Is louder better?
The Prince George’s County (Md.) district is spending up to $1 million a year to install voice amplification systems in every classroom, The Washington Post reports. Teachers wear infrared microphones that raise the volume and clarity of teachers’ voices above the distracting buzz of competing noises. But some advocates for better classroom acoustics say that turning up the volume doesn’t necessarily improve acoustics, especially if the space already has lots of background noise and reverberation. They argue that it is more effective to design or reconfigure classrooms to reduce background noise and reverberation.
Do you think putting microphones on teaches is an effective way of address classroom acoustics? Leave a comment below.
April 1st, 2008 @ 7:14 am
The voice communication technology discussed in the Post Article serves to, first, obscure the discussion on class sizes. Where are we going with this–lecture halls for elementary schools? And, secondly, the GIGO Principle–if what is being taught is useless, what difference does hearing it better make? This is a platitude that has all the worth of a pimple on the derriere of a gnat.
April 1st, 2008 @ 8:15 am
NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!
PLEASE spend the million a year on quieting the classroom and creating a suitable natural speaking environment. See The Acoustical Society of America website ( http://asastore.aip.org/ ) and download (for free) the standard on Classroom Acoustics. Then get a knowledgeable person to apply these principles to specific rooms. Amplification makes matters WORSE!
April 1st, 2008 @ 8:57 am
Solve the acoustical problems first before resorting to sound systems.
April 1st, 2008 @ 9:09 am
Amplifying teacher voices does not solve poor classroom acoustics problems. It may force a teacher’s voice to students, but in schools with average demising partitions, it forces distraction into adjacent classroom spaces. Excessive background noise from mechanical systems and reverberation because of classroom surface finishes mask not only teacher voices, but also student voices. Will the next step be to amplify student voices? Why not give every student and teacher microphone and earphone headsets and conduct classes by radio?
April 1st, 2008 @ 9:28 am
While an ideal acoustic situation is the best solution, these systems help all students to hear more of what the teacher is saying. We have equipped many of our rooms with them, with the impetus coming from the inclusion of hearing-impaired students. The one drawback I see is that although the teacher’s voice is amplified, the students who answer in class or participate in group do not have their voice amplified. I feel confident that this hindrance will be overcome as newer systems enter the market place.
April 1st, 2008 @ 10:05 am
Voice amplification systems do not solve the underlying problem. In fact, they create more noise that can compound the problem and are likely to disturb adjacent classrooms. If we simply build classrooms that meet the acoustic guidelines presented in ANSI S12.60-2002, we will have good voice communication in our classrooms.
April 1st, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
This is the wrong approach to the problem. Adding more noise to the background noise will only make matters worse. The real problems are most likely the background noise because of mechanical unit ventilators or outside traffic and reverberant rooms, i.e., too much echo to put it layperson’s terms.
Electronic band-aids do not assist with two-way communications or student-to-student interactions.
The room background noise needs to be controlled and acoustical treatments used to decrease reverberation and increase speech intelligibility. No batteries needed!
April 1st, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
This is a question of priority. If you scrape your knee, the priority is cleaning the wound. Next is the bandage. In the instance of implementing a sound system in a classroom, the bandage is getting applied before the wound gets cleansed. Improving the listening environment is priority (cleaning the wound, if you will), and a sound system is secondary (applying the bandage).
April 4th, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
I’m in total agreement with my acoustical colleagues that reducing background noise and improving room acoustics is the correct solution to this problem. In addition, I’d like to add another consequence that the electronic solution creates: the negative impact on our already stressed environment. All of these systems use energy, a commodity that is getting more and more costly to produce. They also require batteries. Granted most systems use rechargeable ones, but when their usable lifetime is exceeded, they’ll end up in our landfills along with the the outdated infrared systems when they pass their prime.
April 8th, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
While the acoustical folks are right-on-the-mark regarding bad acoustical environments and noisy HVAC systems, there’s an aspect of K-12 teaching that may be missing. The better K-12 instructional environments and classrooms no longer have a teacher standing at the front lecturing to the students. The better learning mode is for a teacher facilitating many activities that may be individual or small-group-based. Those students are talking to each other, resulting in a noisy and seemingly chaotic environment. A teacher may be over on one side of the classroom and needs to address all students but his or her back is toward some of the students. Just the indoor version of the “inverse-square law” means the teacher must be speaking very loud just to be heard. Imagine an entire day of constantly raising your voice and the level of voice strain and physical weariness that will cause. A properly balanced IR/RF/MIC/AMP system (whichever one you want to use) is considered a godsend by these teachers.
But the real bottom line is that until there is verifiable evidence that a quieter classroom leads to better student test scores (as the classroom amplification people have done), it’s a battle already lost.
The statement that classroom amplification causes more problems than it solves flies in the face of those who have already experienced use of these systems. They will quickly determine that you do not understand the “business of the classroom” and will disregard your comments. You need to find a more compelling way to state your case rather than saying no, no, no.
April 8th, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
I must start out with a quote…
“Adults demand clear speech. Children require it.” –Karla Gaddard, Educational Audiologist.
This is especially true in the elementary levels. A point of clarification–classroom amplification systems are not PA systems blasting the students. They are low-volume speech intelligibility systems that provide clarity of voice and even sound distribution throughout the learning environment. When used properly (volume set correctly), the instruction is easily heard over typical classroom noise and every student has equal access to that which is being taught. As a former elementary school principal, I am all for meeting acoustic standards, and this should be part of new construction specs, but retrofitting existing classrooms to meet ANSI guidelines will take a lot of time and money. In the mean time, look at the research: Classroom amplification boosts academic performance for most all students (not to mention the reduction of teacher voice fatigue). Let’s keep improving classroom acoustics, but first things first. Let’s make sure all students are able to hear 100% of the instruction today.
June 25th, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
I’ve just seen the editorial comments in the May ‘08 issue of ASU Mag. The “No, no, no” to sound-field amplification in classrooms are simply a regurgitation of the ASA representatives’ position that “proper classroom design” will solve all hearing problems. They refer specifically to the ASA Std. 12.60 that says achieving a “35 dBA background sound level in the unoccupied classroom” will resolve all problems.
By all means, design classrooms for reasonably low background sound levels and for low reverberation times. But recognize what now is a well-established fact — altho’ not acknowledged by the ASA — that students in a “live” classroom when they are being most quiet (silent reading or writing) produce a background noise well in excess of 45 dBA. Reported levels include 47, 53, and 56 dBA. Much of this research has been done (and published) in Europe. Why do the ASA “acoustical experts” not read their peers’ research?
Or why do they not — as I have — go into a live classroom with a sound level meter and measure the sound levels of an occupied classroom? I found in a 35-dBA-unoccupied-classroom of 20 students, engaged in silent reading and writing, sound levels in the range of 47 to 53 dBA.
There are only a few ASA “Architectural Acoustics Experts” who advocate this “official ASA position.” Most “acousticians” take no interest in the classroom (vs. auditoria or music performance rooms). The Educational Audiologists and Speech/Hearing Therapists need to weigh in on this subject. They, together with the teachers, support the use of sound-enhancement systems in classrooms — as Bruce B. above makes clear.
Let’s encourage the use of sound enhancement systems in classrooms — for the benefit of both the students and their teachers.