See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276318001

Effects of Noise Pollution in the Learning Environment on Cognitive

Performances

Article in Liceo Journal of Higher Education Research · January 2014

DOI: 10.7828/ljher.v10i1.655

CITATIONS READS
15 26,665

1 author:

Samuel B. Diaco
Easterm Academia
2 PUBLICATIONS 15 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Samuel B. Diaco on 13 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Vol. 10 No. 1 December 2014 Liceo Journal of Higher Education Research
Journal
CHED-Accredited Research Journal, Category B
Print ISSN 2094-1064 · Electronic ISSN 2244-0437
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7828/ljher.v10i1.655

Effects of Noise Pollution

in the Learning Environment
on Cognitive Performances
SAMUEL B. DIACO ORCID No.
0000-0001-5791-1268
samueldiaco@gmail.com
Liceo de Cagayan University
Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines

ABSTRACT

Unwanted background noise in the common learning environments available

for students in the Philippines often exceed the maximum level recommended
by the World Health Organization (WHO) during teaching or studying sessions.
These intense background noises are burdensome for students in many schools
and homes across the country. These noises contribute to unhealthy learning
environments and subject students to cognitive, academic and professional risks.
This descriptive study identified to the relationship between the intensity and
sources of noise pollution and the cognitive performances of college students.
Results reveal significantly elevated levels of noise pollution in the common
learning environments primarily caused by the students themselves and statistical
evidence that the student-participants’ cognitive performances are negatively
influenced by noise pollution.

Keywords: noise pollution; learning environment; cognitive performance; ill

effects; learning abilities; health education.

79
 INTRODUCTION

The learning environments available to students in the Philippines are

noticeably beset by unwanted man-made loud noises known as noise pollution.
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).
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).
This study assessed the intensity and sources of noise pollution present in
various learning environments in Negros Occidental as a sampled province
and analyzed the impact of noise on eighty selected participants’ cognitive
performances—their memory, concentration, and reading comprehension.

FRAMEWORK

This study theorized that students’ cognitive performances can be seriously

affected by noise pollution in the learning environment. Indicators of cognitive
performances are memory, concentration, and reading comprehension. Memory
is an indication that learning has persisted over time (Aquino & Miranda, 2003).
Working memory, according to Cowan (2014), is the retention of a small amount
of information in a readily accessible form. It facilitates planning, comprehension,
reasoning and problem- solving (Cowan, 2014). Concentration refers to the
ability and act of paying attention to a single activity or object (Concentration,
2014). Attention, however, is the behavioral and cognitive process of selectively
concentrating on one aspect of the environment while ignoring other things, a
process that influences learning (Anderson, 2004). Reading comprehension refers
to the student’s capacity to perceive and understand the meanings communicated
by texts (Wilhelm, 2014).
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

80
comprehension, impairs task performances including reading attention and
memory, and leads to problems with concentration and communication (Goines
& Hagler, 2007; Hagler, 1999). Studies established 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).
This study evaluated the impact of noise pollution in the learning environment
on student-participants’ cognitive performances, assessed the intensity of
background noises in their classrooms and homes, and identified the primary
sources of the noises. The study was anchored on the assumption that cognitive
performances of students can be affected by many factors in the learning
environment. Lending support to this study are the Constructivist and Human
Cognition’s learning theories that recognize the role of cognitive performances in
the learning process. Cognitive performances, according to cognitive psychologist
Pascale Michelon, are “brain-based skills needed to carry out any task from the
simplest to the most complex; they have more to do with the mechanisms of
how people learn, pay attention, remember, and problem-solve rather than with
any actual knowledge” (Michelon, 2006). Dr. David Jonassen, former professor
of Instructional Systems at Pennsylvania State University, affirmed that in the
constructivist learning environment, learners use complex cognitive skills and
active techniques to help them become expert learners, continually reflecting
on their experiences and developing their abilities to integrate new information
(Reigeluth, 2009).
Based on these two theories, learning is the result of cognitive processing.
Any negative effect on cognitive processing will negatively affect learning. It
is hypothetical (Figure 1) that if noise pollution in the learning environment
negatively impacts cognitive performances, learning and competency will also be
affected (Johnson, 2011; Theakston, 2011; IGCB [N], 2010).

Learning Future
Abilities Competency

Figure 1.Theoretical Framework of the Study

81
 It has been established that exposure to varied levels and sources of noise
pollution in the learning environment has negative impact on the cognitive
performance, leading to poor academic performance and future incompetency
(Johnson, 2011; Theakston, 2011; IGCB(N), 2010; Lane, 2009; Goines &
Hagler, 2007).

Figure 2. The Schematic Presentation of the Interplay of the

Variables of the Study

Figure 2 summarizes the intention of this study, which analyzed the effects
of noise pollution in terms of intensity and sources of background noises on
the cognitive performances of student-participants in a sampled province in
the Philippines. The participants’ memory skills, concentration, and reading
comprehension were determined, and the impact of the intensity and sources of
noise in both the classrooms and students’ homes on their cognitive performances
was identified.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This study explored the effect of noise pollution on the students’ cognitive
performances. Specifically, it sought to determine the (1) level of background
noises heard by students during classroom study; (2) level of background noises
in the student-respondents’ homes during their study; (3) main sources of noise
pollution in the student-respondents’ learning environments; (4) level of student
participants’ cognitive performances in terms of memory, concentration, and
reading comprehension; and (5) independent variables impact the students’
cognitive performances.
82
 METHODOLOGY

The study used the descriptive-correlational research design. It offered a

detailed analysis of randomly selected student-respondents to investigate effects
of noise pollution on cognitive performances in real life setups and without
variable manipulation. Data were obtained through three instruments: (1)
Noise Pollution Questionnaire to identify the presence of noise pollution in
student-respondents’ learning environments, recognize the main sources of the
noise, and report direct effects of the noise on the cognitive performances as
perceived by the respondents; (2) SL811 Sound-pressure Level Meter (SLM) to
measure accurately and record sound-pressure levels present in the respondents’
classrooms; and (3) three sets of cognitive-ability tests to measure the students’
working memory, concentration, and reading comprehension. The tests were
administered in computer labs or Internet shops with BSL and acoustic ambiance
similar to the participants’ classroom environments. Participants took a set of
four tests to measure their memory (spatial span, monkey ladder, digit span, and
paired associate and a set of three tests to measure their concentration (rotations,
feature match and polygons). These two sets were developed and offered online
by the UK Medical Research Council’s Cognition and Brain Science Unit in
Cambridge (MRC, 2014). The tests were timed, and scores were generated
after the completion of each test. The participants took a third set of three
reading comprehension tests (two elementary levels and one pre-intermediate)
provided online by English-Test-Score (ETS, 2014) to measure their reading
comprehension. The participants were given limited time to complete each set.
Average scores for each set of test were calculated and analyzed.
The participants were the randomly selected students from eight classes
in four participating schools in several cities and small towns in Negros
Occidental. Two hundred and seventy-one respondents (271), mainly second-
year Education/English majors answered the noise pollution questionnaire and
provided data on the acoustic environments in their schools and homes. Eighty
(80) from among the participants were purposively selected and profiled based
on their grade level (second-year college), grade point average (GPA), and home
acoustic environment to minimize extraneous factors that may have bearing on
the results—ten participants (10) from each classroom. Students under the age
of eighteen were required to submit parental consent before participating in the
study.
The group-sample also consisted of an equal number of participants from two
classrooms’ acoustic-based groups: Group 1 had forty (40) participants studying
83
in considerably quiet classrooms and Group 2 had forty (40) participants studying
in considerably noisy classrooms. The participants took the three sets of cognitive-
ability tests and provided interval data for statistical analysis. The intensity and
sources of background noises in the participants’ classrooms were identified
through the sound monitoring sessions and the researchers’ observations. The
intensity and sources of the background noises in the participants’ homes during
their study were also identified by the participants through the questionnaire.
The participating schools were selected from among the schools known
for quiet ambience in their classrooms and expected to offer BSL averages not
exceeding 45 dB-A and from among the schools known to have noisy ambience
with BSL averages of 65 dB-A and above. The study failed to find schools with
BSL averages less than 45 dB-A in their classrooms and gain access to schools
known for very noisy classrooms.

School
School Avg. Minim. Quiet/Silence
College Avg. BSL
BSL Instructional Media
(dB-A)
School A 71.5 60.5 Not observed
School B 77.0 63.5 Not observed
School C 61.5 56.0 Yes, on doors.
School D 64.0 41.5 Yes, in hallways.

After obtaining the permission of schools’ administrators to conduct the study

in their campuses, the study selected two classrooms from each school (Classes A
and B); a total of eight classrooms, four with generally quiet ambience (65 dB-A
and below) and four with generally noisy ambience (70 dB-A and above).
Data of the study were and processed for analysis using frequency counts and
percentages, means, T-test for independent samples, ANOVA for multivariate
and multiple linear regressions, and Pearson’s product-moment correlation.

84
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 2. Recorded Average and Minimum BSL in each Participating Classroom

Class A Intensity of Class A

Classroom Acoustic Class B Intensity of Class B
School Noise (BSL Avg. Min.
Category Noise (BSL Avg. dB-A) Min. dB-A
dB-A) dB-A

A Noisy 71 72 61 60
B Classrooms 75 79 61 65
C Quiet 62 61 56 56
D Classrooms 65 63 43 40

Extent of background noises heard during student-respondents study in the

classrooms
The sound monitoring sessions recorded average background sound levels
(BSL) between 61 and 79 dB-A (Table 2), with minimum BSL between 40 and
65 dB-A. School C offered the lowest BSL average in their classrooms (combined
average of 62 dB-A), followed by School D (64 dB-A), School A (72 dB-A), and
School B (77 dB-A). Meanwhile, School D offered the lowest recorded BSL (41
dB-A), followed by School C (56 dB-A), School A (61 dB-A), and School B (63
dB-A).
The BSL averages in the eight classrooms (61-79 dB-A) were significantly
higher than the acceptable 40-45 dB-A level recommended for the
classroom environment (Lane, 2009; Earthman, 2002) and higher than
WHO’s recommended BSL (<35 dB-A) for students to be able to hear and
understand spoken messages (Ibrahim & Richard, 2000; Berglund et al., 1995).
These data were validated by the data obtained through a questionnaire.
Forty-seven percent (47%) of the student-respondents reported being greatly
bothered by noise pollution during classes in their schools, while 19% reported
being bothered to some degree. These findings indicate that the classrooms of the
sampled schools are polluted by unwanted loud noises at elevated levels.

Intensity of background noises at homes

The intensity of unwanted background noises in students’ homes during
their study was assessed based on the data the respondents provided in the
questionnaire. The data show that 102 out of 271 respondents (37%) reported
‘always’ or ‘often’ hearing unwanted loud background noises during study at their

85
homes—36 reported ‘always’ (13%) and 66 reported ‘often’ (24%). Eighty-eight
(88) respondents (32%) reported ‘sometimes’ hearing loud noises. Eighty-one
(81) respondents (30%) reported ‘seldom’, or ‘not hearing loud noises’—70
reported ‘seldom’ (26%) and only 11 reported ‘not at all’ (4%).
The data show that more than one-third of student-respondents perceived
the acoustic learning environment in their homes as always or often noisy, with
another one-third reporting sometimes hearing loud noises. Only 11 respondents
(4%) reported not hearing loud noises during their study at home. The data
indicate that the respondents perceive their learning environment at their homes
as noisy, and the majority of them are bothered by it.

Sources of noise pollution in the student-respondents’ learning environments

3.1. In Classrooms. As observed by the researcher during the sound monitoring
sessions (Table 3), the primary sources of background noises in the classrooms
of the two participating schools with higher BSL (Schools A and B) were the
students who were talking unnecessarily in class and hallways, and adjacent
classes and vehicle traffic.
In School C, the primary source of background noises was the wall-mounted
air conditioning units, followed by students in hallways. Although of newer
models and quality brands, these units maintained a minimum noise level of
56 dB-A, which was the minimum level recorded in both participating classes.
School D recorded the lowest noise level (42 dB-A), but, it came second in
average BSL because of the moving of metal furniture with missing rubber leg-
caps. Echo in the classroom also contributed to BSL and distorted the delivery
of instructions. The echo was noticeable in classrooms with metal furniture and
ceiling panels and where echo-absorbing furniture and materials were absent.
During the study, School C was in the process of replacing its wall-mounted
air conditioning units with a centralized aircon-system, which is believed by
the management to considerably lower the BSL in classrooms. Renovation and
placement of insulation materials were in progress as well. Also School D was in
the process of placing rubber leg-caps on their furniture and modifying classroom
setups.
Data on the sources of background noises in classrooms were supported by
the researcher’s observation. Majority of the respondents reported more than one
source of noises in their classrooms. A total of 204 student-respondents (75%)
complained about other students unnecessarily talking during class; 108 (66%),
loud noises from students in the hallways; and 175 (65%), loud noises from

86
adjacent classes. Only 18% complained about noises from vehicles and 10%
from appliances.
3.2. At Students’ Homes. The respondents reported more than one source of
noise. More than half of them identified the following as the main source of loud
noise: people at home (59%), televisions (54%), inconsiderate neighbors with
loud music (54%), and people outside the house (46%). More than one-third
reported loud noises from animals (roosters, dogs, and pigs) in their yards (36%)
or their neighbors’ yards (30%). Also, 28% identified videoke machines near or
at home as source of noise. While 19% identified vehicles and17% identified
appliances as sources of noise.

Levels of cognitive performances of the student-participants

4.1. In Terms of Memory. Test scores for the participants’ memory skills varied
between 8.33 and 3.25 points. The results were grouped into five levels: very high
(8.50 to 7.01), high (7.00 to 6.01), average (6.00 to 5.01), low (5.00 to 4.01),
and very low (4.00 and below). Memory test scores of the student-participants
were as follow: 5 (6%) participants, ‘very high level; 14 (18%), ‘high level’; 31
(39%), ‘average level’; 26 (33%), ‘low level’; and 4 (5%), ‘very low level’.
4.2 In terms of Concentration. Test scores for the participants’ concentration
varied between 111.67 and 12.00 points. The results were grouped into five
levels: very high (112.00 to 95.01), high (95.00 to 80.01), average (80.00 to
65.01), low (65.00 to 50.01), and very low (50.00 and below). Concentration
test scores of the student-participants were as follow: 6 (8%), ‘very high level’;
11 (14%), ‘high level’; 13 (16%), ‘average level’; 32 (40%), ‘low level’ (40%); 18
(23%), ‘very low level’.
4.3. In Terms of Reading Comprehension. Test scores for the participants’
reading comprehension varied between 53.33 and 13.33 points. The results
were grouped into five levels: very high (54.00 to 50.01), high (50.00 to 40.01),
average (40.00 to 30.01), low (30.00 to 20.01), and very low (20.00 and below).
Reading Comprehension test scores of the student-participants were as follow:
4 (5%), ‘very high level’; 19 (24%), ‘high level’; 23 (29%), ‘average level’; 23
(29%), ‘low level’; and 11 (14%), ‘very low level’.

87
Independent variables’ impact on the students’ cognitive performances

Table 4. The Strength and Directions of the Linear

Relationships between the Variables (r).

Intensity of Noise Number of Intensity of Noise Number of

Cognitive
in Classroom (BSL) Sources of Noises in Students’ Sources of Noises in
Performance
in Classrooms Homes (LEV) Students’ Homes
MEM. -0.570 -0.528 0.016 -0.041
CONCN. -0.455 -0.477 -0.118 -0.031
COMP. -0.499 -0.526 0.013 -0.001
SUM -0.576 -0.599 -0.086 -0.027

The correlational analysis (Table 4) showed a strong negative relationship

between the intensity of background noises in classrooms and the students’
memory skills (r = -0.570), concentration (r = -0.455), reading comprehension
(r = -0.499); and a strong negative relationship with the sum of cognitive
performances’ scores (r= -0.576); a strong negative relationship between the
number of sources of noises in classrooms and students’ memory skills (r =
-0.528), concentration (r = -0.477), reading comprehension (r = -0.526); and a
strong negative relationship with the sum of cognitive performances’ scores (r =
-0.599). The study, however, found negligible relationships between the intensity
of the background noises and the number of sources of noises at students’ homes
and their cognitive performances’ scores.
The findings of this study are aligned with the findings of the study conducted
by WHO European Centre for Environment (2011) which concluded that there
is scientific evidence confirming the adverse effects of chronic noise exposure
on children’s cognition (Theakston, 2011). It is also similar with the study
conducted by Glen I. Earthman at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University (2002) that students’ performances are negatively affected in buildings
where noise levels are high (Earthman, 2002). Moreover, Bridget Shield and
Julie Dockrell at London South Bank University and Institute of Education also
concluded in their experimental study that both chronic and acute
exposures to environmental and classroom noise have a detrimental effect
upon children’s learning and performance (Shield & Dockrell, 2008).

88
 CONCLUSIONS

Classrooms available for students in the sampled province in the Western

part of the country are generally polluted with loud noises and at elevated
levels, indicating the high probability of students’ cognitive abilities being
negatively affected. The learning environments generally available for
students at their homes are also polluted by noise, thus affecting students’
ability to learn. The pollution in the common learning environments can easily
be eliminated, since students themselves are the major contributors to the
pollution in schools and family members and neighbors at homes. Further, the
cognitive performances of the majority of the participants are poor. Their
cognitive-skills’ scores indicate a need for attention to their cognitive health
and for evaluation of the health elements and acoustic climates in the learning
environments. It is evident that noise pollution in the learning environments
negatively affects students’ cognitive performances, resulting in poor learning
abilities.
Serious attention to the noise pollution problem in the common learning
environments in the Philippines is required, along with policy on sound limits
and periodic monitoring of sound levels in schools and residential areas. Delivery
of health education programs by health education personnel in schools and the
local communities is needed to equip students and their parents with knowledge
and skills to counter current and potential environmental problems.

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, John R.
2004 Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th ed.) Worth Publishers.
p. 519. ISBN 978-0-7167-0110-1.

Aquino, G., & Miranda, N.

2003 Introduction to psychology, Second Edition. National Book Store,
Philippines.

Berglund, B., Lindvall, T., Schwela, D. (Eds)

1995 Guidelines for community noise. Archives of the Center for Sensory
Research. 1995; 2: 1-195. World Health Organization. Updated in
1999. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1999/a68672.pdf

89
Clark, C. & Stansfeld, S. A.
2007 Effect of transportation noise on health and cognitive development:
A review of recent evidence. International Journal of Comparative
Psychology, 20(2). http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8434889m

Concentration
2014 Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from: http://www.merriam-webster.
com/dictionary/concentration

Cowan, N.
2014 Working memory underpins cognitive development, learning and
education. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2). pp. 197-223. Springer
Link. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9246-y

Diaco, S.
2013 Noise pollution in the Philippines’ common learning environments: A field
study. Unpublished raw data.

Earthman, Glen I.
2002 School facility conditions and student academic achievement. UCLA:
UCLA’s Institute for Democracy, Education and Access. Retrieved
from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5sw56439

ETS
2014 Elementary Reading Comprehension Test 18. EnglishStore. From:
http://englishteststore.net/index.php?option=com_content&v
iew=article&id=12345:elementar y-reading-comprehension-test-
18&catid=133:english-reading-tests&Itemid=382

Goines, L., & Hagler, L.

2007 Noise pollution: A modern plague. Southern Medical Journal, Vol. 100:
March 2007, pages 287-294. Retrieved from: http://www.nonoise.org/
library/smj/smj.htm

Hagler, L.
1999 Summary of adverse health effects of noise pollution. NoiseOFF Online
Library. http://www.noiseoff.org/document/who.summary.pdf
90
Ibrahim, Z., & Richard, H.
2000 Noise pollution at school environment located in residential
area. Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 12. MUT, Malaysia.
h t tp : / / e p r in ts . u t m. my/ 8 4 3 0 / 1 / Z u l k e p l i H j I b ra h i m2 0 0 0 _
NoisePollutionAtSchoolEnvironmentLocated.PDF

IGCB(N)
2010 Noise and health: Valuing the human health impacts of environmental
noise exposure. The Interdepartmental Group on Costs and Benefits
Noise Subject Group (IGCB(N)). Retrieved from: http://archive.defra.
gov.uk/environment/quality/noise/igcb/documents/igcn-noise-health-
response100707.pdf

Johnson, C. D., Seaton, J. B.

2011 Educational audiology handbook, 2nd Ed. Delmar Cengage Learning,
USA

Lane, I.
2009 Noise pollution. Case Western Reserve University (MPHP 439). Ohio,
USA. http://www.cwru.edu/med/epidbio/mphp439/noise_pollution.
pdf

Michelon, P.
2006 What are cognitive abilities and skills, and how to boost them?
SharpBrains: Tracking Health and Wellness Applications of Brain Science.
Retrieved from: http://sharpbrains.com/blog/2006/12/18/what-are-
cognitive-abilities/

MRC
2014 Cambridge Brain Science. http://www.cambridgebrainsciences.com

Reigeluth, C. M.,
2009 Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional
theory, vol. 2. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. Mahwah,
NJ., USA

Shield, B., & Dockrell, J.

2008 The effects of classroom and environmental noise on children’s academic
91
 performance. 9th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN), Foxwoods,
CT. Retrieved from: http://www.icben. org/2008/PDFs/Shield_Dockrell.pdf

Theakston, F. (ed.)
2011 Burden of disease from environmental noise: Quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe. WHO
R.O. Europe. http://www.euro.who.int/data/assets/pdf_file/0008/136466/e94888.pdf

Wilhelm, J.
2014 Understanding reading comprehension. SCHOLASTIC. Retreived From:
http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/understanding-reading- comprehension

92

View publication stats