1 / 17

BATOD Foundation Study Day

BATOD Foundation Study Day. 25 November 2011 More reasons to install sound field systems Honor Andersen. The Impact of SF systems an evaluation. Aims of this session: Provide the context and overview of the studies Note the implications on children’s learning and performance Next step.

viet
Download Presentation

BATOD Foundation Study Day

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. BATOD Foundation Study Day 25 November 2011 More reasons to install sound field systems Honor Andersen

  2. The Impact of SF systemsan evaluation Aims of this session: • Provide the context and overview of the studies • Note the implications on children’s learning and performance • Next step

  3. The Context • HCC has championed the use of SFS for over 10 years • Key people who have who have promoted and supported this over the years: • Rob Redfern - SEN Adviser • Maggie Ladkin - EP • Donald Allan - Educational Audiologist • Stuart Bowen - PC Werth • Andy Taylor – PC Werth / Lightspeed • Alan Sapsfod - Assistant Director SEN • Head Teachers and staff of participating schools • We all knew SF made a difference but wanted needed to demonstrate it

  4. Background • Initial study in 2001 involving 6 schools • Limited results due to capacity • However indications were positive from pupils, staff and parents • Therefore approached (with the support of PC Werth): • Bridget Shield – London South Bank University • Julie Dockerell – Institute of Education • A larger scale study was planned in 2003 • Report produced in 2005

  5. The First studyWe set out to collect data on the following: Social behaviour scores (scale 0-9) • 76% of sample scored 7-9 • 20% scored 5-6 • 4% scored 4 Teacher Evaluation • In 9 out of 11 measures 100% agreed strongly that the system had a positive impact on pupils’ learning and behaviour Listening inventory • in all measures 100% agreed or strongly improved listening skills set out in inventory

  6. The First study Parent Evaluation • 86% agreed or strongly agreed that the system had a positive impact on their child’s learning and behaviour Pupil evaluation • Notformally carried out however pupil comments noted e.g. “my teacher is not cross anymore she doesn’t shout”

  7. The Second Studyset out to collect data on the following: • Classroom acoustics • Teachers’ voice level • Pupils’ views on impact • Teachers’ views on impact • Effect on children’s performance and learning • Full report can be made available

  8. Outline of Study • 10 schools were selected • 39 classrooms were installed with SFS • 13 other classrooms were used as the control group • Systems were installed in primary schools across the range • Acoustic measurements taken to compare with current guidelines when empty • “the majority would meet recommendations for background noise but unlikely to meet new build requirements”

  9. Teachers’ Voice Level (VL) VL of teachers with SFS and control group measured before and 6 months after installation • While there was no consistent pattern to changes between 1st & 2nd measurement • VL in SFS group either no change or had decreased between 4 & 10 dB(A) • VL in control group no change or increased

  10. Pupils’ view on SFS Pupils in Years 3 and 6 were surveyed • 1,396 questionnaires were completed before & 6 months after installation Children in classrooms with SFS rated hearing their teacher better when amplification was in use when: • Teacher writing on board and talking • Working in groups • Children were making noise outside

  11. Impact on Performance • Measured performance of 271 children with systems on and off • Children performed significantly better on the spelling test when amplification was used • This was also true for the 24 children identified as having SN

  12. Impact on Learning • Children completed attainment and speed of processing task prior to installation & 6 months later • 196 in SFS & 86 in control group • Performance on all measures improved over time • Children in classes with amplification improved significantly more than those without

  13. Impact on Learning These results indicate that classrooms where SFS are used are providing better learning environments

  14. Other research findings MARRS results showed pupils • made greatest improvements in amplified classrooms • achieved in reading and language at a faster rate, to a higher level and at a much reduced cost to students who were withdrawn from class • Impact greater the younger the pupil MARCS K to 3rd grade • The younger the children the greater the difference between control and SFS group in achievement test scores

  15. Comments from teachers • Raises expectation of being heard • Children notice and complain when system not on • Particularly good for phonic work • It is easier to be expressive • Noise levels have reduced

  16. Why would you bother? Because: • As a teacher you need to be heard • What you say is important, more important than any PPB • Children thrive, are more confident and make better progress when they can hear you • It makes sense

  17. Thank you

More Related