Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T00:14:32.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sound-field Amplification: Enhancing the Classroom Listening Environment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2016

Robyn Massie ,
Deborah Theodoros ,
Bradley McPherson  and
Joseph Smaldino
Robyn Massie
Affiliation:
National Acoustic Laboratories, Australian Hearing, PO Box 237, Brisbane, Queensland, 4001, Australia
Deborah Theodoros
Affiliation:
Division of Speech Pathology, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, 4072, Australia
Bradley McPherson
Affiliation:
Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Hong Kong, Prince Philip Dental Hospital, 5F, 34 Hospital Road, Hong Kong, China
Joseph Smaldino
Affiliation:
Department of Communicative Disorders, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115, United States of America
Get access

Abstract

Sound-field amplification is an educational tool that allows control of the acoustic environment in a classroom. Teachers wear small microphones that transmit sound to a receiver system attached to loudspeakers around the classroom. The goal of sound-field amplification is to amplify the teacher’s voice by a few decibels, and to provide uniform amplification throughout the classroom without making speech too loud for normal hearing children. This report discusses the major findings of a study which investigated the effects of sound-field amplification intervention on the communication naturally occurring in the classrooms of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. The audiological findings of the sample population of children are presented, as well as details of the classroom acoustic environment. Sixty-seven percent of the children began the field trials with a slight hearing loss. The results confirmed the extremely noisy and reverberant conditions in which teachers and children are operating on a daily basis. The findings indicated that sound-field amplification intervention encouraged the children to interact with teachers and peers in a proactive way. Teachers identified voice-related factors to be a major personal benefit of the systems.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education , Volume 33 , 2004 , pp. 47 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American National Standards Institute. (2002). Acoustical performance criteria, design requirements and guidelines for schools. ANSI S 12.60.Google Scholar
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1995). Position statement and guidelines for acoustics in educational settings. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 37 (Supplement 14), 15.Google Scholar
Anderson, K. (1989). Screening instrument for targeting educational risk (S.I.F.T.E.R.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
Anderson, K. (2001). Voicing concern about noisy classrooms. Educational Leadership, April, 77–79.Google Scholar
Burnip, L. (1994). Hearing impairment, phonological awareness, and the acoustic environment of the classroom. Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 26(1), 4–10.Google Scholar
Calvert, M. B., & Murray, S. L. (1985). Environmental communication profile: An assessment procedure. In Simon, C. S. (Ed.), Communication skills and classroom success: Assessment of language-learning disabled students (pp. 135–159). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Clark, J. G. (1981). Uses and abuses of hearing loss classification. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 23, 493–500.Google ScholarPubMed
Crandell, C. (1998). Using sound-field FM amplification in the educational setting. The Hearing Journal, 5(5), 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowell, J. (1995). Trial of sound-field amplification system. Proceedings of the Otitisu Media NSW Conference 1995 – Its implications for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Sydney: New South Wales Department of Health, New South Wales Department of School Education, New South Wales Board of Studies.Google Scholar
Flexer, C. (1992). FM classroom public address systems. In Ross, M. (Ed.), FM auditory training systems: Characteristics, selection and us (pp. 189–206). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Flexer, C. (2002). Rationale and use of sound field systems: An update. The Hearing Journal, 55(8), 10–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotaas, C., & Starr, C. (1993). Vocal fatigue among teachers. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica (Basel), 45, 120–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grauf, N. (1994). Report on whole class amplification systems installed in Cape and Gulfsdools. Cairns, QLD: Torres Strait, Cape and Gulf School Support Centre.Google Scholar
Howard, D. (1994). Culturally responsive classrooms: A way to assist Aboriginal students with hearing loss in urban schools. In Harris, S. & Malin, M. (Eds.), Aboriginal kids in urban classrooms (pp. 37–51). Darwin: Social Science Press.Google Scholar
Kearins, J. (1985). Cross-cultural misunderstandings in education. In Pride, J. B. (Ed.), Cross-cultural encounters: Communication and mis-communication (pp. 65–79). Melbourne: River Seine Publications.Google Scholar
Loades, C. (1993). Western Australia centre for hearing impaired children, Aboriginal hearing program. In Otitis media in childhood: Issues, consequences and management: Proceedings of the Western Australian Otitis Media Group conference (pp. 253–268). Perth, WA: Western Australia Otitis Media Group Inc.Google Scholar
Lowell, A. (1993). Otitis media and classroom communication. Australian Communication Quarterly, 11–13.Google Scholar
McPherson, B. (1990). Hearing loss in Australian Aborigines: A critical evaluation. The Australian Journal of Audiology, 12, 67–78.Google Scholar
Nienhuys, T. (1994). Aboriginal conductive hearing loss for life. Australian Language Matters, 2(1), 8–9.Google Scholar
Nienhuys, T. G., Boswell, J. B., & McConnell, F. B. (1994). Middle ear measures as predictors of hearing loss in Australian Aboriginal children. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 30, 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Northern, J. L., & Downs, M. P. (2002). Hearing in children (54th ed.). Baltimore: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
Page, S. (1995). Dual FM sound field amplification: A flexible integrated classroom amplification system for mild to moderate conductive hearing loss. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Page, S., Hatfield, A., & Wallington, J. (1995). Sound-field amplification: Alternative technology for minimal hearing loss. In Otitis media in childhood: Issues, consequences and management: Proceedings of the Western Australian Otitis Media Group conference (pp. 338–334). Perth, WA: Western Australia Otitis Media Group Inc.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, G., & Blake-Rahter, P. (1995). Sound-field amplification: A review of the literature. Sound-field FM amplification: Theory and practical applications (pp. 107–123). San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group Inc.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, G., Blake-Rahter, P., Heavner, J., Allen, L., Redmond, B., Phillips, J., et al. (1999). Improving classroom acoustics (ICA): A three year FM sound-field classroom amplification study. Journal of Educational Audiology, 7, 8–28.Google Scholar
Sherwood, J., & McConville, T. K. (1994). Otitis media and Aboriginal children: A handbook for teachers and communities. North Sydney: NSW Board of Studies.Google Scholar
West, L. (1994). Cultural behaviour, conflict and resolution. In Harris, S. & Malin, M. (Eds.), Aboriginal kids in urban classrooms (pp. 7–19). Darwin: Social Science Press.Google Scholar