batod foundation study day
DESCRIPTION
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. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
BATOD Foundation Study DayBATOD Foundation Study Day25 November 2011
More reasons to install sound field systems
Honor Andersen
The Impact of SF systemsThe Impact of SF systemsan evaluationan evaluation
Aims of this session:Provide the context and overview
of the studiesNote the implications on
children’s learning and performance
Next step
The ContextThe 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
BackgroundBackgroundInitial study in 2001 involving 6 schoolsLimited results due to capacity However indications were positive from
pupils, staff and parentsTherefore approached (with the support of PC
Werth):o Bridget Shield – London South Bank Universityo Julie Dockerell – Institute of Education
A larger scale study was planned in 2003 Report produced in 2005
The First studyThe First studyWe set out to collect data on the We set out to collect data on the following:following:Social behaviour scores (scale 0-9) 76% of sample scored 7-9 20% scored 5-6 4% scored 4Teacher 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
The First studyThe First studyParent Evaluation86% agreed or strongly agreed that the
system had a positive impact on their child’s learning and behaviour
Pupil evaluationNot formally carried out however pupil
comments noted e.g. “my teacher is not cross anymore she doesn’t shout”
The Second StudyThe Second Studyset out to collect data on the following:set out to collect data on the following:Classroom acousticsTeachers’ voice levelPupils’ views on impact Teachers’ views on impactEffect on children’s performance
and learningFull report can be made available
Outline of StudyOutline of Study10 schools were selected 39 classrooms were installed with SFS13 other classrooms were used as the
control groupSystems were installed in primary schools
across the rangeAcoustic measurements taken to compare
with current guidelines when empty“the majority would meet recommendations
for background noise but unlikely to meet new build requirements”
Teachers’ Voice Level (VL)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
Pupils’ view on SFSPupils’ view on SFSPupils in Years 3 and 6 were surveyed1,396 questionnaires were completed
before & 6 months after installationChildren in classrooms with SFS rated
hearing their teacher better when amplification was in use when:
Teacher writing on board and talkingWorking in groupsChildren were making noise outside
Impact on PerformanceImpact on PerformanceMeasured 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
Impact on LearningImpact on LearningChildren completed attainment and
speed of processing task prior to installation & 6 months later
196 in SFS & 86 in control groupPerformance on all measures
improved over timeChildren in classes with amplification
improved significantly more than those without
Impact on LearningImpact on LearningGains in SFS classrooms
Gains in control classrooms
Reading 7.5 3.5Oral Comprehension
1.25 0.3
Information processing
12.1 5.7
These results indicate that classrooms where SFS are used are providing better learning environments
Other research findingsOther research findingsMARRS results showed pupils made greatest improvements in amplified
classroomsachieved 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 pupilMARCS K to 3rd gradeThe younger the children the greater the
difference between control and SFS group in achievement test scores
Comments from teachersComments from teachersRaises expectation of being heardChildren notice and complain
when system not onParticularly good for phonic workIt is easier to be expressiveNoise levels have reduced
Why would you bother?Why would you bother?Because:As a teacher you need to be heardWhat you say is important, more
important than any PPBChildren thrive, are more
confident and make better progress when they can hear you
It makes sense
Thank you