a questionnaire with open and closed questions

about the presence, source, type, and valuation of noise, its impact on lessons and strategies to

minimize it. The closed responses were descriptively analyzed, and compared among courses.

Mean age was 21.3 years, female predominance (85%) and unmarried (91%). The university

and the classrooms were considered noisy by the students; they indicated themselves as the

largest source of noise; they react to noise with an effort to listen, difficulty in concentration

and irritation which interfere in learning, grades and health. In noisy conditions, the students

ask for silence, to sit in front of the class or to study at home.

 42

Kristiansen, Roger and Shibuya (2011) carried out a study to investigate the Determinants of

noise annoyance in teachers from schools with different classroom reverberation times. A high

proportion of school teachers report that they are disturbed by noise during teaching. The aim

of the study was therefore to identify determinants of self-reported noise exposure and

disturbance attributed to noise among secondary school teachers (n = 419) in 10 schools in

Copenhagen, Denmark. The schools were selected to show contrasts in classroom reverberation

times (RT), and were classified as “Short RT” (3 schools, mean RT 0.41–0.45 s), “Medium

RT” (3 schools, mean RT 0.51–0.55 s) and “Long RT” (4 schools, mean RT 0.62–0.73 s).

Significant determinants of self-reported noise exposure were a high number of children in the

class, young age of the children, and low teacher seniority. “Long RT” classification was of

borderline significance. Significant determinants of disturbance attributed to noise from

children in the class were teacher seniority and “Long RT” acoustic classification of the school.

The associations between work characteristics and noise disturbance measures were attenuated

by low self-rated work capacity, suggesting that the consequences of noise and poor acoustics

may not be limited to disturbance attributed to noise, but may have a wide negative impact on

the perceived working environment.

The Effect of Noise on the Physiological Performance of Pupils

Goran et al (2012) carried out a study to examine the relationship between noise and school

children’s executive functioning (EF), includes decision making, working memory, and self-

regulation of emotions and behaviors. The study included 311 children (146 boys and 165 girls)

aged 7 -11 years, who lived in the center of Belgrade. There were no significant main effects

of ambient noise levels on EF, however, a significant interaction indicated adverse noise

impacts on boys.

The results of Kiri (2015) study suggest that open plan classrooms with over 90 students are

not appropriate learning environments for young children due to the high intrusive noise levels
 43

experienced in these types of spaces. These noise levels are likely to affect not only the

children’s learning, but also cause vocal health problems for the teachers from the need to

constantly raise their voice above a comfortable level to be heard. These findings suggest that

while a classroom with four solid fully enclosed walls is likely to be the best learning

environment, a single classroom with a concertina wall should provide adequate listening

conditions most of the time.

Tomek and Urhahne, (2022) examined the effects of student noise on student teachers’ stress

experiences, concentration and error–correction performance. Student noise can affect

teachers’ stress experience and work performance. Two experimental studies were conducted

to examine these effects in more detail. Based on Lazarus’ transactional stress model and the

maximal adaptability theory, we assumed an increase in stress experience due to noise and

stimulating effects of noise up to a point of maximal adaption before performance drops. The

first experiment comprised 74 and the second experiment included 104 student teachers from

a German university that were randomly assigned to one of three noise conditions. Participants

were asked to complete a concentration test and correct a dictation. Results from analyses of

variance were in support of our hypotheses. In both experiments, noise exposure increased

stress experience. The first experiment showed positive effects and the second experiment

negative effects of noise on participants’ error correction. The results are discussed with respect

to school noise affecting teachers’ mental health and work performance.

The Effect of Noise on the Academic Performance of Pupils

Brannstrom, (2017) conducted a study on the influence of voice quality on sentence processing

and recall performance in school-age children with normal hearing. The present study examines

the influence of voice quality on sentence processing and word recall in a working memory

task. Fifty-seven children (8:1–9:1 year old) with normal hearing participated. Working

memory capacity (WMC) was assessed using a competing language processing task (CLPT)
 44

which consists of a sentence processing segment (judgements of semantic acceptability in

sentences) and a final word recall segment. All children completed two versions of the CLPT;

once listening to a typical voice and once listening to a vocally loading induced dysphonic

voice. The two voices were recorded from the same female speaker. In addition, the children’s

executive functioning was assessed using Elithorn’s mazes. The dysphonic voice quality

significantly decreases scores on the sentence processing segment but not on the recall

segment. Children with better executive functioning (i.e., response inhibition, organizing,

processing, and planning) were less disturbed by the dysphonic voice in the recall segment.

Children’s judgements of semantic acceptability in sentences in a working memory task are

affected by a dysphonic voice quality, but not the recall segment (the measure of WMC).

However, children with lower executive functioning may be more disturbed by the dysphonic

voice. These findings suggest that listening to a dysphonic voice seems to require more

cognitive resources than listening to a typical voice, but only when the task is sufficiently easy

to allow for allocation of cognitive resources to process the degraded signal con

Abdolreza and Amir (2016) studied The Effect of Noise in Educational Institutions on

Learning and Academic Achievement of Elementary Students in Ahvaz, South-West of Iran.

This study was conducted to examine the effect of noise in educational institutions on the

academic achievement of elementary school students in the academic year 2015-2016 in

Ahvaz. Materials and Methods: This study is applied and it is survey in terms of the nature of

study. The population of the study included all male elementary school students in Ahvaz, of

whom 210 students were selected randomly as the sample of the study. Cluster sampling was

done by appropriate allocation. Questionnaires were randomly distributed among students.

Data collection tools included Hermance’s achievement motivation questionnaire and the

researcher-constructed questionnaire (observation checklist to examine the physical parameters

of noise in educational institutions) and interviews with students. Validity of questionnaires

 45

was confirmed by content and construct validity, and the reliability of study was confirmed by

Cronbach's alpha. The data of the study were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequency,

percentage, mean, standard deviation) and inferential statistics (factor analysis, t-test,

Kolmogorov - Smirnov test and one-way ANOVA analysis) in [Link]: The results

showed that noise in educational institutions has a negative impact on learning and academic

achievement of elementary school students in Ahvaz (P<0.05).Conclusion: Educational

managers are recommended to reduce or remove the educational environment noises.

Weinstien, (1974) conducted a study on the Effect of noise on intellectual performance. 33

undergraduates performed proofreading in quiet or with a background of intermittent teletype

noise (70 db). As predicted, noise Ss did not differ significantly from quiet Ss in detecting

spelling errors but were poorer at identifying grammatical errors. Contrary to expectations,

recall of the content of the proofreading passages was unaffected. Detailed analysis revealed

that Ss initially worked more slowly and less steadily during noise bursts than during

intervening quiet periods, but more accurately.

Noise Management and Physio-Educational Performance

Choi and Mcpherson, (2007) conducted a study on Noise Levels in Hong Kong Primary

Schools: Implications for classroom listening. The purpose of this investigation was to

determine noise levels in one such urban environment, Hong Kong. The ambient noise level,

and its relationship to the speech intensity levels of both teachers and students was surveyed in

47 primary school classrooms. Moreover, the presence of acoustical treatments for noise

reduction and the use of classroom amplification systems were documented for each classroom.

The survey found that the mean occupied noise level was 60.74 dB (A); the mean unamplified

and amplified speech‐to‐noise ratios of teachers were 13.53 dB and 18.45 dB, respectively;

while the mean unamplified speech‐to‐noise ratio for students was 4.13 dB. Most of the
 46

classrooms exhibited insufficient acoustical treatments to provide significant noise reduction.

The listening environment in many Hong Kong primary schools was not favourable for optimal

classroom learning. Recommendations for improving the acoustical environment in classrooms

in highly urbanised locations such as Hong Kong are discussed.

Dockrell and Shield, (2013) examined Acoustical barriers in classrooms: the impact of noise

on performance in the classroom. the results of a study that explores the effects of typical

classroom noise on the performance of primary school children on a series of literacy and speed

tasks. One hundred and fifty-eight children in six Year 3 classes participated in the study.

Classes were randomly assigned to one of three noise conditions. Two noise conditions were

chosen to reflect levels of exposure experienced in urban classrooms: noise by children alone,

that is classroom-babble, and babble plus environmental noise, babble and

environmental Performance in these conditions were compared with performance under typical

quiet classroom conditions or base All analyses controlled for ability. A differential negative

effect of noise source on type of task was observed. Children in the babble and

environmental noise condition performed significantly worse than those in

the base and babble conditions on speed of processing tasks. In contrast, performance on the

verbal tasks was significantly worse only in the babble condition. Children with special

educational needs were differentially negatively affected in the babble condition. The

processes underlying these effects are considered and the implications of the results for

children's attainments and classroom noise levels are explored.

Richard, Winnet and Roach, (2017) investigated the Effects of Reinforcing Academic

Performance on Social Behavior. Reports suggest that reinforcing academic work alone will

not only lead to increased productivity but to more appropriate social behavior in the classroom.

These findings were consistent with ideas noted in a review of behavior modification work,

which in part sharply criticized behavior modifiers for often reinforcing stillness and quietness
 47

in the classroom, as opposed to more meaningful criteria of academic improvement. In the

present study children in an extremely disruptive special education classroom were reinforced

solely on the basis of their academic work. Results indicated both a large increase in academic

productivity and a sharp decline in disruptive behavior.

Chong, (2008) studied the Relationship Between Students’ Study Environments and Academic

Results. This research was intended to investigate students’ preferences on different study

environments and how it affects their academic accomplishments. Intelligence is not the

exclusive element which determines the academic achievement of a student. By analyzing the

results, it is suggested that if students want to achieve better academic performance, they should

study in places which they wish to, with several other factors’ contribution that they can

prepare. Most importantly is their exceptional perseverance. The research accumulated data

from various academic year’s students. After that the data is interpreted with statistical models

and machine learning algorithms. Both quantitative and qualitative methods are involved in the

research. Outcomes recommend that students should study in quiet places such as but not

limited to libraries, in addition to the help of quietness and isolation, one can also eat some

snacks during the study. Students who are not taking too many credits can avail their harvest,

too. By doing so, they can focus on manifold courses more. Besides, having enough sleep is a

significant factor that is dedicated to improving on academic consequences as well.

 48

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter is going to look at the following sub headings: Research design, Population of

study, target, accessible population, sample population and sampling techniques, instrument

for data collection, validity and reliability of the instrument, administration of the instrument,

and report on return of questionnaire, data presentation and analysis.

Research Design

A definition of research design is postulated by Nworgu (1992, p.50) thus; “A research design

is a plan or a blue print which specifies how data related to a given problem should be collected

and analyzed”. In this study, the research design that was found appropriate was the Cross-

sectional survey research design.

According to University of Southern California Libraries (2016), Cross-sectional research is

used to examine variables in different groups that are similar in all other characteristics. Cross-

sectional research involves using different groups of people who differ in the variable of

interest but share other characteristics, such as socioeconomic status, educational background,

and ethnicity.

Area of study

The area of study is Limbe I sub-division, Fako division Southwest region. Limbe (known

as Victoria from 1858 to 1982) is a seaside city in the South-West Region

(Cameroon) of Cameroon. Limbe was founded in 1858 on the southern slopes of Mount

Cameroon by the British missionary Alfred Saker. It is the head quarter of Fako division.
 49

Fig. 5 Map of Limbe

Limbe is also home to nursery, primary secondary and tertiary institutions, where students are

schooled to become useful to themselves and the society where they belong.

Population of the Study

Population according to Luma, (1999) is a portion of the universe to which the researcher has

access. Hornby (1975) defines population as a number of people living in a place, country, etc

or a special section of them. The population of this study involves all the 19 primary schools

in Limbe I sub – division, made up of 4837 pupils and 185 teachers.

Target Population

The target population of study is 185 teachers teaching in the 19 primary schools in Limbe 4

sub-division this academic year 2021-2022. The tables below show the distribution of the

schools by types showing the total number of lay private, confessional and public schools with

the total number of students (boys and girls) respectively.

 50

Table 1a: Government schools

s/n Name of Schools Staffing Situation
Male female total
1 Government School Batoke 1 8 09
2 Government School Wovia 1 7 8
3 Government School Mokunda 3 3 6
4 Government School Mokundange 0 8 8
5 Government School Botaland 0 7 7
Total 5 33 38

Table 1b: Lay Private schools

s/n Name of Schools Staffing situation
Male Female Total
1 Staff BNPS 5 6 11
2 Unique BNPS 5 7 12
3 Prime BNPS 3 5 8
4 Providence 5 6 11
5 Ekema Memorial 5 2 7
6 Harry-Clara 7 7 14
7 Beatrice - Henry 6 6 12
8 Favour BNPS 6 6 12
9 Labo’o Hope international 16 7 23
10 Pacesetter BNPS 4 4 8
11 Neobele Academy 5 5 10
12 Daughters of Judah 3 4 7
Total 70 65 135
Source: Inspectorate of Basic education Limbe 2021/2022

Table 1c: Denominational schools

s/n Name of Schools Staffing situation
male female total
1 Catholic school Ngeme 2 4 6
2 Catholic school Batoke 1 5 6
TOTAL 3 9 12
Source: Inspectorate of Basic Education Limbe 2021/2022

Accessible Population of the study

The accessible population of the study shows the number of accessible schools that teachers

will be sampled and the number of accessible teachers that will be sampled for the study. The
 51

accessible population is 10 schools; 3 Government schools, Denominational and 5 lay-private

schools. The table below shows the distribution of the accessible population of the study.

Table 2: Target and Accessible population

s/n Target Population Accessible Population

Male Female Total

1 Government School Batoke 1 8 09

2 Government School Wovia 1 7 8

3 Government School Mokunda 3 3 6

4 Staff BNPS 5 6 11

5 Unique BNPS 5 7 12

6 Prime BNPS 3 5 8

7 Providence 5 6 11

8 Ekema Memorial 5 2 7

1 Catholic school Ngeme 2 4 6

2 Catholic school Batoke 1 5 6

Total 31 53 84

Sample Population

According to Atefor J.C (2011), a sample is a small population which is selected for

observation and analysis which is representative of the entire population. The sample size of

this study is made up of 10 primary schools; 3 Government schools, 2 Denominational and 5

lay-private schools. The sample population are presented in the table 3 below
 52

Table 3: The Sample Size

s/n Schools Teachers

Sample size

Male Female Total

1 Government School Batoke 1 4 5
2 Government School Wovia 1 4 5
3 Government School Mokunda 3 3 6
4 Staff BNPS 2 3 5
5 Unique BNPS 2 3 5
6 Prime BNPS 3 2 5
7 Providence 3 2 5
8 Ekema Memorial 3 2 5
1 Catholic school Ngeme 2 2 4
2 Catholic school Batoke 1 4 5
Total 21 29 50

Sampling Technique

According to Atefor. J. C. (2011), “Sampling refers to a process of selecting of individuals to

come out with a sample or sample size considered to be representative of the entire population.

The technique that will be used to get the sample of the schools is the simple random sampling

technique where boxes were made and labeled “Government school” and “Lay Private

schools” and “Denominational schools” respectively. Strips of paper with the names of

government schools, Denominational and lay private schools will be made and placed in their

respective boxes. The strips of each box are shuffled before a school is selected. This will be

done until all the 5 lay private school and 3 Government schools and 2 denominational schools

are selected. As for the selection of those to fill the questionnaire, teachers in the sampled
 53

school will be ask to pick from a bowl will wrapped pieces of papers written YES and NO.

Those who pick YES will pick take part in the research process

Research Instrument

The research instrument used for data collection is the questionnaire. The questionnaire is made

up of three main parts. The first part is the letter to the respondent, where the researcher

introduces himself, discloses his purpose for the research, solicits for sincere response and

assures the respondent of confidentiality in handling the responses. The second part is

demography information about the respondent and the third part constitutes the research

questions. The research questions are divided into four main areas of five questions each under

the four main areas making a total of 20 items and the questions are close – ended.

Validity of Research Instrument

Atefor. J. C. (2011) states that “Validity is the quality of instrument or procedure used for data

collection which permit it to measure what it is supposed to measure”. The instrument was

subjected to face validity. After writing out the questionnaire, the researcher presented it to his

supervisor who went through them critically; based on the purpose of the study and some items

were evaluated in terms of their relevance to the variables, those questions were immediately

modified.

Reliability of Instrument

Reliability measures the consistency by which an instrument measures what it was intended to

measure. To do this, the researcher employed the test-retest method, re-administering the same

set of questionnaires and one week later to the same respondents who were used in the pilot

test. The results of the two tests will be compared to see if responses are consistent and thus

reliable. See table below

 54

Table 4: Reliability Analysis Report for Teachers

Variables Cronbach Alpha Variance No of items
Coefficients
Type of noise 0.728 0.140 7
Causes of noise 0.758 0.010 5
Classroom noise and effect on 0.824 0.010 5
academic performance
Classroom noise and effect on 0.791 0.004 5
physiological performance
Management of classroom noise 0.783 0.321 6
Overall reliability analysis value 0.775 0.008 29

The internal consistency of the respondents (teachers) was satisfactory for all the sub-variables

with the coefficient values ranging from 0.728 to 0.824. The overall coefficient value of the

questionnaire is 0.775 above the recommended threshold of 0.7. Based on this, it was

concluded that the respondents are consistent in their responses which makes the questionnaire

reliable for the study.

Table 5: Reliability Analysis Report for Pupils

Variables Cronbach Alpha Variance No of items
Coefficients
Type of noise 0.701 0.118 4
Causes of noise 0.721 0.011 4
Classroom noise and effect on 0.703 0.005 4
academic performance
Classroom noise and effect on 0.704 0.003 4
physiological performance
Management of classroom noise 0.705 0.001 4
Overall reliability analysis value 0.707 0.002 20

Same as with the teachers, the internal consistency of the pupils was satisfactory for all the

sub-variables with the coefficient values ranging from 0.701 to 0.721. The overall coefficient

value of the questionnaire is 0.707 above the recommended threshold of 0.7. Based on this, it

was concluded that the respondents are consistent in their responses which makes the

questionnaire reliable for the study.

Administration of the Instrument

 55

The researcher will use direct delivery technique in schools concerned to collect data. The

researcher will get to the school during working hours. After greeting and introducing himself

to the head teacher of the institution, he will then reveal disclose his purpose of coming to the

school. The head teacher will then schedule a meeting with the staff. During the meeting He/she

will introduces the researcher to the staff and instructed them to

Cooperate with him. This will give room for direct administration of the questionnaire to the

teacher for response. At the end of the exercise in each school, the questionnaires will be

collected and counted. This is to ensure the return of the entire questionnaires that was

distributed. The researcher will then thank the staff and school administration and staff for their

support and cooperation.

Demographic Information of Respondents

Table 6: Demographic Information of Teachers

Demographic data Frequency Percentage
School type Public 5 20.8
Lay Private 9 37.5
Denominational 10 41.7

Sex Male 10 41.7

Female 14 58.3

Professional Grade One 16 66.7

qualification Grade Two 5 20.8
None 3 12.5

Years of teaching 1-9 years 14 58.3

experience 10-14 years 7 29.2
15-19 years 3 12.5

Among the 24 teachers sample, 20.8% (5) are from Public schools, 37.5% (9) are
from Lay private schools and 41.7% (10) are from Denominational schools.
Gender wise, 41.7% (10) of the teachers are male and 58.3% (14) are female.
Based on professional qualification, 66.7% (16) are holders of Grade One, 20.8%
 56

(5) are holders of Grade Two and 12.5% (3) of the teachers are not holders of
Grade One or Two.

Table 7: Demographic Information of Pupils

Demographic data Frequency Percentage
School type Public 20 41.7
Lay Private 14 29.2
Denominational 14 29.2

Sex Male 18 37.5

Female 30 62.5

Class Four 10 20.8

Five 20 41.7
Six 18 37.5

Age Less than 10 years 16 33.3

10 years and above 32 66.7

Furthermore, describing the pupils by demographic information, 41.7% (20) are from Public

schools, and 29.2% (14) each are from Lay private and Denominational school. Based on sex,

37.5% (18) are male and 62.5% (30) are female. By class, 20.8% (10) of the pupils are in class

four, 41.7% (20) are in class five and 37.5% (18) are in class six. Finally, based on age, 33.3%

(16) of the pupils are less than 10 years and 66.7% (32) are above 10 years of age.

Data Presentation And Analysis

Data collected from the field was first processed using EPi-Data 3.1 whereby, all the

participants’ responses were keyed, in accordance with each of the test items. During this

process of data entering, the demographic information and the test items were coded with

numbers to facilitate the data entering and the questionnaires were also be assigned with serial

numbers. The reason for coding and assigning each questionnaire a serial number was to ensure

that on the data base, one should easily trace the individual responses of participants and to

carry out any verification in areas of uncertainty if arise. After the data were completely
 57

entered for all the participants, the data based were exported to SPSS version 25 for further

consistency, data range and validation checks with the purpose to first identify invalid codes

(data cleaning) with the aid of exploratory statistics. After the data were thoroughly checked

for possible errors, the quantitative data were analyzed using the descriptive and inferential

statistical tools. The descriptive statistical tools used are frequency count, percentages and

multiple responses set which aimed at calculating the summary of findings for each variable.

The Spearman’s rho test was used to ascertain the effect of classroom noise on pupils academic

and Physiological performance and managing of classroom noise on pupils physio-educational

performance. Finally, findings were presented using frequency distribution tables, and on

charts, with all inferential statistics presented at 95% level of confidence interval with alpha

set at 0.05 levels, accepting 5% margin of error.

A conceptual formula for Cronbach Alpha is as follow:

𝑘 ∑ 𝐼𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑠 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠
&= [1 − ]
𝑘−1 𝑆𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑣𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒

Where & = Cronbach Alpha

K= number of items
𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 (𝑛) 100
Formula for calculating Percentage (%)=𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑠 (𝑁) × 1

Conceptual formula for calculating Spearman’s Rho

𝟐
Spearman’s rho = 1-𝑵(𝑵
𝟔𝜺𝑫
𝟐 −𝟏)

Where;

∑=Summation

D=difference in rank

N=Number of observations

Formula to calculate Multiple Response Set (MRS):

 58

For the conceptual component having X labeledX1, X2, X3, …Xi indicators and the study having

a sample size N, using a Likert Scale at four levels L1, L2 and L3, MRS can be computed for

each of the Likert scale levels following the steps described on the table below.

Table 8: Mathematical expression used for calculating multiple response set

Conceptual L1 L2 L3 N
Component
X1 nL1 X1 nL2 X1 nL3 X1 N X1= nL1 X1 + nL2 X1+ nL3 X1
X2 N X2
X6 N X6
X7 nL1 X7 nL2 X7 nL3 X7 N X7
Aggr nresponses nL1 X1 + … nL2 X1 + … + nL3 X1 + … + Nresponses= Σ (nL1 X1 + … + nL1 X7) + (nL2 X1 + …+
egat + nL1 X7 nL2 X7 nL3 X7 nL2 X7) + (nL3 X1 + …+ nL3 X7)
e % (nresponsesL1 (nresponsesL2 / (nresponsesL3 / % L1 + %L2 + %L3=100.0 %
(MR / Nresponses)*1 Nresponses)*100.
A) Nresponses)*1 00.
00.

Ethical Consideration

In the course of carrying out this research the following ethics were considered by the

researcher.

1. The researcher was friendly and responsible in the way she carried out the data

collection process to ensure that participants will not be subjected to harm in any

ways whatsoever.

2. The research made sure respondent did not reveal their identity to prioritize respect

for the dignity and anonimity of research participants.

3. The researcher took permission from respondent to ensure full consent was obtained

from the participants prior to the study.

4. The researcher made sure that data collected was did not disclose the identity of the

respondent to protect the privacy and ensure confidentiality of research participants;

5. The researcher made sure and assured the participants that the data will be used only

for the purpose intended to make sure any type of communication in relation to the

research will be done with honesty and transparency.

 59

CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

Introduction

This chapter presents findings derived from data collected from the field on the effect of

classroom noise on the physio-educational performance of primary school pupils in Limbe II

sub-division. Data was successfully collected from 24 teachers and 48 pupils and the findings

are presented based on the specific research questions that guided the study. The findings are

presented first from the perspective of teachers and then, pupils.

Presentation Of Research Findings with Respect to Specific Research Questions

Findings Research Question One: What are the different types of noise in the classroom

environment?

Teachers’ perspective

Table 9: Teachers’ Opinion on the Different Type of Noise in the Classroom

Environment
Categorisatio Statements Strongly Agree Disagree and
n and Agree Strongly
Disagree
Continuous My pupils sometimes talk loudly 14(58.3%) 10(41.7%)
noise for a long period of time
There are industries around my 11(45.8%) 13(54.2%)
school which make noise
continuously with machines
Multiple Response Set 25(52.1%) 23(47.9%)
Intermittent As a teacher, most pupils make 17(70.8%) 7(29.2%)
noise noise and stop whenever I look at
them or get their attention
We also hear noise coming from 20(83.3%) 4(16.7%)
the corridors as teachers and other
pupils pass beside the classroom
We experience noise for short 18(75.0%) 6(25.0%)
period of time especially from
vehicles and motorbikes
 60

We experience noise for short 18(75.0%) 6(25.0%)

period of time especially from
people passing beside the school
Multiple Response Set 73(76.1%) 23(23.9%)
Impulsive We equally experience abrupt 16(66.7%) 8(33.3%)
noise noise from within the school or
neighbourhood nearby

Based on the teachers’ opinion on type of noise, findings showed that intermittent noise is more

common making a proportion of 76.1%, followed by impulsive noise 66.7% and lastly,

continuous noise 52.1%. Under continuous noise, 58.3% (14) and 45.8% (11) of teachers

respectively indicate that pupils sometimes talk loudly for long period of time in class and they

are industries around that their machines produce noise. With reference to intermittent noise,

majority of the teachers 83.3% (20) indicate that they hear noise coming from corridor as

teachers and pupils pass by the classroom and, 75.0% (18) of teachers of all equal proportion

also indicate that they experience noise for a short while from motorbikes, cars and people

passing by the school.

Pupil’s perspective

Table 10: Pupils’ Opinion on the Different Type of Noise in the Classroom Environment
Categorisation Statements Strongly Agree Disagree and
and Agree Strongly
Disagree
Continuous My classroom is sometimes noisy 22(45.8%) 26(54.2%)
noise for a long period of time
Sometime the class or the school 16(33.3%) 32(66.7%)
is noisy throughout the whole
day.
38(39.6%) 58(60.4%)
Multiple Response Set
Intermittent In our class some children make 44(91.7%) 4(8.3%)
noise noise but stop after some time
We sometime make noise during 48(100%) 0(0.0%)
certain periods e.g. when going
out for break or games or
carrying out an activity but
92(95.8%) 4(4.2%)
Multiple Response Set
 61

Impulsive noise Sometime we get noise that come 46(95.8%) 2(4.2%)

by surprise e.g., a friend will just
scream.
We also get surprise noise from 46(95.8%) 2(4.2%)
the people and things happening
beside our school.
92(95.8%) 4(4.2%)
Multiple Response Set

In the same trend, from the perspective of the pupils, intermittent and impulsive noise are the

most common form of noise making a proportion of 95.8% while continuous noise is the least

39.6%. Under continuous noise, 45.8% (22) of the pupils said their classroom is sometime

noisy for long period of time while 33.3% (16) of them indicate that sometimes their classroom

is noisy throughout the day. With reference to intermittent noise, all the pupils 100% (48)

indicate they sometime make noise during certain period and, for impulsive noise, 95.8% (46)

of the pupils said they get noise from people and things happening in the school. The figure

below presents in summary the different type of noise experience by children and teachers in

the classroom.

Types of noise experience by teachers and pupils in classroom

100 95.8 95.8
90
80 76.1

70 66.7
Percentage

60 52.1
50
39.6
40
30
20
10
0
Continuous noise Intermittent noise Impulsive noise

Teachers Pupils

Figure 6: Teachers and Pupils Opinion on the Type of Noise Experience in Classroom
 62

As depicted on the findings, intermittent noise is commonly experience in classrooms as

indicated by 76.1% of teachers and 95.8% of pupils, followed by impuslve noise as idicated by

66.7% of teachers and 95.8% of pupils and lastly continuous noise as indicate by 52.1% of

teachers and 39.6% of pupils.

Research Question Two: What are the causes of noise in the classroom environment?

Teachers’ perspective

Table 11: Teachers’ Opinion on the Causes of Noise in the Classroom Environment
Statements Strongly Agree and Disagree and
Agree Strongly Disagree
Sometimes, the noise I get coming into 17(70.8%) 7(29.2%)
classroom comes from people talking or
playing loud music beside the school
Often, the noise that I experience in the 18(75.0%) 6(25.0%)
classroom is caused by motorists and
pedestrians passing beside the classroom
The noise that filters into our classroom is 19(79.2%) 5(20.8%)
sometimes cause by people, machines and
equipment in nearby facilities, workshops and
factories.
Pupil disturb others in class which lead to noise 24(100%) 0(0.0%)
making
Sometimes, pupils get excited in class when I 22(91.7%) 2(8.3%)
present learning materials leading to noise
making
There are stubborn children in class which 23(95.8%) 1(4.2%)
leads to noise making

Based on the teachers’ opinion on the causes of noise, majority of the teachers 70.8% (17) say

they get noise from people and loud music play beside the school, motor bikes and pedestrians

75.0% (18), machines equipment 79.2% (19), excitement from people when see learning

materials 91.7% (22), and all the teachers 100% (24) say disturbance from pupils is another

cause of noise in the classroom.

 63

Pupils’ Perspective
Table 12: Pupils Opinion on the Causes of Noise in the Classroom Environment
Statements Strongly Agree and Disagree and
Agree Strongly Disagree
Noise in our classroom is caused by from my 48(100%) 0(0.0%)
friends talking during lessons
Classroom noise are caused by machines, loud 22(45.8%) 26(54.2%)
music and people talking around the class or
school
Classroom noise are caused by moving cars 22(45.8%) 26(54.2%)
and bikes passing around the classroom
Classroom noise are caused by phones ringing 8(16.7%) 40(83.3%)
and people answering calls during lessons

Furthermore, based on the pupil’s opinion on the causes of noise, all of them 100% (48) say

noise in the classroom come from pupils themselves, while 45.8% (22) of them say machines,

loud music, motor bikes and people passing around the classroom are also sources of noise

they experience in the classroom. Finally, 16.7% (8) of the pupils say phone ringing is another

source of noise in the class. Other causes of noise in classrooms are teachers’ absenteeism,

construction on campus, and dancing, playing and fighting among pupils are others cause of

classroom noise. The figure below presents the causes of noise in classroom.

100 95.8 91.7

90 79.2 75 75 70.8
80
70
Percentage

60
50
40
30 16.7
20 11.2
5.6 4.5 1.2
10
0

Causes of classroom noise

Figure 7: The Different Causes of Classroom Noise

 64

As depicted on the figure above, the cause of classroom noise is coming from the pupils

themselves especially the stubborn ones, 95.8%, followed excitement from pupils due to

learning materials 91.7%, industrial machines 79.2%, pedestrians around the classroom 75.0%,

motor bikes 75.0%, loud music 70.8%, phones 16.7%, dancing/play 11.2%, teacher

absenteeism 5.6%, fighting 4.5% and lastly construction from campus 1.2%.

Research Question Three: To what level does classroom noise affect the academic
performance of pupils?

Teachers’ perspective

Table 13: Teachers’ Opinion of Noise on Pupils Academic Performance

Statements Strongly Agree Disagree and
and Agree Strongly Disagree
Classroom noise affects communication during 24(100%) 0(0.0%)
the teaching learning process.
Classroom noise distracts pupils during the 24(100%) 0(0.0%)
teaching learning process.
Classroom noise hampers understanding of 22(91.7%) 2(8.3%)
concept and ideas during the teaching learning
process.
Classroom noise hinders information 24(100%) 0(0.0%)
processing during the teaching learning
process.
Classroom noise makes pupils to perform 20(83.3%) 4(16.7%)
poorly on task.
Multiple Response Set 114(95.0%) 6(5.0%)

Based on teachers’ opinion of classroom noise and pupils’ academic performance, all the

teachers 100% (24) indicate that classroom noise affect communication during teaching

learning process, distract pupils and information processing. Finally, 91.7% (22) of the teachers

indicate that classroom noise hinders pupils understanding of lessons with another 83.3% (20)

of teachers indicating that classroom noise makes pupils to perform poorly on task. In

aggregate, 95.0% of the teachers indicate that noise affect their pupils while 5.0% of the

teachers disagreed.
 65

Pupils’ Perspective
Table 14: Pupils’ Opinion of Noise on their Academic Performance
Statements Strongly Agree Disagree and
and Agree Strongly Disagree
When there is noise, I don’t get what the 48(100%) 0(0.0%)
teacher is saying or teaching
When there is noise, I am distracted in class 48(100%) 0(0.0%)
and I can’t focus
Noise in the class make me not to think 46(95.8%) 2(6.2%)
properly
When there is noise in the class, I don’t do my 48(100%) 0(0.0%)
work well
Multiple Response Set 190(99.0%) 2(1.0%)

Further based on pupils’ opinion on noise and academic performance, all of them 100% (48)

indicate that noise makes not to get their teachers clearly, distract them and making them not

to perform well. Finally, another 95.8% (46) of the pupils said noise makes them not to think

properly. In aggregate, 99.0% of the pupils indicate that noise has implication on their academic

performance while 1.0% of them disagreed. The figure below presents both teachers and pupils

opinion on classroom noise in relation to their academic performance.

Effect of noise
99.0
100 95.0
90
80
70
Percentage

60
50
40
30
20
10 5.0
1.0
0
Affect pupils academic performance No effect on pupils academic performance

Teachers Pupils

Figure 8: Classroom Noise and Pupils’ Academic Performance

As depicted from the figure above, majority of teachers 95.0% and pupils 99.0% indicate that

classroom noise affect pupil’s academic performance.

 66

Table 15: Effect of Noise on Pupils’ Academic Performance

Test Noise Pupils’ academic
performance
Spearman's rho R-value 1 -.380
P-value . .067
N 24 24

Statistically, findings showed that noise do have a negative effect on pupils’ academic

performance (R-value = -0.380) but the effect was not that significant (P-value 0.067 > 0.05).

In support of this, many of the pupil said classroom noise makes them not to think properly,

get distracted and lost focus and understanding of lessons, reduce their reasoning capacity and

ability to work in classroom, makes them to perform poorly and negatively affecting their

performance.

Research Question Four: To what extent does classroom noise affect the physiological
performance of pupils?
Teachers’ perspective

Table 16: Teachers’ Opinion of Noise on Pupils Physiological Performance

Statements Strongly Agree and Disagree and
Agree Strongly Disagree
Classroom noise sometimes affect pupil 24(100%) 0(0.0%)
hearing.
Classroom noise sometimes affect pupils’ 24(100%) 0(0.0%)
ability to remember
Sometimes, classroom noise causes children to 19(79.2%) 5(20.8%)
have headache
Most often, classroom noise makes the me feel 24(100%) 0(0.0%)
tired and pupils as well
Classroom noise can lead to stress and 24(100%) 0(0.0%)
depression in children even the teacher
Multiple Response Set 115(95.8%) 5(4.2%)

Based on teachers’ opinion on classroom noise and pupil physiological performance, all the

teachers 100% (24) indicate that classroom noise sometimes affect pupils hearing, ability to

remember, makes them feel tired and causes stress even to the teachers. Finally, 79.2% (19) of

the teachers also indicate that classroom noise causes some children to develop headache. In
 67

aggregate, 95.8% of the teachers indicate that classroom noise affects pupils’ physiological

performance while 4.2% of them disagreed.

Pupils’ perspective

Table 17: Pupils’ Opinion of Noise on their Physiological Performance

Statements Strongly Agree and Disagree and
Agree Strongly Disagree
I am unable to understand the teacher when 48(100%) 0(0.0%)
there is noise
I am unable to remember things when there is 48(100%) 0(0.0%)
noise in the classroom
I feel bored when there is noise and I get angry 40(83.3%) 8(16.7%)
sometimes
I get sick sometime after coming out of noise in 48(100%) 0(0.0%)
the classroom e.g., Head ache, tired
Multiple Response Set 184(95.8%) 8(4.2%)

Furthermore, based on the pupil’s opinion on classroom noise and their physiological

performance, all of them 100% (48) indicate that classroom noise makes them unable to

understand their teachers, unable to remember things, and even causes some of them to get

sick. Finally, 83.3% (40) of the pupils also opine that they feel bored and get angry when there

is noise. In overall, 95.8% of the pupil’s physiological performance is affected by classroom

noise while 4.2% of them are unaffected. The figure below presents in summary, opinion of

both respondents.

Effect of noise

95.8 95.8
100
80
Percentage

60
40
4.2 4.2
20
0
Affect pupils physiological No effect on pupils
performance physiological performance

Teachers Pupils
 68

Figure 9: Classroom Noise and Pupils Physiological Performance

As depicted from the figure above, majority of teachers 95.8% and pupils 95.8%
of equal proportion indicate that classroom noise affect pupil’s physiological
performance.

Table 18: Effect of Noise on Pupils’ Physiological Performance

Test Noise Pupils’ physiological
performance
Spearman's rho R-value 1 .533**
P-value . .007
N 24 24
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Statistically, findings showed that classroom noise do have a significant and relatively strong

effect on pupils’ physiological performance (R-value = 0.533**, p-value 0.007< 0.05). In

support of this, many of the pupil said classroom noise makes them not to think properly, get

distracted and lost focus and understanding of lessons, reduce their reasoning capacity and

ability to work in classroom, makes them feel sleepy, makes them feel sick, develop head ache,

and with some of them even develop fever.

 69

Research Question Five: How far can noise be managed to enhance pupils’ physio-
educational performance?
Teachers’ perspective

Table 19: Teachers’ Opinion on Noise Management and Pupils Physio-educational

Performance
Statements Strongly Agree and Disagree and
Agree Strongly Disagree
Managing classroom noise by creating 21(87.5%) 3(12.5%)
communication rules enhances the physio-
educational performance of pupils
Proper managing of objects that produce noise 19(79.2%) 5(20.8%)
enhance the physio-educational performance of
pupils
I use engaging and captivating teaching method 23(95.8%) 1(4.2%)
that encourage children to focus during lessons.
Building window and using noise proof 16(66.7%) 8(33.3%)
facilities enhances the physio-educational
performance of pupils
Rewarding pupils who do not make noise 19(82.6%) 4(17.4%)
reduces classroom noise and enhances the
physio-educational performance of pupils
I assign student to write down the names of 22(91.7%) 2(8.3%)
noise makers in the classroom
MRS 120(83.9%) 23(16.1%)

Based on teachers’ opinion of managing classroom noise and pupil’s physio-educational

performance, 95.8% (23) of them indicate that they use engaging and captivating teaching

method that encourage children to focus during lessons. Also, 87.5% (21) of the teachers opine

that managing classroom noise by creating communication rules enhances the physio-

educational performance of pupils.91.7% (22) of the teachers also indicate that they assign

pupil to write names of noise makers and 79.2% (19) of the teachers indicate that proper

managing of objects that produce noise enhance the physio-educational performance of pupils.

Finally, 66.7% (16) of the teachers indicate that building window using noise proof facilities

enhances the physio-educational performance of pupils. In aggregate, 83.9% of teachers see

managing of classroom noise to affect pupils’ physio-educational performance while 16.1% of

them did not.

 70

Pupils’ perspective

Table 20: Pupils’ Opinion on Noise Management and Pupils Physio-educational

Performance
Statements Strongly Agree and Disagree and
Agree Strongly Disagree
When we follow classroom rules noise reduces 48(100%) 0(0.0%)
and we feel good and learn better.
When we are doing interesting activities with 48(100%) 0(0.0%)
the teachers, we don’t make noise and feel
happy and learn better.
When our teacher promises to give gifts to 44(91.7%) 4(8.3%)
persons who do not make noise, we keep quiet
and learn better
When phones are not ringing, people are not 44(91.7%) 4(8.3%)
making noise and those things that make noise
are removed feel good and learn better.
MRS 184(95.8%) 8(4.2%)

To elucidate, based on the pupils’ own opinion on managing classroom noise and their physio-

educational performance, all of them 100% (48) indicate that they feel good and learn better

when classroom noise is reduced. Also, all the pupils 100% (48) indicate that they feel happy

and do not make noise when doing interesting activities with teachers. Again, 91.7% (44) of

the pupils indicate that they stay quiet and do not make noise when their teachers promise them

gift. Finally, another 91.7% (44) of the pupils indicate that when people are not making noise

and things that make noise are remove, they feel good and learn better. In aggregate, 95.8% of

the pupils indicate that managing classroom noise affect their physio-educational performance

while 4.2% of them disagreed. The figure below presents both respondents opinion on

managing classroom noise and pupils’ physio-educational performance.

 71

Managing of classroom noise

95.8
100 83.9
90
80
70
Percentage

60
50
40
30 16.1
20 4.2
10
0
Affect pupils physio-educational No effect on pupils physio-
performance educational performance

Teachers Pupils

Figure 10: Managing Classroom Noise and Pupils Physio-Educational Performance

As depicted from the figure above, majority of teachers 83.9% and pupils 95.8% indicate that

managing classroom noise affect pupil’s physio-educational performance.

Table 21: Effect of Noise on Pupils’ Physio-educational Performance

Test Noise management Pupils’ physio-educational
performance
Spearman's rho R-value 1 .682**
P-value . .000
N 24 24
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Statistically, findings showed that managing classroom noise do have a significant and strong

effect on pupils’ physio-educational performance (R-value = 0.682**, p-value 0.000< 0.05). In

support of this, many of the pupil said when classroom noise is controlled, they learn well and

follow lessons, get good results, concentrate and focus well in class, understand lessons

quickly, feel happy, comfortable and increases their understanding.

 72

Summary of Research findings

Table 22: Summary of Findings
Research question Findings
Research Question One: Findings showed that intermittent noise is commonly
What are the different types of experienced in classrooms as indicated by 76.1% of teachers and
noise in the classroom 95.8% of pupils, followed by impuslve noise as idicated by
environment? 66.7% of teachers and 95.8% of pupils and lastly continuous
noise as indicate by 52.1% of teachers and 39.6% of pupils.
Teacher absenteeism, fighting, dancing and playing among
pupils are other causes of classroom noise.
Research Question Two: Findings showed that the cause of classroom noise are coming
What are the causes of noise in from the pupils themselves especially the stubborn ones 95.8%,
the classroom environment? followed excitement from pupils due to learning materials
91.7%, industrial machines 79.2%, pedestrians around the
classroom 75.0%, motor bikes 75.0%, loud music 70.8% and
lastly from phones 16.7%.
Research Question Three: Findings showed that majority of teachers 95.0% and pupils
To what level does classroom 99.0% indicate that classroom noise affect pupil’s academic
noise affect the academic performance and, further analysis showed that noise do have a
performance of pupils? negative effect on pupils’ academic performance (R-value = -
0.380) but the effect was not that significant (P-value 0.067 >
0.05). In support of this, many of the pupil said classroom noise
makes them not to think properly, get distracted and lost focus
and understanding of lessons, reduce their reasoning capacity
and ability to work in classroom, makes them to perform poorly
and negatively affecting their performance.
Research Question Four: The findings showed that majority of teachers 95.8% and pupils
To what extent does classroom 95.8% of equal proportion indicate that classroom noise affect
noise affect the physiological pupil’s physiological performance and, further analysis reveal
performance of pupils? that classroom noise do have a significant and relatively strong
effect on pupils’ physiological performance (R-value = 0.533**,
p-value 0.007< 0.05). In support of this, many of the pupil said
classroom noise makes them not to think properly, get distracted
and lost focus and understanding of lessons, reduce their
reasoning capacity and ability to work in classroom, makes them
feel sleepy, makes them feel sick, develop head ache, and with
some of them even develop fever.
Research Question Five: Findings showed that majority of teachers 83.9% and pupils
How far can noise be managed 95.8% indicate that managing classroom noise affect pupil’s
to enhance pupils’ physio- physio-educational performance and, further analysis that
educational performance? managing classroom noise do have a significant and strong
effect on pupils’ physio-educational performance (R-value =
0.682**, p-value 0.000< 0.05). In support of this, many of the
pupil said when classroom noise is controlled, they learn well
and follow lessons, get good results, concentrate and focus well
in class, understand lessons quickly, feel happy, comfortable
and increases their understanding.
 73

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

This chapter discusses the findings derived from the data collected from the field. The

discussion of the findings was done in accordance with the findings and hypothesis results

derived from each research question and the discussion of findings for each research questions

was supported with the conceptual, theoretical and empirical review. The chapter also consists

of the conclusion, recommendations, limitations of the study and suggestions for further

research.

Discussion of Findings

Findings were Discussed using Researcher’s Clarity

Research question one
The Different Types of Noise in the Classroom Environment

Findings showed that intermittent noise is commonly experience classrooms as indicated by

most of teachers and pupils, followed by impuslve noise as idicated by majority of the teachers

and pupils and lastly continuous noise as indicate by more than half of the teachers and pupils.

Teacher absenteeism, fighting, dancing and playing among pupils are other causes of classroom

noise.

Noise is a psychological concept and Krater (1970) state that it is unpleasant bothersome and

it interferes with important activities which is believed to be physiologically harmful.

Classroom noise are sounds that hinder learners’ ability to hear and understand spoken

messages during teaching and learning sessions. Noise in the classroom refers to sounds that

hinder an individual's ability to listen to what they want or need to hear (WHO, 2013). Thus,
 74

from the above brief discussion, it is clear that the different types of noise in the classroom are

not healthy to teaching and learning.

Triesman theory of attenuation posits that all information we get from the environment are all

process or we try to process all which can constitute a huge distraction as in the experiment

above where there were errors in processing, hindering effective communication in the

classroom and by extension academic performance.

Shield, (2008) conducted a study on to examine the impact, if any, of chronic exposure to

external and internal noise on the test results of children aged 7 and 11 in London (UK) primary

schools. External noise was found to have a significant negative impact upon performance, the

effect being greater for the older children. The analysis suggested that children are particularly

affected by the noise of individual external events. Test scores were also affected by

internal classroom noise, background levels being significantly related to test results. Negative

relationships between performance and noise levels were maintained when the data were

corrected for socio-economic factors relating to social deprivation, language, and special

educational needs. Linear regression analysis has been used to estimate the maximum levels of

external and internal noise which allow the schools surveyed to achieve required standards of

literacy and numeracy. The study also indicated that while at school children are exposed to

various types of noise including external, environmental noise and noise generated within

the classroom.

Research Question two

The Causes of Noise in the Classroom Environment

In relation to the causes of classroom noise, findings showed that the classroom noise are

coming from the pupils themselves especially the stubborn ones, followed excitement from

pupils due to learning materials, industrial machines, pedestrians around the classroom, motor
 75

bikes, loud music and lastly from phones. This implies that the causes of classroom noise are

many and this tied with the opinion of Salfino, Crandell, Krei’s man, John and Kreis man

(2009) who says that classroom background noise can arise from several possible sources,

including external noise (such as traffic noise), internal noise (students running in corridors),

and room noise, such as students talking. As depicted from the findings of our study, more of

the classroom noise comes from the external environment.

Bronfenbrenner in his ecological theory argues that development is a function their interactions

and relationship with people and objects in different contexts or ecologies/environment. This

highlights the fact that the setting in which pupils find themselves has an impact on their

development. Where there is noise, distraction and sound pollution the pupils will develop

differently that when there is non and the environment is calm and sirene.

Furthermore, Slater (1968) study on noise revealed that some human activities resulting to

noise pollution include mobile sources such as cars, buses, planes, trucks, and trains: Stationery

sources such as power plants, oil refineries, industrial facilities, and factories and this is in-line

with the findings of our study. The Bottle -Neck Theory of Selective Attention Broadbent

(1992) indicate that people are constantly bombarded by an endless array of internal and

external stimuli, thoughts, and emotions and so do our pupils and teachers in the classrooms

constantly affected with noise from both external and internal environment. Therefore, in order

for pupils and teachers to try and stay unaffected, they must try hard to direct their attention to

relevant environmental stimuli which is the pedagogic activities taking place in their

classrooms which is the purpose the children are in school.

 76

Research Question Three

The Effect of Classroom Noise on the Academic Performance of Pupils

Furthermore, based on the effect of classroom noise on pupils’ academic performance, findings

showed that majority of teachers and pupils agreed that classroom noise affect pupil’s academic

performance and, further analysis showed that noise do have a negative effect on pupils’

academic performance (R-value = -0.380) but the effect was not that significant (P-value 0.067

> 0.05). In support of this, many of the pupil said classroom noise makes them not to think

properly, get distracted and lost focus and understanding of lessons, reduce their reasoning

capacity and ability to work in classroom, makes them to perform poorly and negatively

affecting their performance.

According to Broadbent Bottle Neck Theory (1958), people can respond or pay attention to

one stimuli from the environment at a time through selective attention as such noise from the

environment get the attention of the learner thus impacting academic performance especially

if it’s interesting to him/her.

This finding tie with that of Shield and Cockrell (2008) study who examine the impact of

external and internal noise on the academic attainments of London primary school children and

the findings showed that that external noise has a significant negative impact upon performance

and the effect being greater for the older children. Furthermore, Eikenberry (1974) states that

noise pollution makes it difficult for students to hear the teacher, lectures, classroom

discussions, and other activities. In the same trend, Slater (1968) in his research work showed

that students can perform better under quite condition than under noisy condition.
 77

Research Question Four

The Extent Classroom Noise Affects the Physiological Performance of Pupils

Furthermore, based on classroom noise and physiological performance of pupils, the findings

showed that majority of teachers and pupils of equal proportion indicate that classroom noise

affect pupil’s physiological performance and, further analysis reveal that classroom noise do

have a significant and relatively strong effect on pupils’ physiological performance (R-value =

0.533**, p-value 0.007< 0.05). In support of this, many of the pupil said classroom noise makes

them not to think properly, get distracted and lost focus and understanding of lessons, reduce

their reasoning capacity and ability to work in classroom, makes them feel sleepy, makes them

feel sick, develop head ache, and with some of them even develop fever.

Noisy school environment is counterproductive to students learning and as indicated by

Bronfenbrenner (1977) ecological theory, the kind of environment under which children study

be it in the school, community level or family do have an effect on the children.

In line with the findings of the study, Flemming, (2021) said that noise in classrooms leads to

increased stress and the teacher having to raise their voice louder. It also leads to a negative

feedback loop of noise; to hear what’s being said young people have to talk louder and louder.

This could in the long term affect students and teachers hearing. This is clear that classroom

noise affect both teachers and learners physiologically. This tied with the results of Kiri (2015)

who study revealed that high noise levels are likely to affect not only the children’s learning,

but also cause vocal health problems for the teachers due to the need for them to constantly

raise their voice above a comfortable level to be heard. In addition to the physical damage

caused by exposure to excessive noise, continued exposure has been associated with elevated

levels of stress, high anxiety, increased annoyance, depression, and fatigue (Kalveram, 2000).
 78

Therefore, with above findings, it is clear that classroom noise do have multiple negative

effects on both the learners and teachers.

Research Question Five

The Management of Classroom Noise and Enhancement of Pupils’ Physio-Educational

Performance

Finally, findings of the study showed that majority of teachers and pupils agreed that managing

classroom noise affect pupil’s physio-educational performance and, further analysis that

managing classroom noise do have a significant and strong effect on pupils’ physio-educational

performance (R-value = 0.682**, p-value 0.000< 0.05). In support of this, many of the pupil

said when classroom noise is controlled, they learn well and follow lessons, get good results,

concentrate and focus well in class, understand lessons quickly, feel happy, comfortable and

increases their understanding. Therefore, it is very imperative for strategies to be adopted to

manage classroom noise.

WHO (1999) in their study indicate that noise level in school classrooms during school hours

exceeded WHO guideline value and that noise effects on teachers increases as age increases

with female students more affected by classroom noise than the male students. Very noisy

classrooms create difficulty for children to hear and understand their lessons. Therefore, to

improve school teaching environment, higher school authority should take into consideration

in term of school design in order to reduce undesirable background noise. Sound barriers have

to be built to avoid excessive road traffic noise along the road adjacent to school classroom.

According to Broadbent’s theory, people can respond or pay attention to one stimuli from the

environment at a time through selective attention as such noise from the environment get the
 79

attention of the learner thus impacting academic performance especially if it’s interesting to

him/her.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the findings of the study revealed that intermittent and impulsive noise are the

most common in the classroom environment while continuous noise was the least. The causes

of the classroom noise appear to be many but, the classroom noise appear to come more from

the external environment as depicted by the findings of the study. The effect of classroom noise

was shown to have a negative effect on pupils’ academic performance and, it was also observed

to have a significant effect on pupils’ physiological performance. The classroom noise was

equally found to affect both the learners and teachers physiologically in many dimensions and,

the findings also revealed that proper managing of classroom noise is more likely to enhance

pupil’s physio-educational performance.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of the study, it was recommended that;Schools should be constructed far

away from areas that are characterized with lot of industrial and commercial activities to avoid

all forms of noise pollution. Moreso, school administrators are encouraged to set up regulations

and work members of nearby community to see how noise of all forms filtering into the learning

environment could be eliminated or reduced to the barest minimum.

Also, community leaders, school administrators should identify all the causes of noise pollution

and develop regulations and or make provision materials that would stop or eliminate these

sources of noise pollution filtering into learning institutions

 80

Again, it is recommended stake holder in the education community come out with policies and

build schools in such a way that the physio educational effects of noise on learning is reduced

to the barest minimum or eliminated

Finally, teachers are to come up effective classroom management strategies to manage

classroom noise thereby boosting the physio-educational performance of pupils

Limitations of the Study

The following limitations hindered the researcher from easily and quickly realizing this work

Due to shortness of time, the researcher had to assist some pupils in filling the question since

few did not actually understand the researcher to actually provide their own response in written

format.

Some questionnaires were not filled since some teachers were busy with their work so that

actual rate of return was not a hundred percent

Suggestions for Further Research

The following are suggestion for further research

A study could be carried out to find how the classroom noise affect the learning outcome in

primary schools

Another study could also be carried out to find out the effect noise pollution on the teachers’

motivation

Another study could be carried out to find how classroom acoustics affect the academic

performance of secondary school students

 81

REFERENCE

Crandell CC, Smaldino JJ (2000). Classroom acoustics for children with normal hearing and

with hearing impairment. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch ; 31: 36270.

Gaines KS, Curry ZD(2011). The inclusive classroom: The effects of color on learning and

behavior. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences Education 2011; 29(1), 46-57.

Haines M, Stansfeld S, Head J, Job R (2002). Multi-level modelling of aircraft noise on

performance tests in schools around Heathrow Airport London. J Epidemiol Commun

Health 56: 139-144.

Hetu R, Truchon-Gagnon C, Bilodeau S (1990). Problems of noise in school settings: a review

of literature and the results of an exploratory study. J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol 14:

31-38.

Hygge S, Evans G, Bullinger M (1996). The Munich Airport noise study: Cognitive effects on

children from before to after the change over of airports. In: Proceedings Inter-Noise

’96 (pp 2189– 2192).

Institute for Environment and Health (1997). The non-auditory effects of noise. Report R10.

Lundquist P, Holmberg K, Landstrom U (2000). Annoyance and effects on work from

environmental noise at school. Noise & Health 2(8): 39-46.

Maxwell L, Evans G (2000). The effects of noise on pre-school children’s pre-reading skills. J

Environ Psychol 20: 91-97.

Nelson P, Soli S (2000). Acoustical barriers to learning: children at risk in every classroom.

Lang Speech Hear Schools 31: 356-361.

 82

Picard M, Bradley JS(2001). Revisiting speech interference in classrooms. Audiology

;40:22144.

Sapna Ch, Sianna A, Victoria C, Andrew N (2014). Designing Classrooms to Maximize

Student Achievement. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences; 1(1): 4-

Shield B, Dockrell J (2003). The effects of noise on children at school: a review. J Build Acoust

10: 97-106.

Shield B, Dockrell J (2004). External and internal noise surveys of London primary schools. J

Acoust Soc Am 115: 730-738.

Shield B, Dockrell J (2008). The effects of environmental and classroom noise on the academic

attainments of primary school children. J Acoust Soc Am 123: 133-144.

Shield B, Greenland E, Dockrell J (2010). Noise in open plan classrooms in primary schools:

A review. Noise Health 2010;12:22534.

Shield BM, Dockrell JE (2008). The effects of environmental and classroom noise on the

academic attainments of primary school children. J Acoust Soc Am ;123:13344.

Smaldino JJ, Crandell CC, Kreisman BM, John AB, Kreisman NV (2008). Room acoustics

for listeners with normal hearing and hearing impairment.

Valente M, HosfordDunn H, Roesner R, editors (2008). Audiology. Treatment. 2nd ed. New

York: Thieme; 41851.5.

Williamson W, Byrne D (1977). Educational disadvantage in an urban setting. In: Herbert D,

Smith D (Eds.): Social problems and the city. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
 83

APPENDIX
 84

APPENDIX I

UNIVERSITY OF BUEA FACULTY OF EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF CURRICULUM STUDIES AND TEACHER

PUPILS’ QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear respondent, my name is TANGWI WUBNYONGA AJONG MARYNETTE (DE18A027) . I am a

student of University of Buea –Faculty of Education. I am currently carrying out research on the topic “
Effect of classroom noise on the physio-educational performance of primary school pupils in
Limbe II Sub-division” This is one of the requirements for the award of a First Degree in Nursery and
Primary and Education. Therefore I appeal to you to kindly answer the questions with all sincerity. I
promise to keep all responses confidential as they will be used only for academic purposes. You are not
required to write your name and you are also free to withdraw your participation at anytime without any
punitive measure from the University of Buea nor the researcher herself .
Yours sincerely

TANGWI WUBNYONGA AJONG MARYNETTE

Please tick (√) in the box that reflects your response.

SECTION A : DEMOGRAPHY: Please tick (√) the appropriate box

i) Institution Public Lay private Denominational

ii) Sex : Male Female
iii) Class ___________________________________________________________
iv) Age:____________________________________________________________
 85

SECTION B : TYPES OF CLASSROOM NOISE

Please tick (√) in the box that reflects your response.

s/n statement Strongly agree disagree Strongly

agree disagree
Continuous Noise
1 My classroom is sometimes noisy
for a long period of time
2 Sometime the class or the school is
noisy through out the whole day.
Intermittent Noise
3 In our class some children make
noise but stop after some time
4 We sometime make noise during
certain periods e.g. when going out
for break or games or carrying out
an activity but
Impulsive Noise
5 Sometime we get noise that come
by surprise e.g. a friend will just
scream.
6 We also get surprise noise from the
people and things happening
beside our school.
Please provide a response to these questions

What are some of the different kinds of noise you get in your classroom?

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

SECTION C : CAUSES OF CLASSROOM NOISE

Please tick (√) in the box that reflects your response.

s/n Statement Strongly agree disagree Strongly

agree disagree

1 Noise in our classroom is caused by from my

friends talking during lessons
2 Classroom noise are caused by machines, loud
music and people talking around the class or
school
3 Classroom noise are caused by moving cars
and bikes passing around the classroom
 86

4 Classroom noise are caused by phones ringing

and people answering calls during lessons

Please provide a response to these questions

What are some of the causes of noise in your classroom?

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

SECTION D: CLASSROOM NOISE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE.

Please tick (√) in the box that reflects your response.

s/n Statement Strongly agree disagree Strongly

agree disagree
1 I am unable to understand the teacher when there is noise

2 I am unable to remember things when there is noise in the

classroom
3 I feel bored when there is noise and I get angry sometimes

4 I get sick sometime after coming out of noise in the classroom

[Link] ache, tired
Please provide a response to these questions?

How does these forms of noise affect you?

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

SECTION E: CLASSROOM NOISE AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Please tick (√) in the box that reflects your response.

s/n Statement
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
agree disagree
1 When there is noise I don’t get what the
teacher is saying or teaching
 87

2 When there is noise I am distracted in class

and I cant focus
3 Noise in the class make me not to think
properly
4 When there is noise in the class, I don’t do my
work well

Please provide a response to these questions

How does noise in your classroom affect the way you learn in the classroom?

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

SECTION F: MANAGING CLASSROOM NOISE AND PHYSIO-EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE

Please tick (√) in the box that reflects your response.

s/n statement
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
agree disagree
1 When we follow classroom rules noise reduces
and we feel good and learn better.

2 When we are doing interesting activities with

the teachers we don’t make noise and feel
happy and learn better.
3 When our teacher promise to give gifts to
persons who do not make noise, we keep quite
and learn better
4 When phones are not ringing, people are not
making noise and those things that make noise
are removed feel good and learn better.

Please provide a response to these questions

When noise is controlled in the classroom, how does it affect you and the way you learn?

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
 88

APPENDIX II

UNIVERSITY OF BUEA FACULTY OF EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF CURRICULUM STUDIES AND TEACHER

TEACHERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear respondent, my name is TANGWI WUBNYONGA AJONG MARYNETTE (DE18A027) . I am a

student of University of Buea –Faculty of Education. I am currently carrying out research on the topic “
Effect of classroom noise on the physio-educational performance of primary school pupils in
Limbe II Sub-division” This is one of the requirements for the award of a First Degree in Nursery and
Primary and Education. Therefore I appeal to you to kindly answer the questions with all sincerity. I
promise to keep all responses confidential as they will be used only for academic purposes. You are not
required to write your name and you are also free to withdraw your participation at anytime without any
punitive measure from the University of Buea nor the researcher herself .
Yours sincerely

TANGWI WUBNYONGA AJONG MARYNETTE

SECTION A : DEMOGRAPHY: Please tick (√) the appropriate box

v) Institution : Public Lay private Denominational

vi) Sex : Male Female
vii) Professional qualification: Grade one Grade two
None
viii) Years of teaching experience: 1-9yrs 10-14 yrs 15-19yrs
20yrs+
 89

Please tick (√) in the box that reflects your response.

SECTION B : TYPES OF CLASSROOM NOISE

s/n statement
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
agree disagree
Continuous Noise
1 My pupils sometimes talk loudly for a long
period of time

2 There are industries around my school

which make noise continuously with
machines

Intermittent Noise
3 As a teacher most of pupils make noise
and stop whenever I look at them or get
their attention.
4 We also noise coming from the corridors
as teachers and other pupils pass beside
the classroom
5 We experience noise for short period of
time especially from vehicles and
motorists
6 We experience noise for short period of
time especially from people passing
beside the school
Impulsive Noise
7 We equally experience abrupt noise from
within the school or the neighbourhood
nearby e.g., tyre puncture, a loud
screaming from an individual or gun shot

Provide responses to these questions

How does the different types of noise present in our classroom affect teaching and learning in our
classroom?_________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
 90

SECTION C: CAUSES OF CLASSROOM NOISE

Please tick (√) in the box that reflects your response.

s/n statement
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
agree disagree
1 Sometime the noise I get coming
into classroom comes from people
talking or playing loud music beside
the school.
2 Often the noise that I experience in
the classroom is caused motorists
and pedestrians passing beside the
classroom
3 The noise that filter into our
classroom is sometimes cause by
people, machines and equipment in
nearby facilities, workshops and
factories .
4 Pupils disturb others in class which
lead to noise making
5 Some times pupils get excited in
class when I present learning
material leading to noise making
5 There are stubborn children in class
which leads to noise making

Provide responses to these questions

What are other cause of noise in the classroom?____________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
 91

SECTION D: CLASSROOM NOISE AND ITS EFFECT ON PHYSIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE.

Please tick (√) in the box that reflects your response.

s/n statement
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
agree disagree
1 Classroom noise can lead to hearing
impairment. Sometime we cannot get
what the children are saying.
2 Classroom noise can affect pupils’
ability to remember
3 Classroom noise can lead to children
having head ache
4 Classroom noise make the me feel
tired and some pupils tired
5 Classroom noise can lead to stress
and depression in children even the
teacher

Provide responses to these questions

What other ways do noise in the classroom affect children physically and health wise?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

SECTION E: CLASSROOM NOISE AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Please tick (√) in the box that reflects your response.

s/n statement
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
agree disagree
1 Classroom noise affect
communication during the teaching
learning process.
2 Classroom noise distract pupils during
the teaching learning process.
3 Classroom noise hampers under
understanding of concept and ideas
during the teaching learning process.
4 Classroom noise hinders information
processing during the teaching
learning process.
5 Classroom noise makes pupils to
perform poorly on task.
 92

Provide responses to these questions

In which other ways do classroom noise affect the academic performance of pupils in your
classroom?_________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

SECTION F: MANAGING CLASSROOM NOISE AND PHYSIO-EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE

Please tick (√) in the box that reflects your response.

s/n statement
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
agree disagree
1 Managing classroom noise by
creating communication rules
enhances the physio-educational
performance of pupils
2 Proper managing of objects that
produce noise enhance the physio-
educational performance of pupils
3 I use engaging and captivating
teaching method that encourage
children to focus during lessons.
4 Building window and using noise
proof facilities enhances the physio-
educational performance of pupils
5 Rewarding pupils who do not make
noise reduces classroom noise and
enhances the physio-educational
performance of pupils
6 I assign student to write down the
names of noise makers in the
classroom

Provide responses to these questions

How does managing classroom noise enhance pupils’ physio-educational performance?

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
93
94