Acoustic Conditions and Student Perceptions in a Québec Classroom: A Case Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although several studies have reported negative impacts of classroom noise on learning, few have examined students' subjective perceptions of their acoustic environment. This cross-sectional observational case study of a single classroom explored how adolescents aged 12 to 13 years evaluated their classroom soundscape and related perceptions to objective noise measurements. METHODS: Over 11 school days, several groups of students completed a questionnaire at the end of each class period (N = 957), indicating whether they felt annoyed/distracted, indifferent, or content/focused in relation to the acoustic environment, and providing free-text comments. Simultaneously, acoustic indicators (LAeq, LA10, LA90, LAmax, LA10-LA90) were recorded using calibrated sound level meters. RESULTS: Periods with higher LAeq, LA10, and LAmax values were significantly associated with fewer students feeling content/focused (r = -0.49 to -0.59; P < 0.05). At the individual level, correlations between acoustic measures and evaluations were weak (r = -0.14 to -0.19). Qualitative analysis of students' comments identified four perceptual modes of acoustic experience: intensity, soundscape, source, and autocentric impressions. Most students used only one mode and rarely made explicit connections between sound and learning. CONCLUSION: Findings from this single-classroom case study suggest that while higher continuous and peak noise levels are modestly associated with increased annoyance and reduced focus, these effects are limited. Because some student groups visited the classroom repeatedly, the data are not fully independent; and results should be interpreted with caution. This study highlights the need for larger, multiclassroom investigations combining subjective and objective data, and for tools supporting teacher noise management and student awareness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it