1

Effects of Noise on Classroom Management

Master Thesis

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

Master of Science

By

Trent Patton Haigh

1114517

Supervisor

Univ.-Prof. Dipl.-Psych. Dr.phil. Manuela Paechter

Department of Psychology

Karl-Franzens-University Graz

Graz

August 2017

2

Abstract

Teachers have rated noise as being a critical stress factor in the classroom (e.g. Hotter &

Zollneritsch, 2009) and studies in related fields have shown that noise affects performance in

a number of ways (e.g. Ising, Sust, & Rebentisch, 1996). However, there has been a lack of

research on the effect of noise on teachers’ performance in the classroom. Classroom

management is a fundamental aspect of teacher performance, and impacts learning outcomes

as well as teacher well-being (e.g. Helmke, 2009). The purpose of this study is to fill a

knowledge gap and investigate the effect of noise on classroom management. One hundred

and six pre-service teachers came into the lab and viewed videos of a class of primary school

students performing a group work activity. The videos were viewed once at a higher (75dB)

and once at a lower (60dB) noise level. Participants pedagogically assessed the performance

of both the students on the video, as well as the teacher who had organised the classroom

situation; their answers were analysed using Qualitative Content Analysis (e.g. Mayring,

2014). Results showed that with more noise, pre-service teachers tended to focus on obvious

aspects of the situation, and to interpret the situation in a cursory manner, without seeking out

more information first. Thus, monitoring appears to be impacted by noise. Furthermore,

teachers focussed more on the negative work of students and gave fewer positive comments

regarding the teacher who had organised the situation. These results provide first evidence

that the classroom management of teachers is influenced by noise. Implications of this are

discussed.

Key words: noise, classroom management, teacher performance, monitoring, qualitative

content analysis

3

Zusammenfassung

LehrerInnen haben Lärm als kritischen Stressfaktor bewertet (e.g. Hotter & Zollneritsch,

2009) und Studien in verwandten Bereichen haben gezeigt, dass Lärm die Leistung auf

verschiedene Weise beeinflusst (e.g. Ising, Sust, & Rebentisch, 1996). Allerdings fehlt es an

Forschung über die Wirkung von Lärm auf die Leistung der LehrerInnen im

Klassenzimmer. Das Klassenmanagement ist ein grundlegender Aspekt der Lehrerleistung,

und hat Auswirkungen auf Lernergebnisse sowie des Wohlbefindens von Lehrpersonen (e.g.

Helmke, 2009). Der Zweck dieser Studie ist es, eine Wissenslücke zu füllen und die Wirkung

von Lärm auf das Klassenmanagement zu untersuchen. Einhundert und

sechs Lehramtsstudenten kamen in das Labor und sahen Videos von einer Klasse von

Grundschülern an, die eine Gruppenarbeit ausübten. Die Videos wurden einmal bei einem

höheren (75dB) und einmal bei einem niedrigeren (60dB) Geräuschpegel betrachtet. Die

Versuchspersonen beurteilten die Leistung der SchülerInnen in dem Video sowie der

Lehrperson, die die Situation organisierte. Ihre Antworten wurden mit der qualitativen

Inhaltsanalyse ausgewertet. Die Ergebnisse zeigten, dass je mehr Lärm es gab umso mehr

fokussierten sich die Lehramtsstudenten auf offensichtliche und saliente Aspekte der

Situation, und umso schneller interpretierten sie die Situation, ohne zuerst weitere

Information zu sammeln. Daher erscheint das Monitoring durch Lärm beeinflusst zu werden.

Weiter fokussierten sich die Lehramtsstudenten mehr auf die negative Arbeit der

SchülerInnen und gaben weniger positive Kommentare in Bezug auf die Lehrperson an.

Diese Ergebnisse liefern erste Hinweise darauf, dass das Klassenmanagement der

LehrerInnen durch Lärm beeinflusst wird. Implikationen davon werden diskutiert.

Schlüsselwörter: Lärm, Klassenmanagement, Lehrerleistung, Monitoring, qualitative

Inhaltsanalyse

4

Acknowledgement

This thesis would not have been possible without the guidance and support from a number of

people.

Firstly, I would like to thank Prof. Manuela Paechter for her guidance and encouragement,

and for her enthusiasm for educational psychology.

My thanks also to Mag. Petra Steinlechner for her work in the design and implementation of

this research project, without which this thesis would not have been possible, and for her

patience and support.

I am also grateful to my wife Irina Haigh, and my family, for their love and unconditional

support.

5

Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 2

Zusammenfassung ................................................................................................................................... 3

Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................................. 4

Table of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... 7

Table of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 7

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 8

1.1 Explaining noise ............................................................................................................................ 9

1.2 Mechanisms for the effects of noise ........................................................................................... 10

1.3.1 Noise annoyance .................................................................................................................. 14

1.3.2 Control beliefs about noise .................................................................................................. 15

1.3 General effects of noise on humans ............................................................................................ 16

1.4 Noise in the classroom ................................................................................................................ 18

1.4.1 Overview of noise in the classroom ..................................................................................... 18

1.4.2 Interference of noise on speech and classroom atmosphere ................................................ 20

1.4.3 Noise and class activity ........................................................................................................ 21

1.4.4 Teacher stress ....................................................................................................................... 21

1.5 Classroom Management .............................................................................................................. 23

1.5.1 What is Classroom Management ......................................................................................... 23

1.5.2 Intervention style.................................................................................................................. 25

1.5.3 Classroom management in the current study ....................................................................... 28

1.5.4 Comparing and evaluating these frameworks ...................................................................... 37

1.6 Summary of the classroom management framework in the current study .................................. 40

1.7 Classroom management and noise .............................................................................................. 43

1.7.1 Influence of noise on attention, perception and choice of strategy ...................................... 44

1.7.2 The effect of noise on processing of social cues, helping behaviour and aggression .......... 46

1.8 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 48

Research Questions ............................................................................................................................... 50

Research Question 1 ..................................................................................................................... 50

Research Question 2 ..................................................................................................................... 52

Method .................................................................................................................................................. 54

3.1 Participants .................................................................................................................................. 54

3.2 Design ......................................................................................................................................... 55

3.3 Procedure .................................................................................................................................... 56

3.4 Materials ..................................................................................................................................... 57

6

3.5 Method of analysis – Qualitative Content Analysis .................................................................... 59

3.5.1 Procedure of the QCA in this study ..................................................................................... 63

3.5.2 Variables .............................................................................................................................. 64

3.5.3 Coding system ...................................................................................................................... 68

3.5.4 Quality criteria of the qualitative data .................................................................................. 69

Results ................................................................................................................................................... 71

4.1 Interrater reliability ..................................................................................................................... 71

4.2 Assumptions of statistical tests ................................................................................................... 71

4.3 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 73

H1.1 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on noise .................... 73

H1.2 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on the sitting behaviour

of students ..................................................................................................................................... 75

H1.3 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on students’ work on

task ................................................................................................................................................ 76

H1.4 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on student participation

...................................................................................................................................................... 78

H1.5 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on student conflict .... 79

H1.6 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on the subject of

visibility ........................................................................................................................................ 80

H1.7 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on visibility – moving

around (moving around to check understanding and progress of students) .................................. 81

H1.8 High classroom noise leads to changes in how many general positive comments were given

regarding teacher performance ...................................................................................................... 82

H1.9 High classroom noise leads to changes in which group the teachers elect to go to first ...... 83

H2.1 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on organisational

strategies in the classroom ............................................................................................................ 85

H2.2 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on intervention

strategies in the classroom ............................................................................................................ 86

H2.3 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on intervening in the

classroom ...................................................................................................................................... 87

4.4 Summary of the most important results ...................................................................................... 88

Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 90

5.1 Noise and the tendency to focus on the obvious aspects of the situation .................................... 91

5.2 Noise and monitoring the class ................................................................................................... 94

5.3 Noise and an interventionist approach ........................................................................................ 98

5.4 The effect of beliefs about control over the noise ..................................................................... 101

5.5 The effect of noise on evaluations about students and teacher ................................................. 103

5.6 Fitting the results into models of effective teaching ................................................................. 105

7

5.7 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 108

5.8 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 109

5.9 Practical implications ................................................................................................................ 110

Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................... 113

Appendix A .......................................................................................................................................... 119

Questionnaire ................................................................................................................................. 119

Appendix B .......................................................................................................................................... 123

Coding Manuals .............................................................................................................................. 123

Table of Tables

Table 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 55

Table 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 56

Table 3 .................................................................................................................................................. 58

Table 4 .................................................................................................................................................. 67

Table 5 .................................................................................................................................................. 68

Table 6 .................................................................................................................................................. 75

Table 7 .................................................................................................................................................. 76

Table 8 .................................................................................................................................................. 77

Table 9 .................................................................................................................................................. 78

Table 10 ................................................................................................................................................ 79

Table 11 ................................................................................................................................................ 81

Table 12 ................................................................................................................................................ 82

Table 13 ................................................................................................................................................ 83

Table 14 ................................................................................................................................................ 84

Table 15 ................................................................................................................................................ 85

Table 16 ................................................................................................................................................ 86

Table 17 ................................................................................................................................................ 87

Table 18 ................................................................................................................................................ 88

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Psychophysiological non-auditory effects of noise at work (Ising et al., 2004; adapted) ..... 13

Figure 2: Helmke’s model of effective teaching (Helmke, 2009, p.177; adapted). Translation: T.

Haigh ..................................................................................................................................................... 31

Figure 3: Procedural model: steps for assigning categories (Mayring, 2014; adapted) ........................ 62

Figure 4: Helmke’s model of effective teaching (Helmke, 2009, p. 177; adapted). Translation: T.

Haigh ................................................................................................................................................... 107

8

Introduction

‘One day, man will have to fight noise as fiercely as cholera and the plague’ (Münzel, Gori,

Babisch, & Basner, 2014, p. 829). The Nobel Prize winner Robert Koch predicted the

pervasive effects of noise in 1910 and today, more than one hundred years later, noise may

indeed be regarded as a modern plague and health hazard (e.g. Goines & Hagler, 2007). For

instance, the World Health Organisation estimates that in Western Europe alone, one million

healthy life-years are lost each year due to environmental noise (disability adjusted life years;

WHO, 2011). Noise is also pervasive in the classroom; teachers have evaluated it as being a

crucial stress factor (e.g. Hotter & Zollneritsch, 2009; Schönwälder, Berndt, Ströver, &

Tiesler, 2004). Noise in the classroom is created when students communicate, interact, and

work on tasks: unpleasant sounds arise from these activities, and undesired exposure to this

‘noise’ is perceived as stressful (Stansfeld & Matheson, 2003). How this noise affects

teachers is important: one fundamental goal of schooling is to enable and support student’s

learning (e.g. Helmke, 2009, p. 20), and an integral part of this goal is the performance of the

teachers themselves: ‘the common denominator in school improvement and student success is

the teacher’ (Stronge, Ward, & Grant, 2011, p. 351). Research in other fields of study has

shown that noise does affect performance (e.g. Ising et al., 1996). However, the effect of

noise on teacher performance has been an under looked area of research. Investigating how

noise affects teacher performance is the purpose of this study. An important expression of

teacher performance, classroom management, will be used to examine this question.

Classroom management is closely linked with effective teaching. The classroom management

of the teacher has been shown to directly impact learning outcomes, and even the teacher’s

own well-being (e.g. Helmke, 2009, p. 174-175). Classroom management is a critically

9

important part of teaching, and one of the most important skills for new teachers to learn

(Van den Bogert, van Bruggen, Kostons, & Jochems, 2014).

To the best of the author’s knowledge, the impact of noise on classroom management has not

been investigated up until now. However, it has been shown in other fields that perception

and behaviour are impacted by noise (e.g. Klatte, Meis, & Schick, 2002); consequently, it

will be investigated if these findings are also relevant for teachers and their classroom

management. In summary, the present study investigates the impact of noise on classroom

management, filling a knowledge gap in this area.

In the following sections, noise will firstly be explained in order for the reader to understand

what it is and identify its effects and the mechanisms for these effects. Then, the effect of

noise specifically in the classroom will be examined, so that the reader will be able to

understand how this noise could affect the teacher’s performance in managing their class.

1.1 Explaining noise

What is noise? Noise is a common feature of everyday life and can be defined, simply, as

unwanted sound (Cohen & Weinstein, 1981). ‘Unwanted’ in the sense of the negative impact

which noise can have on humans: impacting health and impairing performance, interfering

with important activities, being perceived as a nuisance, and acting as a pervasive stress

factor (Ising, Sust, & Plath, 2004; Kryter, 1970, in Cohen & Weinstein, 1981). ‘Unwanted

sound’ also implies that noise does not necessarily have to be loud for it to be undesired. In

the following, noise will be described shortly in terms of its physical characteristics.

Noise is made out of waves which expand outwards from their source. With further distance,

the waves become weaker (Ising et al., 2004). Perception of these waves differs depending on

10

their various characteristics (e.g. frequency – how often a sound wave happens in one

second). Sound intensity can be measured in decibels (dB). Specifically, decibels are used to

measure the sound pressure level (SPL); this is a logarithmic measure of the pressure of a

sound in relation to a reference value (Basner et al., 2014). Because decibels are on a

logarithmic scale, a doubling of increase in the energy of sound (e.g. two saws instead of one)

produces an SPL increase of 3dB. An increase of 10 times (e.g. 10 saws instead of one) will

cause the SPL to increase by 10dB; this difference is perceived as being roughly twice as

loud (Cohen & Weinstein, 1981). Humans with very good sound perception can hear zero dB

in an extremely quiet environment (Cohen & Weinstein, 1981). In research, decibels are often

weighted in approximation to the response of the human ear to sound (the A decibel scale,

dB(A)); many behavioural studies of sound use this scale since it closely approximates

perceived loudness (Cohen & Weinstein, 1981). Examples of this scale are rustling leaves

(10dB(A)) and a washing machine (70dB(A)) (Dockrell & Shield, 2006).

1.2 Mechanisms for the effects of noise

How does noise affect our health and well-being? In the following, the mechanisms at play in

how noise affects humans will be discussed. Relating to the ear, high amounts of noise

(sound waves) will cause the hearing threshold to be adjusted in relation to these loud noises;

this is the process of ‘deafening’ the ear, a very complex and sensitive piece of equipment.

This direct damage to the hearing apparatus due to noise may lead to progressive loss of

hearing; in other words, this damage is related to the direct effect of sound energy on the

inner ear (Stansfeld & Matheson, 2003). Repeated effects will cause this to become

permanent.

11

However, noise does not just affect the ear. In fact, there is a complex interplay of

interactions at work. Sound waves are perceived and transformed into nerve impulses which

are transferred to the entire body; thus, they affect the entire person (e.g. they influence the

pituitary gland, adrenaline and cortisol levels, muscle tightness, circulation; Ising et al.,

2004). The effects of noise on humans have been studied in detail (for a review, see Basner et

al., 2014). These effects may be understood in terms of a general psychophysiological stress

model by Henry and Stephens (1977, cited in Münzel et al., 2014). They postulate that

humans respond to stress by activating systems which help to cope with the stressor. These

include sympathetic responses (fight-flight reactions). The fight-flight response is activated in

order to aid in the removal of the stressor (confront the situation or escape it). Thus, when

noise is perceived as stressful, it causes a response to the stress in the body, which is designed

to remove the stressor. Babisch (2002) goes into more detail on this in his ‘noise/stress

concept’: the pituitary-adrenal-cortical axis as well as the sympathetic-adrenal-medullary axis

are activated by noise, and through this, noise causes changes in stress hormones such as

adrenaline, noradrenaline and cortisol. Thus, noise causes physical stress reactions. Ising,

Sust, and Plath (2004) illustrate these reactions and their various effects in their model of the

effects of noise (see Figure 1). In this model it can be seen that noise affects neuronal activity

and physiological reactions; these then affect mental processes and work tasks, which in turn

again affect physiological reactions: in other words, a complex interplay is at work (Ising et

al., 2004). Moreover, this model illustrates the interplay between noise, and memory and

attention processes. This interaction can influence how stressful the noise is perceived to be:

tasks where information has to be held in memory, where there is a continually high amount

of attention required, or tasks which are characterised by a high amount of responsibility,

require only low levels of noise for the noise to already be perceived as a nuisance (Ising et

al., 2004). In other words, characteristics of the situation and how they are perceived, and not

12

only the direct noise levels, influence how stressful or bothersome the noise is perceived to

be. Can humans habituate to noise? Research has shown that brief noise exposure can

potentially be habituated to, however, habituation to prolonged noise is less certain: this

appears to depend on individual characteristics and further, the habituation does not seem to

become complete (Cohen & Weinstein, 1981; Stansfeld & Matheson, 2003). In sum, noise

affects humans in various ways, depending on physical characteristics of the noise such as

SPL and frequency, but also on psychological or contextual aspects of the situation (Raggam

et al., 2007). In the following, two concepts related to these psychological and contextual

aspects will be discussed.

13

Figure 1: Psychophysiological non-auditory effects of noise at work (Ising et al., 2004;

adapted)

Performance

Concentration

Attention

Working memory

Communication

Mental

Anger

Tension

Anxiety

Resignation

Physiological

Stress hormones

Blood circulation

Impairments:

Physiological and mental regulation mechanisms

(vegetative, endocrine,

mental, emotional)

Noise

• Frequency • Loudness • Length

Other factors

• Time pressure • Reponsibility • Noise sensitivity

14

1.3.1 Noise annoyance

In the following, the interplay between psychological and contextual aspects the situation,

and the effects of noise on humans will be explored in more detail. Annoyance is the most

well-documented subjective response to noise (Stansfeld & Matheson, 2003), and is

important to mention due to its moderating effect on other outcomes of noise. It can be

described as a feeling of fear or mild anger, experienced in relation to a belief that one is

being harmed in an avoidable way (Stansfeld & Matheson, 2003). Annoyance may lead to a

stress-response, which in turn raises risk factors related to the prevalence of some diseases

(Babisch, 2002; Stansfeld & Matheson, 2003); thus, annoyance also appears to be indicative

of well-being and may be a mediator in the chain of health and noise (Laszlo, McRobie,

Stansfeld, & Hansell, 2012). In sum, annoyance is important in influencing the effect that

noise has on humans. Importantly, it is highly subjective: annoyance related to noise is not

necessarily decreased when only the noise exposure (noise level) is reduced (Laszlo et al.,

2012); in other words, non-acoustic factors play a role in annoyance. Indeed, it has been

found that the noise level is only responsible for between 10 and 25% of the reaction to noise

(Job, 1996). This has important implications in practice. For example, dosage-response

curves have been created to describe the relationship between the amount of noise and the

amount of annoyance which this noise causes; these curves are used in applied settings to

predict the effect that noise has on a community or a group. However, these curves only

illustrate a direct connection of noise level to annoyance: in reality, there is great variability

in annoyance reactions, which is due to various (e.g. demographical, social and personal)

characteristics of the individual (Laszlo et al., 2012). For example, other research has shown

that the subjective response to noise (how much annoyance is perceived) is moderated by

personal factors such as how much danger is perceived by an individual regarding the noise,

awareness of what the impact of the noise is and other beliefs that a person holds regarding

15

the noise source, including how important the noise is and if authorities are able to do

something about it (Fields, 1992). These aspects are important to take into account when

understanding the effect of noise on humans. In particular, the experience of control

regarding the noise is an important factor. This will be explained in more detail in the

following section.

1.3.2 Control beliefs about noise

In one study (Babisch, Fromme, Beyer, & Ising, 2001), it was found that noise and the

concentration of noradrenaline were positively correlated, and that subjective measures of

disturbance from noise (in this study, traffic noise) were also positively correlated with

noradrenaline levels. Crucially, this effect was only found in subjects where closing the

window did not improve the level of perceived noise. In other words, these subjects had little

control over the noise, and this appeared to make them more susceptible to the effects of

noise. A lack of control is associated with feelings of anger and helplessness (Cohen &

Spacapan, 1984), which may in turn increase the amount of perceived stress in regards to

noise. For example, a study in open-office noise showed that after being subjected to even

moderately low levels of noise (typical office sound levels, average 55dB(A), peaks of up to

65dB), without having a high degree of control over the noise, adult office workers tended to

show a lack of persistence or motivation on other tasks; the authors suggested that this may

be related to learned helplessness (Evans & Johnson, 2000). In summary, the potential

amount of stress perceived due to noise depends on a transaction between the environment

and the person (e.g. the extent to which a person believes they can control the noise in the

environment), not just the noise itself. One cognitive theory of coping postulates a model for

this active process: potentially threatening sources of danger to the individual are appraised in

terms of the coping resources which the individual currently has available (Folkman, Lazarus,

Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986; Lazarus, 1996, in Cohen & Williamson, 1988).

16

In other words, a threat is analysed as being dangerous or not, in relation to coping resources:

how a person perceives their ability to change their behaviour in order to deal with the

stressor. Various factors such as a lack of control over the situation or lack of trust in others

involved in the situation, may reduce the amount of coping resources perceived (Folkman,

1984, cited in Maris, 2008). For example, a situation such as a noisy classroom may be

perceived as endangering ones’ well-being, and a perceived lack of coping resources to deal

with the situation may cause noise to be experienced as being more stressful. In sum, these

findings emphasize the subjective side of noise perception: how a specific person experiences

noise is influenced by contextual (e.g. other people in the context) and individual factors, and

not just the physical level of sound (Maris, 2008). In this section, the mechanisms for how

noise affects humans have been investigated. Following on from this in the next section,

research regarding the general effects of noise on humans will be discussed.

1.3 General effects of noise on humans

In the following, a brief summary of the general effects of noise on humans will be made.

This is intended to provide a broad background of the effects of noise, which will then be

made more specific in further sections regarding effects of noise in the classroom.

As mentioned above, the Nobel Prize Winner for ‘Physiology or Medicine’ Robert Koch

anticipated already in 1910 how pervasive the effects of noise would be. Indeed, noise has

been shown to seriously impact humans in a variety of ways. Estimates from the World

Health Organisation (WHO) indicate that in Western European countries with a high-income

(total population of about 340 million people), environmental noise is responsible for the loss

of more than one million healthy life-years (disability-adjusted life-years) every year (WHO,

2011; Basner et al., 2014). As alluded to above, an increasing body of research shows that

17

environmental noise exposure is an important risk factor with multiple physiological and

psychological health-related outcomes (e.g. WHO, 2011). These outcomes relate to both the

auditory and non-auditory effects of noise. High levels of noise can directly damage hearing:

these are the auditory affects. The non-auditory effects of noise are not able to be explained

as a direct consequence of sound energy: environmental noise is usually characterised by

lower noise levels, which nonetheless seriously affect humans (Stansfeld & Matheson, 2003).

In the present research, the non-auditory effects of noise (in relation to performance and

behaviour) are in focus.

Research on the non-auditory effects of noise has shown that it impacts, for example, sleep

disturbance, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, impairment of cognitive performance in

students, and patient outcomes and staff performance in hospitals (for a review, see Basner et

al., 2014). As mentioned above, noise influences the feeling of annoyance (e.g. Stansfeld &

Matheson, 2003). It can also have other psychological effects: psychological symptoms

reported by workers regularly exposed to high noise levels include nausea, headaches,

changes in mood, argumentativeness and anxiety (for a review, see Stansfeld & Matheson,

2003). In a recent study (Beutel et al., 2016), depression and anxiety were found to increase

with the amount of overall experience of noise annoyance (in that study, relating to aircraft

noise). However, it is difficult to interpret symptoms such as these as being causally related

to noise (Stansfeld & Matheson, 2003). Nonetheless, in any case, there does seem to be a link

between environmental noise and psychological symptoms, such as argumentativeness.

This section has been a brief summary on the effects of noise on humans. In the following

sections, the effects of noise on human performance will be described in more detail, and

related specifically to teachers and their performance in the classroom. Firstly, however, the

subject of noise in the classroom in general will be introduced, in order to provide a

background which may be helpful for understanding its possible effects on teachers.

18

1.4 Noise in the classroom

In the preceding sections, the subjects of what noise is and how it affects humans in general

have been discussed. Now, the following question will be investigated: what effect does noise

have in the classroom?

An increasing body of research indicates that classroom noise contributes negatively to

environments for learning in schools, as well as teacher stress. Teaching and communication

go hand in hand, and sounds arising from this communication, as well as from environmental

noise such as papers rustling, may disturb or interfere with other communication and make

what is said more difficult to hear (Kristiansen, Persson, Lund, Shibuya, & Nielsen, 2013;

Schönwälder et al., 2004). In the following sections, firstly the effects of noise in general in

the classroom, and then on specific issues such as speech and types of activity will be

discussed, followed by an examination of the effects of noise related to teacher stress.

1.4.1 Overview of noise in the classroom

In primary education, the levels of noise are moderate without being of high intensity;

however, these levels are still perceived to be disturbing and stress-inducing (Schönwälder et

al., 2004). In that study, average sound levels of between 60 and 85 dB(A) were measured in

primary school classrooms. Similar levels were found in another study (Dockrell & Shield,

2006). Interestingly, Dockrell and Shield (2006) found that noise levels in classrooms

differed, according to the experience levels of the teacher: experienced teachers had

classrooms with lower noise and less experienced teachers had higher levels of noise in the

classroom. Thus, it appears particularly relevant to educate and train those teachers with less

experience to deal with noise. In any case, the sound levels found in primary school

classrooms generally exceed those often recommended for education purposes; these should

be much lower than for other mental activities, and recommendations range between 30-45

19

dB(A) (Dreossi & Momensohn-Santos, 2005; Sust & Lazarus, 1997, in Schönwälder et al.

2004). Even though standards for the acoustic conditions in schools are mandated by law,

these are practically never fulfilled (Filser, 2010); teachers often work under conditions

where in other contexts hearing protection is required. For example, the WHO community

noise guidelines propose a limit on the average background sound level during teaching of

35dB (WHO, 1999), and similarly, the American National Standards Institute set a limit of

one-hour average background sound levels of 35dB(A) for classrooms of a size less than 283

m3 (Kristiansen et al., 2013). These recommended levels are much lower than the actual

average levels found in classrooms, as noted above.

Nonetheless, even noise at moderate levels found in primary schools has been determined as

being detrimental, especially regarding mental processes. Negative effects on concentration,

working memory performance, and annoyance are able to be seen already at these levels

(Schönwälder et al., 2004; Ising et al., 1996). Further, in complex situations which require

concentration and attention, people may react even at these moderate noise levels with

irritation and anger (Schönwälder et al., 2004). Indeed, typical teaching activities are

complex: complex tasks encountered in teaching include large amounts of information having

to be stored in memory (e.g. when sharing information in the class), high demands placed on

concentration and attention (e.g. long periods of concentration like the continual monitoring

of processes of the class), the amount of responsibility associated with the work, and time

pressure placed upon the task (Ising et al., 1996). Doyle (2005) also notes various factors

playing a role in the complexity of classroom teaching, including multidimensionality

(multiple events and people), simultaneity (multiple things happening at once), immediacy

(events happen quickly in the classroom), unpredictability (multiple outcomes are possible

for various events), publicness (others can see how events turn out or how others are treated),

and history (multiple meetings over a long time period). The increased complexity of the task

20

raises the probability that stress reactions are evoked. To summarise, the level of noise in

classrooms is capable of causing deleterious effects, and when the stressor of noise is coupled

with other stress-inducing factors that exist in schools (such as complex tasks, behaviour

problems, learning difficulties etc.) then it makes the task of teaching more difficult to carry

out.

1.4.2 Interference of noise on speech and classroom atmosphere

Speaking and listening make up a large part of the educational processes for learning, and it

is these processes which are impaired most by interfering noises (Schönwälder et al., 2004).

Research shows that noise levels of up to 45 dB(A) do not cause speech to need to be

increased in volume; however, higher levels will (such as the levels often found in

classrooms). When the noise level is raised by 10 dB, the speaker will automatically raise the

volume of their speech by five dB; even at noise levels such as this, up to 20% of the

individual syllables are not understandable. Thus, the listener has understood even less, and

must concentrate more to understand the sentences (Ising et al., 1996). This effect is even

more pronounced in listeners who do not speak the language as their mother tongue, as well

as in those exposed to this sort of noise stress on a daily basis (Ising et al., 1996). In order to

ensure a satisfactory level of understanding, the loudness of speech reaching the ear of the

listener needs to be 10 dB(A) above the environmental noise level (Ising et al., 1996). Apart

from the strain this places upon the teacher (and general increase of noise in the classroom),

if teachers need to speak with a raised voice in noisy situations or if they must repeat their

instructions or repeatedly tell students to be quiet, this conceivably would not facilitate

patience in interactions with students (Klatte, Hellbrück, Seidel, & Leistner, 2010). Indeed,

Klatte and colleagues (2010) found that students rated other students and their teachers as less

friendly and less patient with them when there was more noise in the classroom. In other

words, noise may have a negative influence on the classroom atmosphere.

21

1.4.3 Noise and class activity

A crucial factor for determining the level of noise in a classroom is the type of activity being

performed – a difference of roughly 20 dB(A) was found between the quietest and noisiest

activities (Dockrell & Shield, 2006). Thus, it is important to investigate those activities which

are taking place every day in the classroom. One British study showed that students in

primary schools spend most of their time in whole class or group situations (Galton et al.,

1999, in Dockrell & Shield, 2006). In addition, when separate groups of students are working

in a room, every group competes with the noise of each other groups (Klatte et al., 2010).

Thus, group activities are an important part of schooling and are expected to produce and to

be affected by noise.

1.4.4 Teacher stress

Research looking at the effect of noise on teachers shows that noise does appear to affect

teacher stress levels. Firstly, teacher stress and its effects in general will be described in order

to provide a background, and following this, research specifically regarding noise and teacher

stress will be reported.

Teacher stress has been defined as ‘the experience by a teacher of unpleasant, negative

emotions, such as anger, tension, frustration or depression, resulting from some aspect of

their work as a teacher’ (Kyriacou, 2001, p. 28). This definition is based upon a model of

stress as being a negative emotional experience, which is caused by the teacher perceiving

that their work situation contains a threat to their well-being or self-esteem (Kyriacou &

Sutcliffe, 1978a, in Kyriacou, 2001). A study from Huberman (1993; in Kyriacou, 2001) of

high school teachers in Switzerland showed that most teachers encounter an episode of

disenchantment and self-doubt, and that these may cause some to leave the profession.

Indeed, teacher attrition from the workforce has been estimated at being between 25% and

22

50% after 5 years (e.g. Kaiser, 2011). The most common motives relating to leaving have

been found to be, among others, fatigue, frustration, nervous tension, and wear and tear

(Huberman, 1993, in Kyriacou, 2001). Other sources of teacher stress include poor working

conditions; one way for schools to reduce teacher stress is to create an environment that is

pleasant to work in (Kyriacou, 2001).

Although there is not a large amount of research on the effect of noise on teachers and their

stress levels, a number of recent studies have investigated the topic of teacher stress and

noise. The authors of one study (Kristiansen et al., 2013) investigated the effects of noise on

teachers’ health and well-being. They noted that well-being affects the motivation and work

commitment of teachers and can influence the choice of coping strategies they use to deal

with stressors. In that study, job satisfaction, fatigue after work and interest in leaving the job

were used as indicators of well-being. Results from the self-reports of the large sample

(N=283) showed significant associations between noise exposure and low job satisfaction,

lack of energy after work, interest in leaving the job, as well as lack of motivation and

sleepiness. Thus, noise appears to be an important factor in teacher well-being. Indeed, in a

recent Austrian study, a large sample of over 3000 compulsory school teachers showed that

80% feel heavily burdened by classroom noise (Hotter & Zollneritsch, 2009). In line with this

is a German study, which also found that roughly 80% of teachers claimed noise as a major

stress factor (Schönwälder et al., 2003, in Schönwälder et al., 2004). Importantly, it has been

found that teachers do not necessarily have the skills necessary to moderate the effects of

noise (Dockrell, Shield, & Rigby, 2004; Dockrell & Shield, 2006). Furthermore,

Schönwälder and colleagues (2004) state that premature wear, including burn-out, can be

accounted for by (among other things) high amounts of noise exposure. Data from Austria on

this subject are available in the Master theses of Petra Steinlechner (2013) and Marc Andre

Günther (2013).

23

Finally, as alluded to above, teachers may increase vocal efforts in the face of noise, and

vocal problems may also be associated with an increased risk of sickness absence (Åhlander,

Rydell, & Löfqvist, 2011; Schönwälder et al., 2004). Other research has found that

background noise at low levels is also associated with increased sickness absence of teachers

(Clausen, Christensen, Lund & Kristiansen, 2009). Helmke (2009, p. 196) also notes that the

poor acoustic conditions in many classrooms lead to voice problems.

In summary, noise does appear to be a significant stressor for teachers, and there is a need for

further research on this topic, especially in the classroom context of group activities. Since

noise seems to have an effect on teachers (and their stress levels), one could ask, how does

this noise then affect teacher performance? The next section will build upon what the effects

of noise could be on teacher behaviour and performance (specifically, classroom

management).

1.5 Classroom Management

In the following section, classroom management will be defined, and the variables used to

study it in this research will be reported. After this, general research on noise and

performance will be discussed and used to postulate possible effects of noise on teacher

performance; finally, following on from this, the hypotheses of the current study will be

formulated.

1.5.1 What is Classroom Management

Which actions do teachers perform which have an impact on student’s learning? In other

words, how to define good teacher performance or effective teaching? This is a difficult task,

since there are many factors involved. One important point is that good teaching should lead

24

to improved student achievement (Coe, Aloisi, Higgins, & Major, 2014). A general definition

of teaching is that it is made up of action processes, which aim to match the various goals

and attitudes of learners and teachers, and that these take place within the social group of the

class (e.g. Wild & Möller, 2015, p. 108). Action processes which are seen as being critically

important in the classroom form the concept of ‘classroom management’. Basically,

classroom management is a general framework for teaching and learning activities which

influence the active learning time of students; in other words, classroom management is about

giving students opportunities to learn (Helmke, 2009, p. 174). Classroom management is

made up of actions taken by the teacher for establishing and maintaining order, engaging

students, dealing with discipline and disruption, and solving conflicts (Emmer & Stough,

2001; Wild & Möller, 2015).

Classroom management has been labelled as one of the most important skills for beginning

teachers to learn (Van den Bogert et al., 2014). It is a key feature of a teacher’s pedagogical

knowledge, and can also be found in descriptions of core knowledge for teachers (Council for

Exceptional Children, 1988, 2009; Emmer & Stough, 2001). Interestingly, novice and expert

teachers may have different conceptions of efficient classroom management: novices have

identified this as being largely identical with discipline and keeping students under control,

whereas expert teachers have defined it differently: they defined classroom management in

terms of careful planning of the lesson, organisation from teaching material and creating clear

rules for behaviour in the class (Good & Brophy, 1994, cited in Helmke, 2009, p. 178).

Classroom management is an important topic of research in novice teachers.

Critically, classroom management has been related directly to student achievement and

progress (e.g. Helmke, 2009, p.174). This is important since student progress is an essential

element of how teaching quality can be assessed (Coe et al., 2014). In fact, international

studies have found that no other property of teaching is so clearly and consistently coupled

25

with achievement and student learning progress than classroom management (Helmke, 2009,

p. 174). It has been found to influence the frequency of inappropriate behaviour and general

quality of learning, and a meta-analysis of factors which influence student achievement found

that classroom management was the second highest relative influence on student learning,

behind the cognitive competences of students (Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1994; Helmke,

2009, p. 174).

Conversely, teacher burnout and stress are related to insufficient classroom management

(Lewis, 1999). For instance, German studies on teacher health (e.g. Helmke, 2009, p. 175)

have shown that problems with classroom management play a primary role in teacher

burnout. Therefore, an understanding of how noise affects classroom management is

important in regards to both effective teaching performance, and also the well-being of

teachers (considering that, as mentioned earlier, noise is perceived as a major stressor for

teachers).

1.5.2 Intervention style

Before presenting the framework used to analyse classroom management in this study, an

additional aspect related to classroom management which is also relevant to this study will be

reported. This is the intervention approach of the teacher; it will be investigated how the

intervention approach of the teacher differs due to noise. More specifically, interventionist vs.

non-interventionist approaches in managing the classroom will be investigated (Wolfgang,

1995, in Martin & Sass, 2010). These approaches, and their effects in the classroom, will be

introduced and compared in the following section.

Non-interventionist approaches are characterised by a minimally directive or less controlling

approach to classroom management. Approaches such as transactional analysis (Harris, 1967)

or teacher effectiveness training (Gordon, 1975) are considered non-interventionist. In

26

contrast, the interventionist approach aims to assert a high level of control over students. An

example of this approach is traditional behavioural modification.

The arguments supporting the non-interventionist approach are discussed in the following. A

recent definition of classroom management given by Wild and Möller (2015, p. 116)

emphasises the teacher’s role in overseeing interactions in the class; also, that individual and

social learn processes influence each other and that the goal of classroom management is a

class climate which enables the development of the individual and their ability to learn in

community (group) activities. In other words, the role of classroom management in relation

to social learning processes is also underscored here. Supporting student participation may

increase social bonding and integration, active engagement and learning motivation (Furrer &

Skinner, 2003). The concepts of ‘cooperative groups’ and ‘cooperative learning’ appear to be

in line with this definition of classroom management. These groups present a setting for the

individual to develop interpersonal and group skills. Cooperative learning situations include

group goals and group interaction, and an underlying premise of this method is participation

in a community for learning and the social construction of understanding (Brophy, 1999, in

Emmer & Stough, 2001). In other words, learners are mutually responsible for the success of

learning processes: supportive interactions are necessary (Helmke, 2009, p. 211). Improving

social competences and increasing accountability for learning, are some goals of cooperative

learning; communication, trust, and decision making skills can be learned and improved in

this approach (Helmke, 2009, p. 211; Schlechty, 2009, in Shaddock Bellamy, 2016).

Emmer and Gerwels (2002) studied cooperative learning and found that teacher monitoring

(for example: monitoring the work progress, group interaction and accountability levels of

students) is an important element of this type of learning and is associated with student

engagement, performance and cooperation. In this setting, most teachers take on the role of a

facilitator, allowing the students to take more charge of their experience (Shaddock Bellamy,

27

2016). Evertson and colleagues (2002) and Stronge and colleagues (2011) have found that

successful teachers encourage student responsibility. It has been suggested that this

collaborative approach to learning can be highly effective on various academic tasks (Comer

et al., 2009, in Shaddock Bellamy, 2016). In summary, this approach to teaching is in line

with non-interventionist strategies, and appears to have positive effects on learning and social

processes.

In the literature, aspects of both interventionist as well as non-interventionist approaches to

teaching have been shown to have positive effects. The extent of these effects appears to

depend on the domain. For example, higher levels of control for behaviour such as students

moving around and talking have been associated with better achievement; however, the

relation between achievement and control was curvilinear regarding student thinking, and for

learning tasks. In other words, it seems that up to a certain extent, control can be helpful, but

too much control leads to decreased pupil gain (Soars & Soars, 1979, in Griffey, 1983). In

line with this, other authors have reported that in terms of cooperative learning, it is

problematic when the teacher continually controls the group and intervenes immediately, or

only evaluates students’ task-related performance without considering other processes in the

group; these authors state that great group teaching is possible when the teacher chooses a

non-interventionist approach most of the time, assuming the role of a moderator, as well as

promoting flexible structures of interaction in the work groups (Dann et al., 2002, cited in

Helmke, 2009, p. 213). In summary, managing the group work of students appears to be a

complex task requiring effective monitoring of students and flexibility in terms of

intervening. The current study will also investigate the influence of noise on the tendency for

teachers to want to intervene in the class. The next section returns to the subject of classroom

management in general and how to define this in the current study.

28

1.5.3 Classroom management in the current study

Defining classroom management in this study is important as it will form the variables used

in this study (the categories used in the qualitative content analysis). There are numerous

definitions of classroom management in the literature. In these definitions, three aspects come

up repeatedly; these refer to activities of the teacher which are: supporting student

involvement in classroom activities, minimising disruptive behaviour, and using class time

efficiently (Emmer & Evertson, 1981). Basically, classroom management will be defined in

the broad sense of effective teaching, and a framework will be constructed which

encompasses the specific, manifest expressions of classroom management which are relevant

for the current study.

1.5.3.1 Constructing a framework for classroom management

In order to research and measure classroom management, it is necessary to describe a

framework for it; this framework will describe actions which are specific and relevant.

Finding balance between being too specific (e.g. a concrete behaviour) and not specific

enough (e.g. a part of theory that is not observable) is important in defining the aspects of

classroom management to be investigated here (Coe et al., 2014). In choosing which

framework to use (in other words, which aspects of classroom management to focus on),

there are certain guiding questions to consider. Is the framework evidence based? For

example, does it relate to specific teacher behaviour associated with improvements in student

learning? Is it well-defined and implementable? Could it be used as part of a system of

feedback and dialogue, with the goal of improving student learning (Coe et al., 2014)? The

aim is to have a collection of teaching behaviours which meet these criteria, so that in the

current study the effect of noise on these behaviours can be studied.

29

One caveat to any framework for effective teaching, however, is that it always depends on the

context it is applied in, and, that it is open to interpretation and not a specific recipe for

success (Coe et al., 2014). Nonetheless, having a valid framework is a good place to start

from.

Classroom management is a part of effective teaching. The two terms are closely related. In

this study, classroom management will include teacher behaviour and actions which are

directly observable in the classroom. Additional aspects of effective teaching (such as

professional development) are not primarily in focus. While models of effective teaching will

be described in the following, only the components of these models which are related to

classroom management, as defined here, will be considered in this study. These

conceptualisations of classroom management will be described and then evaluated and

compared with each other. A combination of these (in other words, combining the aspects of

each framework which are relevant to the current study) will be used in the current study.

1.5.3.2 Model of effective teaching from Helmke

Helmke has described a theoretical model of effective teaching which is relevant for this

study (Helmke, 2009, p. 177). See Figure 2. It is a part of his more general model (Angebots-

Nutzungs-Modell).

This model illustrates the interactions between elements of effective teaching. It demonstrates

how the teacher personality (e.g. teacher competences and professional knowledge), class

context (classroom climate and composition), and quality of teaching (e.g. motivation,

activation, creating an atmosphere conducive to learning) all influence classroom leadership

(comparable to classroom management; e.g. dealing with disruption, rules). In turn, it shows

how this then influences the amount of time students spend actively learning. In other words,

30

the relationship between classroom management and elements affecting it, and the amount of

time students spend learning is underscored.

It is important to note that in this model, the component of the class context, including class

climate, refers to conditions in place primarily before the beginning of teaching (e.g.

historical and cultural context of students in the class). Importantly, the ‘classroom climate’

as defined in this study will not refer to the conditions of the class before the beginning of

teaching, but instead refer to classroom climate in terms of the quality of teaching during the

classroom situation. In other words, it refers to the strong influence the teacher has over the

classroom climate in the current situation: the teacher influences the teacher-student

relationship as well as student-student relationships through their behaviour (e.g. Helmke,

2009, p. 93). It is related to the facet ‘creating an atmosphere conducive to learning’. In

summary, the term classroom climate in this study refers to the ‘quality of teaching’ in this

model and the impact the teacher has on the current climate in the classroom.

The decisive role of a supportive classroom climate is emphasised in this model: support,

friendliness and mutual respect characterise a climate conducive to learning (Helmke, 2009,

p. 178). Brophy (2000) also emphasises the importance of a supportive classroom climate in

terms of student learning, and states that teacher attributes such as a cheerful disposition, and

care for students - attentiveness to student needs and emotions - are necessary to build this

climate. Likewise, Helmke (2009, p. 230) reinforces in his model the importance of a positive

‘student orientation’ (where students are seen as individual people and appreciated as such).

This impacts to the well-being of students, and relates to the affective aspect of the student-

teacher relationship. A relaxed classroom atmosphere is beneficial for learning and

motivation (Helmke, 2009, p. 225).

31

According to this model, when students are motivated and participating in the lesson there are

fewer problems which need to be managed; likewise, when there is effective management of

students, then quality instruction is easier to implement (Helmke, 2009, p. 177). Overall, this

is an empirically based theoretical model of effective teaching which will be incorporated in

the current study.

1.5.3.3 Four Pillars of Teaching Effectiveness from Stronge and colleagues

Stronge and colleagues have researched the teaching practices and classroom management

behaviours of effective teachers. They developed a framework based on this, which

comprises of four dimensions of teaching effectiveness. Firstly, is 1. instructional delivery

(this refers to presenting the curriculum to the student; e.g. clarity of instruction). The second

dimension is 2. student assessment (e.g. formal and informal assessments), and the next

dimension is 3. learning environment (this comprises of managing the classroom including

routines, monitoring student behaviour, using learning time well; it is also comprised of

Figure 2: Helmke’s model of effective teaching (Helmke, 2009, p.177; adapted). Translation: T. Haigh

Quality of Teaching

Atmosphere conducive to learning

Motivation

Active Learning

Time

Classroom Management

Dealing with disruption

Rules

Use of time

Teacher Personality

Professional knowledge

Competences

Pedagogical Orientation

Class Context

Class climate

Class composition

32

organising the classroom: the physical layout of the classroom and availability of material; in

addition, an important aspect of this dimension is teachers considering students’ academic as

well as social and personal needs). The final dimension is 4. personal qualities of the teacher

(e.g. being reflective, dedicated to professional practice, encouraging fairness and respect,

promoting students to take responsibility for themselves). Stronge and colleagues also note

that these dimensions are not mutually exclusive. For example, instructional delivery is also

influenced by the learning environment.

In total, the first two dimensions refer to teaching practice specifically, and the last two

dimensions relate to creating a positive learning environment. Importantly, Stronge and

colleagues (2011) found that student achievement is related to these effective teaching

practices. In particular, they found that student achievement was related to a positive learning

environment: including firstly, managing the classroom (e.g. monitoring student behaviour),

and secondly, classroom organisation (e.g. available materials for student use, physical layout

of the classroom). In summary, this framework related to effective classroom management

includes teaching behaviours found to be linked with student achievement, and it will be used

in the creation of a relevant framework for the current study.

1.5.3.4 Danielson’s Framework for Teaching

Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (e.g. Danielson, 2013) presents categories of teaching

practices which are beneficial to student learning. Basically, it provides guidelines for

effective teaching. It has been called one of the gold standard frameworks for evaluating

effective teaching (Coe et al., 2014).

The teaching practices set out in this framework are divided into twenty-two components,

which are allocated into four domains. The first domain is 1. planning and preparation (this is

about how a teacher organises content; it includes for example, designing coherent instruction

33

and knowledge of students). The second domain is 2. classroom environment (this focusses

on the non-instructional interactions in the class; it includes creating an environment of

respect and rapport related to both student interactions and teacher interaction, managing

classroom procedures such as the management of instructional groups and materials, student

behaviour such as monitoring behaviour and responding to misbehaviour, and finally,

organising physical space). The third domain is 3. instruction (this is engaging the students in

actual learning, and includes: communication with students regarding directions and

procedures, engaging students in learning such as grouping students and using material for

instruction, providing feedback to students, and also flexibility and responsiveness). The last

domain is 4. professional responsibilities (e.g. reflecting on teaching and showing

professionalism). In summary, this framework provides a well-defined set of effective teacher

behaviours, many of which can be directly observed in the classroom.

1.5.3.5 Classroom rules and routines by Schönbächler

Schönbächler (2006) researched classroom management, with a particular emphasis on which

rules or procedures are present in an effectively managed class. Her work was based on

previous studies which had shown that more effective teachers planned and prepared class

rules and procedures in advance (e.g. Emmer, Evertson and Anderson, 1980), and built on

these findings to clarify what the content of effective rules should be. Thus, in a large Swiss

primary school sample (605 teachers and 923 students), four categories of rules were named

by participants, and it was found that the areas of ‘social interaction’ (e.g. listening to others,

respecting each other), as well as ‘order and a calm environment’ (e.g. not running around,

raising hand, being calm and ready at start of class) were the two areas for which participants

indicated rules were strongly necessary. Much less frequently, rules regarding reliability (e.g.

performing work tasks accurately and well), and rules regarding material (taking care of

material) were named (Schönbächler, 2006). It was also found that focussing solely on rules

34

relating to order in the classroom is actually associated with more disruptions in teaching:

thus, including rules for social interactions in addition to order in the classroom appears to be

important for classroom management. In summary, managing the ‘order and calm in the

classroom environment’ as well as ‘social interactions’ in the classroom has been shown to be

an important aspect of classroom management, and these areas will be included in the current

study.

1.5.3.6 Monitoring and Withitness from Doyle and Kounin

Doyle (2005) has also extensively studied successful teaching. An important aspect of

teaching which he emphasises is teacher monitoring in small-group work. Monitoring

according to Doyle is made up of three main components: firstly, knowledge of what is going

on in the classroom, and attending to any discrepancies early; secondly, pacing classroom

events; thirdly, communicating this awareness to students. Monitoring is closely related to the

concept of ‘withitness’ from Kounin (e.g. Kounin, 1970, in Doyle, 2005); Kounin is a widely

renowned author on the subject of classroom management. Basically, his concept of

withitness refers to the level of awareness that teachers have of what is going on in the

classroom; Snoeyink (2010) describes it as ‘noticing things’. Research has shown that

teachers high on withitness have high levels of work involvement from the students in their

classroom; these teachers also pay attention to the behaviour of students and are able to

notice misbehaviour early (for a review see Doyle, 2005). Emmer and Stough (2001) report

that the concept of withitness is an important aspect of teaching in any context, and state that

the monitoring of student behaviour is consistently correlated with student achievement

gains. Berliner (2001) also emphasised the importance of recognising relevant cues in the

classroom in order to manage the classroom more effectively, and noted that one of the key

skills that expert teachers have is taking a global and functional view of the classroom; in

other words, being proficient in skills like monitoring and withitness. Interestingly, research

35

has shown that novices are not as efficient at monitoring their classroom as experienced

teachers (Van den Bogert et al., 2014). In addition to withitness, Kounin found other

principles related to efficient classroom management, and some of these principles will be

touched upon here since they are both related to withitness and relevant for the current study.

These are: firstly, ‘group focus’ – the teacher keeps an eye on the entire group even when a

single student is in focus and thus makes sure that students stay on task; secondly, ‘avoiding

mock participation’ – the teacher monitors and is able to see if a student is just pretending to

take part in the lesson; finally, smoothness – this refers to the importance of not interrupting

the teaching flow (Kounin, 1970, in Helmke, 2009, p. 179). At this point it is important to

shortly mention an approach that compliments withitness, monitoring and the principles

noted here; an approach to deal with any disruptive elements discovered in the monitoring of

the teacher. The low-profile-approach (e.g. Borich, 2007b, cited in Helmke, 2009, p. 188) is a

way to deal with disruptive elements without interrupting the teaching flow or negatively

impacting the learning climate. It is made up of anticipation (similar to monitoring or

withitness), deflection (dealing with an emerging disruption primarily in a non-verbal way

such as proximity to the problem) and reaction (discretely stopping a disruption that is

happening). An important facet of this approach is interactive teaching – meaning, regularly

moving around the classroom in order to observe student behaviour (Gettinger & Kohler,

2006; Helmke, 2009, p. 188). In summary this approach is in line with the concepts of

monitoring and withitness described above, and also underscores the importance of moving

around the classroom to observe what is happening.

In addition to monitoring and the concept of withitness, Doyle (2005) mentions ‘work

involvement’ (student behaviour that reflects engaged working) as being an integral issue in

teaching: he notes that work involvement has been the most used dimension of student

behaviour in research on classroom management. In line with this, Emmer and Stough (2001)

36

reported that classroom management behaviours such as ensuring the work engagement of

students, have also been shown to be reliably correlated with student achievement. In

summary, monitoring and withitness, as well the work involvement of students, have been

shown to be important skills and factors in teaching and thus merit attention in the current

study.

1.5.3.7 Classroom management from Evertson and colleagues

Evertson and colleagues (e.g. 1981) have developed eleven principles which are important for

effective classroom management in a primary school environment. Furthermore, these

principles have formed the basis of a successful training program for teachers, developed by

the same authors (Helmke, 2009, p. 184). These are described in the following.

1. Prepare the classroom (in order to avoid disruptive physical elements, and make

materials easily accessible for students)

2. Plan rules and procedures (e.g. precise rules for how students work together)

3. Determine consequences for inappropriate and appropriate behaviour

4. Stop inappropriate student behaviour (immediately and consistently)

5. Teach the rules and procedures (especially at the start of the school year)

6. Include activities for the start of school (with the goal of enhancing the feeling of

belonging in the group)

7. Develop strategies for potential problems (plan ways to deal with disruptions to the

lesson or material which is difficult to learn)

8. Monitoring (keep students under observation, especially in order to uncover a lack of

understanding concerning instructions)

9. Prepare the lesson (according to the levels of individual students)

10. Responsibility of students (promote student responsibility for their own work)

37

11. Clarity of instruction and teaching (clear and structured information)

These principles promote a proactive and carefully planned approach to classroom

management (i.e. as opposed to a reactive and interventionist approach to classroom

management); furthermore, they have been shown to promote effective teaching in the

classroom (Helmke, 2009, p. 185). Certain principles (1, 2, 4, 8 and 11) are particularly

relevant for the current study.

1.5.4 Comparing and evaluating these frameworks

The frameworks from Danielson and Stronge both identify teaching practices which are

related to student achievement. They both focus on how the teacher delivers instruction

(instructional delivery in Stronge and planning and preparation, as well as parts of

instruction, in Danielson’s work), as well as how the teacher manages specific elements of

the classroom environment, such as student behaviour, physical layout of the classroom and

materials. In both frameworks, emphasis is placed on interactions in the class (creating an

environment of respect and rapport in Danielson, and considering students social and

personal needs in Stronge). Although less important for the current study, another similarity

is that both models also take parts of the personal qualities of the teacher into account

(professional responsibilities in Danielson, and personal qualities of the teacher in Stronge).

In summary, there is much overlap in both of these frameworks and they provide guidelines

for effective and specific teacher behaviour for a wide range of teaching activities which are

relevant in the current study.

Helmke (2009, p. 176) provides another perspective and mentions that in Germany, the

concept of classroom management or leadership in the classroom (Klassenführung) has been

undervalued and has not reached the levels of popularity and importance in teacher training

or research as it has in Anglo-American countries. He observes that research regarding

38

classroom management has often been limited in scope in Germany; for instance, being seen

primarily as how to react to disruptive behaviour and discipline problems, and closely linked

with behaviourist conceptions of discipline (Helmke, 2009, p. 173). He notes that this

perspective on management in the classroom is far removed from current international

discourse on this topic. Accordingly, in his model he has incorporated a multi-faceted view of

management and effective teaching. Interestingly, his model overlaps with other models

developed in Anglo-American countries, such as from Stronge and Danielson. For instance,

while they assign them different names, elements of the classroom environment, such as

creating an atmosphere conducive to learning and managing disruptions, are covered in

Helmke’s model in the components of classroom management and quality of teaching; this is

comparable to the facets of classroom environment in the work of Danielson and Stronge.

The importance of support, friendliness, and mutual respect (i.e. the quality of social

interactions) is underlined in Helmke’s model in the facet of creating a learn-conducive

atmosphere; social interactions are also stressed in Danielson’s and Stronge’s models.

Likewise, the component of the quality of teaching in Helmke’s model shows some

similarities to the domain of instruction in Danielson’s work and instructional delivery in

Stonge’s model. Furthermore, Helmke’s component of the teacher personality overlaps with

the dimension of personal qualities of the teacher from Stronge, and the domain of

professional responsibilities of the teacher from Danielson. In summary, while showing some

differences, these models share certain underlying similarities and are empirically validated

models of effective teaching. This suggests that there are at least some fundamental elements

of classroom management which appear to be widely applicable in various cultures.

39

The study on rules in classroom management (Schönbächler, 2006) illustrates the importance

of managing ‘social interactions’ as well as ‘order and calm’ in the classroom; this further

emphasises these points from the frameworks of Danielson and Stronge as well as Helmke’s

model. These two areas will also be observed in the classroom management focus of the

teachers in the current study.

Monitoring students has been referred to in the models mentioned above. Doyle (2005) and

Kounin (1970, in Doyle, 2005) go into further detail on monitoring and the related concept of

withitness and stress the importance of these concepts for managing the classroom. Doyle

(2005) also specifically emphasises the importance of work involvement of students. These

elements may support each other: a ‘withit’ teacher noticing events in the class at an early

stage which could be dealt with, such as a conflict in a group, and in turn, this would then

enable a smooth continuation of the work involvement of students; this could then

conceivably lead to improved achievement gain. Furthermore, the low-profile-approach

underscores the anticipation (i.e. monitoring and withitness) and deflection (e.g. through

proximity, or going to where the problem is) of disruptions, as well as interactive teaching –

moving around the classroom to be able to observe students (e.g. Gettinger & Kohler, 2006).

These elements of classroom management will be included in the current study.

The principles outlined by Evertson and colleagues provide a set of points which have proven

themselves successful in real teacher training. They focus primarily on an organisational and

well planned out approach to classroom management. The importance of the physical

environment and teaching material, as well as creating rules, is again underscored here.

Further, the issues of monitoring and stopping inappropriate student behaviour are also

highlighted once more. In addition, the importance of clear instruction and lesson preparation

is emphasised. The principles listed here in particular are relevant for the current study, and

match up with the other models mentioned above. In the next section, the specific framework

40

used in the current study, which has been developed from the models and frameworks

described here, will be presented.

1.6 Summary of the classroom management framework in the current

study

In the above sections, various frameworks for classroom management as well as the

intervention styles of teachers have been outlined. In this section, the framework used to

define classroom management in this study will be described. The aim of developing a

general framework for classroom management in this study, which is based on the above

described frameworks, is to get a collection of teacher behaviours which have been linked to

teaching effectiveness, which are also applicable and relevant in the current research.

Four main dimensions have emerged which are both relevant for the current study as well as

having been validated in multiple frameworks. These will be referred to as main categories.

In each main category are subsumed the expressions of classroom management directly

observable in the class in this study. These will be referred to as sub-categories. Again, they

are relevant to the context of the current situation as well as based on the theories of

classroom management described above; these are the variables in the current study and they

are also listed in the Methods section. In other words, the effect of noise on these variables

will be examined in this study.

The first main category is classroom environment (e.g. classroom environment, Danielson,

2013; learning environment, Stronge et al., 2011). The focus here is mainly on the non-

instructional aspects of the class situation. Specifically, these aspects include the class layout

(physical layout of the classroom; e.g. Danielson, 2013; Stronge et al., 2011), sitting

behaviour (i.e. in relation to how the student sit on chairs or if they are moving around; e.g.

41

student behaviour, Danielson, 2013; Stronge et al., 2011; dealing with disruption, Helmke,

2009); material (i.e., preparing materials in the classroom for working; e.g. Danielson, 2013;

Stronge et al., 2011), and group composition (i.e. creating work groups; e.g. grouping

students and knowledge of students, Danielson, 2013). The subject of ‘noise’ itself is also

included. This is related to the theme of order and calm in the classroom from Schönbächler

(2006), where it was found to make up the most important group of rules in the classroom. In

one section of the current study, this subject of noise is also further divided into two sub-

categories: noise – rules (creating rules to deal with noise) and interventions – noise

(intervention strategies related to the issue of noise). This differentiation was made in order to

research the intervention approach of teachers, as mentioned above. In addition, another

aspect not directly related to classroom environment, but nonetheless worth exploring, is the

amount of general positive comments made by participants regarding the teaching situation,

since this may shed light on how noise can influence the valence of judgements or

evaluations made by teachers.

The second category is work involvement (e.g. Doyle, 2005; engaging students on task,

Danielson, 2013). This can be described as student behaviour relating to being engaged and

working on the task. The sub-category is named ‘work on task’, and in one section of the

study where it is relevant, the main category of work involvement is further differentiated

into the sub-categories ‘clear instruction – work on task’ (relating to the teacher’s instructions

relating to work on task; e.g. instruction clarity, Stronge et al., 2011; planning and

preparation, Danielson, 2013; also related to the quality of teaching, Helmke, 2009), and

‘interventions – work on task’ (interventions relating to the topic of work on task). Again,

this differentiation is done in order to investigate the intervention style of the teacher.

The third category is social interactions (e.g. creating an atmosphere conducive to learning,

Helmke, 2009; social interaction topic, Schönbächler, 2006; creating an environment of

42

rapport and respect with interactions, Danielson, 2013). This refers to social aspects in the

class, such as having an environment of respect in the class, and also referring to team work

and the inclusion of students. Sub-categories include participation and student conflict. In one

part of this research, the sub-category of participation will be differentiated further into ‘clear

instruction – participation’ (instruction relating to participation; e.g. planning and

preparation, Danielson, 2013; clear instruction, Stronge et al., 2011), and ‘intervention –

participation’ (intervention relating to participation); this is done in order to explore the

intervention style of the teacher.

The fourth and final main category is visibility. Since the current study used videos shown to

teachers, visibility (such as camera angle or ability to hear what the students are saying in the

video) is an inherently relevant aspect to consider in this research, and also may relate to the

‘withitness’ or monitoring of teachers (e.g. do teachers consider non-obvious aspects of the

situation such as camera position when evaluating student behaviour?). Sub-categories

include visibility in relation to being able to see or hear (understand) what was going on

(visibility – positive, and visibility – negative), as well as the sub-category of ‘proximity’,

which is for when the decision to take action is based solely on the position of the observer in

the room. Finally, there is the sub-category of ‘visibility – moving around’ (visibility in

relation to moving around to check the progress of students – this is part of interactive

teaching, related to the low-profile approach outlined above; e.g. Gettinger & Kohler, 2006);

this sub-category is important to differentiate from the first sub-category and consider by

itself since it specifically refers to a behaviour of the teacher to get up and move to monitor

the progress of students, and thus, may be more related to monitoring than extraneous aspects

of a video study.

To sum up, the sub-categories mentioned above are the aspects of classroom management

which will be explored in this study. In other words, these sub-categories are the elements

43

which are able to be observed in this classroom situation, and we will investigate if noise

changes teacher behaviour or focus in regards to these aspects of classroom management. In

addition to these sub-categories, there are categories important for investigating the

intervention style of the teacher (comparing the tendency for the teacher to implement

organisational strategies, as opposed to intervention strategies); furthermore, one variable in

the analysis looks at this directly: if a teacher would have intervened or not in this classroom

situation. Additionally, one variable examines which group the teacher elects to go to first.

See the Methods section for a list of, and further explanation of, the variables, and an outline

of the process of their creation. In the next section, research from related fields on the

possible effects of noise on these sub-categories (variables) will be discussed, and following

this, the hypotheses about the variables will be listed in the next section.

1.7 Classroom management and noise

In the preceding sections, classroom management has been defined for this study, and its

various aspects which will be analysed in the current study have been listed. In this section,

the possible effects of noise on these elements of classroom management will be discussed.

How does noise affect teaching practices? When it is loud in the classroom, do teachers focus

on different aspects of managing their students, compared to when it is calm? Up until now,

we do not know much about the answers to these questions, since there has been little

research on the topic. Therefore, we will look to related fields of research for further

information. As stated above, in researching classroom management, we are interested in

teacher performance in general; thus, research on the relationship of noise and human

performance generally is relevant. Overall, research has shown that noise impairs

44

performance (for a review, see Stansfeld & Matheson, 2003). In the following, specific

aspects of performance relevant to teacher performance will be discussed.

1.7.1 Influence of noise on attention, perception and choice of strategy

With noise, it is more likely to focus on the noticeable and obvious (salient) aspects of a

situation (e.g. Klatte, Meis & Schick, 2002). One example of this is with incidental learning:

with noise, participants were able to remember which words they saw on a screen but not the

less obvious aspect of which position these words were shown on the screen (Smith &

Broadbent, 1991; Davies & Jones, 1975). In other words, the participants focussed on an

obvious aspect but did not consciously perceive something less immediately relevant to the

task, when there was more noise. Put another way, noise influences selectivity in attention

(which aspects of our perception we attend to), as well as memory. We focus on the most

obvious aspects while neglecting the less obvious aspects of a situation. In the classroom for

instance, this could possibly have implications regarding monitoring the class and missing

less obvious events going on; for example, what could happen when only focussing on the

most obvious (e.g. loudest or closest) student groups, or the most obvious student behaviour,

such as only their work on task. Also, a teacher may potentially place less focus on non-

obvious aspects of classroom management (aspects which have nonetheless been defined as

important for teaching), such as organising the physical space in the classroom. Furthermore,

teachers may not take into account non-obvious information (such as issues of visibility, if

they can see or hear the situation properly to understand what is going on) if they only focus

on obvious aspects of the circumstance.

Related to this, noise appears to influence the choice of learning and metacognitive strategies

for carrying out a task, and this is particularly true with complex tasks (Smith & Broadbent,

1991). For example, in an experiment where participants had to learn lists of words from

45

various categories, such as animal and plant names, they showed less of a tendency to group

these words into categories (a helpful technique to remember the words) and instead tended

to learn them by heart in the order in which they came (Daee & Wilding 1977, cited in Klatte,

Meis & Schick, 2002; Smith, Jones, & Broadbent, 1981). To sum this up: with more noise,

people tend to choose the simplest and most familiar strategy for the task, even if it is not

optimal in the current situation. This finding may have various implications in the classroom,

for instance in relation to the type of intervention style a teacher implements (e.g. a more

direct and obvious form of intervention if it is louder in the classroom), instead of enquiring

first; or, this may affect how the teacher gives instructions to the class (choosing a simple and

familiar strategy for instruction when a less obvious choice may be more useful in the

situation).

Cohen and Spacapan (1984) mention that in quieter environments, teachers may have more

attentional resources at their disposal in order to pay attention to additional aspects of the

classroom situation (Cohen & Spacapan, 1984). Indeed, in more recent studies, noise levels

which are found in typical classrooms have been shown to have negative effects on

concentration, attention and working memory (Schönwälder et al., 2004; Ising et al., 1996).

Teachers, and in particular, novice teachers, would be expected to require constant attention

and concentration when managing their students and monitoring the classroom. Thus, due to

noise impairing concentration and attention, events in the classroom could be missed.

Furthermore, a negative cycle between noise and concentration may develop, since that when

concentration is necessary, noise is seen as a greater burden (e.g. Schönwälder et al., 2004).

In total, these issues could affect teacher monitoring of students; a problem such as a student

conflict, or students who have not understood a task might be missed, and these problems

tend to become more disruptive in the classroom when not dealt with early and instead given

time to develop (e.g. Doyle, 2005). Also, if teachers have less attentional resources on hand,

46

they could conceivably be less curious and active in getting up to monitor the class and

student progress.

Furthermore, as alluded to above, noise may impair speech intelligibility; this is another

important aspect in the classroom. Speech intelligibility is predictive of the level of reduction

in performance due to noise, such as background speech (Basner et al., 2015). Research in

schools has shown that in this environment, memory and comprehension of spoken messages

is impaired by noise (Sörqvist, Hurtig, Ljung, & Onnberg, 2014; for a review, see Hygge,

2014). For instance, teachers may need to repeat instructions, which may not foster patience

(e.g. Klatte et al., 2010); further, they may need to speak in a loud voice, which can be

strenuous. In summary, another way which noise may impact performance is through

reducing speech intelligibility.

It is important to take into account that some of these findings (such as focussing on obvious

aspects of the situation, and choice of strategy) come from general studies, and there is a lack

of evidence specifically regarding the effect of noise on teachers’ attention and behaviour.

However, it is plausible that these results nonetheless have implications for teachers and their

performance in the classroom. In other words, these effects could conceivably change the

classroom management focus of teachers; this will be investigated in the current study.

1.7.2 The effect of noise on processing of social cues, helping behaviour and aggression

Further results related to the effect of noise on performance have shown that noise can reduce

helping behaviour and increase aggression, as well as reduce the processing of social cues

when they are seen as not important in relation to task performance (for a review, see

Stansfeld & Matheson, 2003). An early study described the reduced processing of social cues

in detail (Jones, Chapman, & Auburn, 1981) and will be discussed here. The authors of that

research postulated three ways that noise could generate these changes in social processing.

47

Firstly, noise which is acting as a stressor may bring about changes in the affective state of a

person, and this may induce a focussing of attention away from social cues. Secondly, noise

can mask speech, our major means of communication, as well as masking other sounds which

are indicative of the (psychological) presence of another person; thus, noise may cause us to

miss cues to the presence or distress of others. In other words, social interaction may be

disrupted due to the masking of important cues. Again, this could cause a conflict, student

boredom, or lack of participation to be missed by the teacher, which may then spiral into a

more disruptive situation (e.g. Doyle, 2005). Thirdly, people may find noisy situations to be

aversive, and implement a strategy to deal with this, by just trying to go through them quickly

without a high level of regard for others. This is related to Milgram’s hypothesis (1970, in

Jones et al., 1981) that an overload of input induces the use of strategies to block or filter

some of those inputs; this may lead to interpersonal indifference or lack of co-operation. In

summary, subtle interpersonal cues such as a child in distress may be missed; also,

interpersonal indifference may influence more negative judgements or a more reactive

approach from the teacher towards students. In addition, actually taking the step to help a

child in distress may require attention that is absent in high noise situations (Cohen &

Spacapan, 1984). In addition to this, it has been found that students perceive their teacher and

other students as being less friendly and patient towards them when there is more noise

(Klatte et al., 2010). While the perception of students was studied in that research, it is

conceivable that it may also apply to teachers, and that teachers may judge students more

negatively when there is more noise. This may in turn affect classroom management, such as

teachers reacting with a more controlling and direct approach towards students; teachers may

also judge student performance more negatively.

In this section, the effects of noise relating to performance have been discussed. In addition,

the effects of noise on performance and behaviour appear to be more pronounced when the

48

task is difficult than when it is easy (Basner et al., 2015). Typical teaching activities are

indeed complex (e.g. Ising et al., 1996). Furthermore, teachers have high levels of

responsibility for their class and this also increases the impact of noise (Ising et al., 1996).

Thus, any effects of noise on performance may be expected to be pronounced in a teaching

situation due to the complexity of the task.

1.8 Summary

Noise can cause stress reactions in humans. Furthermore, teachers are exposed to additional

stress factors (concentration, responsibility etc.) which increase the stressful effect of noisy

classrooms. How this effects teacher performance has been an under looked area of research,

and will be investigated in this study. An important aspect of teacher performance (or,

effective teaching) is the concept of classroom management. How a teacher manages the

classroom is directly related to student achievement and progress (e.g. Helmke, 2009, p. 174).

Classroom management is also related to teacher well-being (e.g. Helmke, 2009, p. 175).

Furthermore, classroom management is one of the most important skills for beginning

teachers to learn (Van den Bogert et al., 2014) and novice teachers have been found to have

more difficulty with aspects of it (Moskowitz & Hayman, 1974). Research in other fields

regarding the effect of noise on performance indicates that noise has negative effects on

concentration, attention and perception, as well as influencing the choice of strategy to

perform a task, and the processing of social cues (Ising et al., 1996; Klatte et al., 2002; Cohen

& Weinstein, 1981). As discussed above, it is plausible that these effects would also have

implications for teachers and their classroom management. Furthermore, it has been shown

that teachers do not generally have the skills needed to moderate the effects of noise, and this

seems to be even more so for novice teachers (Dockrell & Shield, 2006; Dockrell et al.,

49

2004). Added to this is that the effects of noise on behaviour and performance are more

marked when there is more responsibility involved and when a task is more complex (Basner

et al., 2015); these are typical elements of teaching (e.g. Ising et al., 1996). Thus, noise is

expected to affect teaching performance, especially for novice teachers.

Noise is a reality of teaching and consequently, effective classroom strategies will need to be

applied in noisy conditions. Investigating how the classroom management of pre-service

teachers is influenced by noise appears to be an important line of research; it may uncover

insights that novices can benefit from and implement in order to improve their classroom

management. In other words, insights gained may help inform feedback given to teachers

about their classroom management in noisy conditions: conditions which make up the reality

of various daily classroom situations; this could potentially impact student learning and the

teachers’ own well-being in a positive way.

50

Research Questions

Due to the theories and empirical findings presented in the previous chapter, the following

hypotheses have been formulated.

Research Question 1

Does classroom noise influence the classroom management focus or strategies of teachers? It

is assumed that classroom noise changes the classroom management focus of teachers.

To give a short summary of the theoretical background described above: teachers are exposed

to high amounts of noise (Schönwälder et al., 2004). There are physiological and

psychological effects of this noise, including difficulties in concentration, working memory

performance, as well as increased annoyance (Ising et al., 1996). Effective teaching requires

specific actions defined under the concept of classroom management, such as minimising

interruptions and dealing with behavioural issues. With noise, there is a tendency to focus on

the obvious and salient aspects of a situation, and to neglect less noticeable aspects (Klatte et

al., 2002). In terms of the current study, this may influence the focus of teachers on obvious

aspects such the sitting behaviour of students (e.g. students laying on tables or moving around

the classroom), the work achievement of students (e.g. an obvious aspect of the situation is

student progress on the work task a teacher assigned them), and a biased focus towards the

front, or loudest (i.e. also obvious aspects of the situation), groups. Further, the teachers’

focus on non-obvious aspects of the situation, such as the theme of visibility, may also be

affected.

Noise at typical classroom levels negatively affects attention and concentration (e.g.

Schönwälder et al., 2004). Also, noise may reduce the processing of social cues (Cohen &

Weinstein, 1981; Jones et al., 1981). Along with the bias towards obvious aspects of the

51

situation listed above, these findings could influence the monitoring of teachers; in terms of

the current study, this could influence to which extent teachers notice conflict among

students, or problematic social interactions such as lack of participation or exclusion. Many

of these findings come from fields of study outside of the classroom, however, it is plausible

that they also are relevant in the classroom context and thus affect the classroom management

of teachers.

Furthermore, one study has shown that students perceive their teacher and other students as

being less friendly and patient towards them when there is more noise (Klatte et al., 2010):

possibly, the teacher’s focus could also be influenced in a similar way. Conceivably, due to

the added stress with noise (e.g. strenuous use of voice, having to repeat instructions) or

potentially increased annoyance due to noise (e.g. Stansfeld & Matheson, 2003), teachers

may not act patiently, and could judge students more negatively (e.g. Klatte et al., 2010),

which may in turn affect classroom management strategies. In total, due to the points

mentioned here, the focus and strategies of teachers in relation to their classroom

management are expected to be different when there is more noise.

As mentioned above, four main categories of classroom management were found to be

important based on the literature, and also relevant for this study. The following hypotheses

are listed and ordered according to these main categories; they are formed for the sub-

categories and other variables that have been listed in the introduction. In other words, these

are the expressions of classroom management which will be examined here; they are part of

the framework of classroom management laid out above.

Classroom Environment

H1.1 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on noise

52

H1.2 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on students’ sitting

behaviour

Work Involvement

H1.3 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on students’ work

on task

Social Interactions

H1.4 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on students’

participation

H1.5 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on student conflict

Visibility

H1.6 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on the subject of

visibility

H1.7 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on visibility –

moving around (moving around to check understanding and the progress of students)

H1.8 High classroom noise leads to changes in how many general positive comments were

given regarding teacher performance

H1.9 High classroom noise leads to changes in which group the teacher elects to go to first

Research Question 2

Does classroom noise influence the intervention strategies of teachers? (e.g. Interventionist

vs. Non-interventionist; Martin and Sass, 2010).

53

It is expected that teachers will respond more vigorously and intervene more often under high

classroom noise. Summarising and following on from the literature described above, noise

may increase annoyance and irritability (Schönwälder et al., 2004) as well as reducing

helping behaviour (Smith & Broadbent, 1991). This could conceivably reduce the patience of

the teachers, so that when there is more noise, they may take on a more controlling and direct

approach to student behaviour. Related to this, teachers are expected to focus differently on

either specific intervention (i.e. more direct) or organisational (i.e. more indirect and related

to planning) strategies depending on noise levels. Further, noise has been shown to influence

the choice of strategy for carrying out a task; the simplest and most familiar strategy tends to

be chosen with noise, even if it is not optimal in the current situation (Smith & Broadbent,

1991). This might also influence the intervention strategy of teachers, with a more direct as

opposed to inquiring approach, when there is more noise. In summary, the intervention

strategies of the teacher will be investigated with the following hypotheses.

H2.1 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on organisational

strategies in the classroom

H2.2 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on intervention

strategies in the classroom

H2.3 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on intervening in

the classroom

54

Method

3.1 Participants

One hundred and six pre-service teachers took part in the study (92 female; average age:

24.05, SD = 4.14, Range 20-44). Participants were recruited in their courses at the school of

education. They were in the third year of their study of primary school education. In the

course of their study, each had gained teaching experience in a classroom. Studying a group

that was homogenous with regards to education and experience reduced the possible

influence of confounding factors. Further, the effects of noise at an early point in the career

were able to be investigated; this could aid in the development of appropriate information

about risks and coping strategies for this demographic. Criteria for exclusion included current

or chronic illness, and hearing loss; however, no participant was excluded on these grounds.

Further, according to a self-report, no participant was currently using drugs. Participants had

been asked to take part in the experiment under the guise of developing a classroom

management training for pre-service teachers; the real aim of the study was not given to them

until after completion of the experiment. Barker and Tarnopolsky (1978) discussed the risk of

over reporting symptoms due to noise when self-report measures are used, and so to avoid

any influence from expectations the participants had about noise and the consequences of

noise, they only received this information at the end (Barker & Tarnopolsky, 1978). Prior to

participating in the experiment, participants had been told to come well rested and to not

drink any alcohol for 12 hours beforehand, nor to drink any stimulating beverage for two

hours prior to testing. After the experiment, participants received 15€ remuneration, as well

as feedback, if it had been requested. Participants gave written informed consent prior to

taking part in the study. The study met the standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, and

was approved by the local ethics board at the University of Graz.

55

3.2 Design

This study used a repeated measures design; participants were tested at two time points,

roughly four weeks apart. To answer the first research question (regarding the effect of

classroom noise on classroom management), the pedagogical assessment of the group work

in the videos provided the dependent variables (the answers to questions on this assessment

were analysed using the Qualitative Content Analysis method, discussed below). The

independent variables included the noise level (moderately quiet: 60 dB(A) and noisy: 75

dB(A) - noise levels were chosen according to the lower and upper noise levels often

measured in schools) and the time point. The testing took place at a laboratory at the

University of Graz. Participants were randomly selected into the groups. Table 1 displays the

original experimental design, however, due to delays in the study, only part of the data was

available for this thesis. The study design of the current study is shown in Table 2. Thus, we

were not able to control for the sequence of videos in the current study; however, professional

raters have evaluated the videos as equivalent and it is therefore improbable that there is an

effect of sequence of videos (this is discussed in the limitations section).

Table 1

Original Experimental Design

T1: time 1 T2: time 2

Group 1 Video A – 60dB Video B – 75dB

Group 2 Video A – 75dB Video B – 60dB

Group 3 Video B – 60dB Video A –75dB

Group 4 Video B – 75dB Video A – 60dB

56

Table 2

Current Experimental Design (106 participants)

T1 T2

Group 1 (n=52) Video A – 60dB Video B – 75dB

Group 2 (n=54) Video B – 75dB Video A – 60dB

3.3 Procedure

Upon agreeing to take part in the experiment, participants first completed an online study

including health status data (the criteria for exclusion). Other surveys were also completed,

which are not part of this experiment. The following two sessions took place in the

laboratory. In the lab, participants first gave their personal code which enabled anonymity

and easy referencing for the researchers. Next, they filled out surveys including demographic

data and other health data, which was used in another experiment. An ECG study was

performed parallel to the current study, and the necessary steps for this were carried out.

Participants were then seated in front of a computer monitor, advised not to move and to

watch the screen. Firstly, five minutes of blank screen were shown (relevant for the ECG

study), and then a screenshot of the video was shown on the screen. This had the purpose of

introducing the pupils, and was shown for 10 seconds. Following this was a six-minute video

(noise level according to condition: 60 vs. 75 dB(A)), where four groups of students in

primary education (third grade) were shown working on a given task. Prior to starting the

experiment, participants had been given the following instructions about watching the video:

they had been advised to imagine themselves standing in front of the class and watching the

students, after having given the students instructions. They had also been told the task the

students were carrying out – creating posters for the four seasons of the year, and that this

57

was the first group work the students had performed together. Further, they had been told that

the teacher was present in the classroom, but not on screen. They were also advised that they

would later be asked questions about what went well and what could be improved, regarding

aspects of the students and teacher (particularly the behaviour of the students and the

organisation of the teacher). After this video had been shown, a blank screen was shown for

five minutes (relevant again for the ECG study). They completed other surveys not relevant

for this experiment, and then had to give their pedagogical assessment of the content in the

video (the focus of this study). This assessment contained three parts (relating to aspects of

the entire class, the students, and the teacher; see Appendix A). This process took roughly 30

minutes in total, each lab session. After this part, an eye-tracking study was carried out in

both lab sessions, which is not part of this study.

3.4 Materials

Video. The videos used in this experiment were self-developed. They depicted real-life

classroom situations and were recorded in a 3rd grade classroom of a primary school during

class. The consent of authorities and guardians had been acquired. Financial as well as human

resources support was given by the Umwelt-Bildungs-Zentrum-Steiermark. Specifically, the

teacher chose the topic of the group work, and had put the students into four groups (two

groups of girls, two of boys). The students were given instructions on how to work in groups,

however no instructions to act in a special way, or to be particularly quiet or noisy, were

given: basically, students were instructed to behave as usual in class, so that all noisy

situations occurred naturally. The teacher was always present in the classroom, although not

visibly or audibly present on the video. Two slightly different videos (A vs. B) were made;

these included the same students and the same learning situation, and were rated as being

58

equivalent by expert raters. The video material was edited by the recording studio

LAB42FILMS OG, who created two standardised files of roughly six minutes each. The

video and following pedagogical assessment were computerised using the presentation

software PsychoPy (Pierce, 2007).

Pedagogical assessment. The questions in this questionnaire which are relevant to the current

study are shown in Table 3 and discussed in the following section (please note, the other

questions which are not relevant to the current study are the focus of other projects in this

research group, and not discussed here; see Appendix A for the full questionnaire). The

questions used in the current study were self-constructed (Steinlechner, 2017).

Table 3

List of Questionnaire Questions (Pedagogical Assessment)

Question number Question Answer format

1a Which group grabbed your attention most

strongly

Categorical (groups 1-4)

1b Please explain your answer Open

2a In which order would you go to the groups

(which group would you go to first)?

Categorical (groups 1-4)

2b Please explain your answer Open

3a Were there situations in which an

intervention of the teacher was necessary?

Categorical (yes/no)

3b Which recommendations would you give

the teacher, regarding the organisation/

execution of future group projects?

Open

Firstly, participants had to evaluate the student groups overall. They were asked two

questions in this regard: which group grabbed your attention most strongly, and in which

order would you go to the groups: which group would you go to first (note that for this study,

it is only relevant to which group the teacher would go to first). Both of these questions had a

categorical answer format. For both of these questions, they were then asked to explain their

choices (open-ended answer format). Following on from this, they had to evaluate the

performance of each group individually (open-ended answer format), however the results for

59

this question are not included here. Participants also had to assess the performance of the

teacher. They were asked which recommendations they had for the teacher regarding the

organisation and carrying out of further group work (open-ended question). Further,

participants were asked if they thought that there had been situations in which the teacher

should have intervened (yes/no answer format). Please note that due to the length of the

experiment, most open questions were only included at time point one, and not given again at

time point two. The other questions were given at both time points. In summary, this section

explained the questionnaire used in this study. For the qualitative part of the study (the

questions with open-ended answer formats), the categories used to analyse these answers are

to be found in section 3.5.2.

3.5 Method of analysis – Qualitative Content Analysis

As mentioned previously, the purpose of the qualitative part of this study was to investigate

the impact that noise has on teachers’ performance; specifically, on teachers’ classroom

management. The method of Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA) is used in this study. Using

this method allowed the researcher to process the data from the open-ended questions, in

order to answer the research questions. In order to understand this process and form of

analysis, the procedures of this method will be explained in the following.

Qualitative Content Analysis comes originally from communication research, and is used in

various fields such as psychology, education and psychiatry (Smith, 2000). It is a systematic

analysis of text materials, which is performed by following specific rules and procedures. It is

not interpretation, since specific criteria are set in advance. This enables an impartial and

reproducible analysis.

60

It is the primary method for getting information from open ended questions, such as those

which were used in this study. Open ended questions are used in research in order to reveal

the reactions of participants to specific situations in more detail than fixed response questions

may do. Fixed response questions may be quicker to analyse but may not capture the

complexity of thought and behaviour of a person, whereas an open statement could be able to

indicate certain underlying attitudes or values that a person has (Mayring, 2014; Smith,

2000).

One purpose of QCA is to connect qualitative and quantitative research. Once information

from the text material (here, answers to open questions) had been put in categories

(qualitative processing), the calculations/analysis of these categories were able to be carried

out (quantitative processing; e.g. Funk, 2015). Conclusions can then be made from this

analysis.

The method for analysing the text material - the coding system - is central to QCA. It

specifies the information which is to be obtained from the text material (Smith, 2000). In

order to achieve high validity, it is important to provide clear justifications for categories and

a transparent description of the process of how these categories were found (Anfara, Brown,

& Mangione, 2002).

The first step in creating a coding system is to define the units of material. These are the parts

of the text material to which the coding categories will be applied (Mayring, 2014; Smith,

2000). Here, the units of analysis are simply each individual answer to the open questions.

The second step is to determine the categories which will be used to analyse the text material.

These categories are the variables which will be assessed. In other words, these are the

underlying constructs which are looked for in the text. They are used to classify two or more

alternatives. It is important that they are unidimensional (e.g. height), exhaustive, and

61

mutually exclusive (something in one category should not also be in another category)

(Mayring, 2014; Smith, 2000).

This is an important step and two basic approaches to forming these categories will be

described. One approach is the inductive method. In this approach, categories are formed by

looking at the material first and creating categories based on this, as opposed to purely

theoretical considerations where the data are not looked at. In effect, this is a true description

of the material, exploratory in nature, and less affected by preconceptions of the researcher.

In contrast, the deductive method specifies categories before the text material is examined.

Categories are determined from the theory, before analysis of the data has begun. Often in

practice, both approaches are combined: categories coming from theory that do not occur

frequently in the data are not used, and categories found inductively from the text material

which have no theoretical or practical significance are likewise not used; in other words, the

theory is used to suggest what to look for, and an analysis of the answers suggest

modifications to these categories (Smith, 2000). The point is to create the categories in a way

so that they are practical and relevant. This combined method is used in the present study.

A more detailed and specific outline of the process of category creation is described in the

following. The structuring method is described in Mayring (2014) as perhaps the most central

method in QCA. The goal is to analyse and extract structure from the material, and Mayring

(2014) uses an analogy to explain this method: it is like examining a meteorite found on a

field by breaking it open in order to analyse its underlying structure - such as hardness, size,

weight; in other words, the meteorite can then be described in terms of these features. In this

method, once the categories are determined, they are further segmented, for the purpose of

identifying individual features (i.e. sub-categories are formed). As mentioned above, in this

study, a mix of inductive and deductive category formulation was used in order to determine

the categories. The categories were then revised and reformulated after a trial run-through. In

62

this study, nominal category systems as opposed to ordinal category systems are used;

therefore, the categories are independent and only related to each other in regards to the

overlaying structural dimension. The frequencies of the occurrences of each category are then

compared (Mayring, 2014). This method can be illustrated in a procedural model (Mayring,

2014; see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Procedural model: steps for assigning categories (Mayring, 2014; adapted)

Step 6 Determine category frequencies; analyse and interpret

Step 4

Revise categories and coding guidelines (examples and rules) after 10-50% of the material

Step 5

Carry out the complete analysis of the material

Step 3

Create coding guidelines (definitions, examples, coding rules)

Step 2

Definition of the category system from the theory and from the material (carry out preliminary run-through of small amount of material)

Step 1

Research question, theoretical background, determine unit of analysis

63

3.5.1 Procedure of the QCA in this study

The material used for this QCA includes the answers to the interview questions of the 106

participants. In the first step outlined in the model above, the unit of analysis is determined,

and in this study it is simply the entire answer to the interview question. The next step

includes determining the main categories; these are the basic themes which indicate relevant

information from the interview questions.

In order to determine the main categories, theoretical considerations as well as an inductive

analysis of the answers were used. A summary of the relevant theories for classroom

management has been given in the introduction. In summary, the themes of classroom

environment, work involvement and social interactions appear commonly across various

definitions of classroom management, and visibility is important in the context of the current

video study. From an inductive analysis perspective, these main categories were also capable

of describing the answers of the participants; this was initially investigated by transferring the

text material into an Excel file in order to process it more efficiently, and then, analysing 5-

10 individual answers to each question per condition (between roughly 10 and 20% of the

material). Groups of answers which formed themes were found in this analysis; this helped to

determine the subcategories, described below.

The answers of the open questions are categorised by using these sub-categories. In other

words, each main category was broken down into constituent parts to form sub-categories; it

is emphasised that this was guided by theoretical considerations mentioned above

(deductive), as well as on the basis of the answers themselves (inductive). The questionnaire

included questions relating to, firstly, student groups and secondly, to teacher performance;

some subcategories were relevant in one question and not the other. Subcategories in relation

to the individual questions are illustrated in Appendix B.

64

Potential weaknesses of this type of abstraction (categorisation) may include

misinterpretation of the data, or bias due to the fact that looking for certain things may indeed

cause those things to be found, whereas potential strengths of this method include the ability

to organise the data in a meaningful way, and also being able to compare the answers of

teachers in a meaningful way (Mayring, 2014). In summary, these sub-categories will help to

search for patterns in the data and to explain why those patterns are there (Bernard 2006, in

Shaddock Bellamy, 2016). The main categories and sub-categories (the variables in the

experiment) will be expanded upon in the following.

3.5.2 Variables

In this section, the variables used in the current study will be explained. These variables come

from the theoretical framework described in the introduction and are also referred to in the

section outlining the research questions See Table 4 for a list of the variables. Note that there

are two variables from the categorical questions which are included: these are, if a teacher

would have intervened (yes/no), and, to which group would the teacher have gone to first

(groups 1-4). The rest of the variables are made up of the sub-categories used in the QCA on

the open questions. In other words, the answers from the open questions were analysed using

these sub-categories, and the frequencies that these sub-categories appeared were recorded. It

is also important to note that some sub-categories were only relevant for certain questions:

the questions for which a sub-category were relevant for are also listed in Table 4 (see Table

3 above for the questions which the question numbers refer to). In most cases, the sub-

categories come from the same main categories for each question, but are slightly different

depending on the question. For example, ‘work on task’ and ‘work on task – positive’ were

sufficient sub-categories to cover the answers for the questions relating to student behaviour

(questions 1b and 2b), however, the sub-category of work on task needed to be further

differentiated into ‘clear instructions – work on task’ (clear instructions relating to the subject

65

of work on task), and ‘interventions - work on task’ (interventions relating to the subject of

work on task), in order to be relevant for the teacher question (question 3b). Please see

Appendix B for the entire coding system, including definitions, examples and rules for each

subcategory, in relation to each question on the questionnaire.

It is important to mention once more that the sub-categories were formed based on both the

theoretical framework as well as inductively (based on the answers of the participants); thus,

if a sub-category did not appear in any answers for a question, it was not included for that

question. It was also decided to differentiate between as many sub-categories as appropriate

for the analysis. This included differentiating the valence of certain categories, such as: ‘work

on task – positive’, ‘participation – positive’. These sub-categories included explicitly

positive comments on these subjects, in order to be able to analyse the valence of answers

pertaining to these issues. The sub-categories not containing explicitly positive comments

(e.g. ‘work on task’, ‘participation’) included negative and inconclusive/neutral comments. It

was decided to combine these negative and inconclusive/neutral comments since most

comments were clearly negative. Also, the formulation of the questions meant that

participants gave reasons why they would go a group, or which group grabbed their attention

the most. With the inconclusive/neutral comments, they had observed something happening

(e.g. about the work on task), and raised this point, probably with the goal to improve the

situation. In other words, there was reason to notice something in a group, without stating

explicitly that it was negative, but perhaps implying that it was reason enough to go to control

it; this may have been a similar goal for those who formulated their answer in an explicitly

negative way. Thus, the small amount of neutral answers was also included in the same

category as the clearly negative statements.

For the question the participants had to answer regarding recommendations for the teacher

(question 3b), certain sub-categories were able to be combined together into semantically

66

meaningful groups in order to examine the second research question, regarding intervention

strategies. It was decided to differentiate between organisational strategies (those strategies

which are aimed at organisation, and undertaken before the start of class), and intervention

strategies (taking action during the class). The following sub-categories: noise - rules, class

layout, materials, group composition, clear instruction – work on task and clear instruction –

participation, formed the category of organisational strategies. The following sub-categories:

intervention – noise, sitting behaviour, intervention – work on task, intervention –

participation, formed the category of intervention strategies.

The sub-category ‘general positive comments’ does not fit into a main category. It was found

inductively, through the initial analysis of participants’ answers. This is made up of positive

comments about the teacher in the video; the comments were formulated in a general manner,

so it was not necessary to differentiate them further. This sub-category was included since it

was decided that it is also interesting to analyse if the noise level influences how many

(spontaneous) positive comments regarding the teacher the participants give.

67

Table 4

List of Variables (Sub-categories Ordered According to Main Categories)

Main Category: Classroom Environment

Sub-category (variable): Question it is relevant for:

Noise 1b, 2b

Noise – positive

Noise - rules 3b

Intervention - noise

Class layout

Class layout – positive

Material

Group composition

Sitting behaviour 1b, 2b, 3b

Main Category: Social Interactions

Sub-category (variable): Question it is relevant for:

Participation 1b, 2b

Participation – positive

Conflict

Clear instruction - participation 3b

Intervention - participation

Main Category: Work Involvement

Sub-category (variable): Question it is relevant for:

Work on task 1b, 2b

Work on task - positive

Clear instruction – work on task 3b

Intervention – work on task

Main Category: Visibility

Sub-category (variable): Question it is relevant for:

Visibility – positive 1b, 2b

Proximity

Visibility – moving around 2b, 3b

Visibility - negative 1b, 3b

Other Variables

General positive comments 3b

Which group first (group 1-4) 2a

Intervene (yes/no) 3a

68

3.5.3 Coding system

In the preceding section, the variables have been listed. For the qualitative part of the study, it

is important to create a coding system for the variables; that is, the ‘definitions’, ‘examples’

and ‘coding rules’ for each subcategory are determined, in order to create a coding system.

These illustrate how categories are applied and coding decisions made; therefore, they need

to be defined explicitly and in detail, so that other coders are able to use the system to agree

on which material is part of a category or not. The ‘examples’ include parts of the text and

are included in order to support correct categorising in appropriate categories. ‘Coding rules’

are provided for when it is hard to differentiate between categories; their purpose is to ensure

the correct classification of an unclear part of the text into the appropriate category. An

effective coding system increases reliability and validity, and enables a well-documented and

organised approach to answer the research questions (Funk, 2015). Table 5 shows an example

for a coding system for the subcategory of Sitting Behaviour, in the main category of

Classroom Environment (see Appendix B for the entire coding manual).

Table 5

Coding Manual for the Sub-category of Sitting Behaviour

Main Category: Classroom Environment

Sub-category Definition Example Rule

Sitting Behaviour Dealing with

behaviour of students

relating to sitting,

standing, laying or

moving about the

room

‚do not allow children

to sit on the tables‘;

‘no swinging on

chairs’

Explicitly naming a

negative behaviour in

relation to sitting,

standing, laying down,

or moving around

Following on from the creation of categories, a further abstraction process is carried out. This

consists of going through the material and making preliminary coding, as well as adjusting

and updating the coding system where necessary. After this, continual revision of the

categories takes place, up until 10% to 50% of the material has been analysed. The sub-

69

categories described earlier were the result of this revision. This process was a gradual one

but resulted in the reduction of redundant categories and the inclusion of more meaningful

ones. Seeing each question in context of the whole (after questions were processed) was

indeed helpful for this process.

Finally, the material was worked through with the coding system. This was performed in

Excel, and the data were then transferred into SPSS (Version 23) and analysed.

3.5.4 Quality criteria of the qualitative data

Content analysis requires quality control measures in order to be seen as a credible, replicable

and trustworthy method. The classical measures of quantitative research - objectivity,

reliability and validity – need to be adapted appropriately for qualitative research

(Klemenjak, 2015; Mayring, 2014).

Reliability

Reliability relates to the level of precision and accuracy of the measurement (Bortz & Döring,

2006, p. 196). One method for ensuring reliability in a qualitative context is checking a

percentage of the content by two or more people. This is called the interrater reliability (IRR).

It also can be seen as a measure of the replicability of the research. In this study, this was

performed twice. After the first check, discussion between the coders led to the forming of

some new categories or adjusting existing categories, and after the material was categorised

again with the newly developed coding system, the interrater reliability check was carried out

once more; this is in line with a suggestion by Smith (2000) regarding refining the coding

system until no further revision is necessary. The IRR is reported in the Results section.

70

Objectivity

Objectivity is the extent to which the results are independent from the individual tester; it can

be defined as interpersonal consensus (Bortz & Döring, 2006, p. 195). Two or more analysts

who code the same material (interrater reliability) also address objectivity, in terms of an

independence of results from the various researchers. Mayring (2014) describes this method,

traditionally used for measuring reliability, as also being critical for ensuring objectivity.

Further, an interpersonal consensus through the use of an exact description of the method,

helps to ensure that various researchers would come to similar results (Klemenjak, 2015).

Moreover, the explicitness and accuracy of the description influences the reproducibility

(Mayring, 2014). In summary, objectivity is ensured in this work through the explicit

descriptions given, and through the IRR.

Validity

Validity refers to if the process being used measures what it should measure (Bortz & Döring,

2006, p. 200). One form of validity is semantic validity, which is how appropriate the

definitions of categories are. In the current study this was discussed with other researchers

who helped in the creation and adjustment of the categories. An additional form of validity is

construct validity. This refers to matching categories with established theories and models.

The categories in the present work were created in part by using other theory-driven

constructs and studies on classroom management (see Introduction); in other words, they take

the theoretical background of this field into consideration, and this increases their plausibility

(Mayring, 2014).

71

Results

In this section, the statistical tests and their results will be described. There are three main

sections: firstly, explaining the interrater reliability (IRR), then discussing the assumptions

for each statistical test, and finally the results of the statistical tests shown for each

hypothesis.

4.1 Interrater reliability

This has been explained in the methods section, and to summarise, the IRR is a measure of

the replicability of the analysis. Roughly 60% of the material was coded by two people

involved in this research project, using the categories given. Results of this analysis were

compared using the formula from Holsti (1969, in Mayring, 2014):

𝑅 = 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑥 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠

𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠

It was found that 83% of the codings of both researchers were in agreement. This result is

adequate: reliability should be above 80%, and the minimum for acceptance is 67% (e.g.

Krippendorff, 2004).

4.2 Assumptions of statistical tests

The participants’ answers to the questions on the questionnaire were collected in Excel files

and categorised in Excel, before being transferred into the statistic program SPSS in order for

further analysis to be carried out. Before these tests could be carried out, the assumptions for

their use needed to be checked, and this will be described in the following. As mentioned in

the methods section, answers to the open questions were collected only at one time point, and

further, the data were on an interval scale: in their answers to the open questions, participants

72

could mention a certain category any number of times, therefore building an interval scale

(e.g. Smith, 2000). This answer format, recording the frequency of a category, was chosen in

favour of an absolute frequencies format, where one category is only marked once in one unit

regardless of how much it is mentioned. In other words, in the current analysis, each mention

of a category is given equal weight; the assumption is that the more important a category is,

the more it will be mentioned; it has been reported that when frequencies are recorded, it is

mostly the case that each instance is given equal weight (Smith, 2000). Of note here is that

the total number of comments made in each condition (60dB vs 75dB) was not significantly

different (U=1267, p=.383); in other words, the answers did not appear to be significantly

longer in one category than the other.

The test used for analysing the results from the open questions was the Mann-Whitney U

Test; it tests if the central tendencies of two independent samples are different. In other

words, the U-test tests the null hypothesis that two samples come from a population with the

same distribution form (Bortz & Lienert, 2008, p. 140). Formulated another way: it tests the

null hypothesis that the average rank of the participants in each sample do not differ (Bortz,

Lienert, & Boehnke, 2008, p. 200). This test assumes that the dependent variable has at least

an ordinal scale. The T-Test for independent samples was not used here, since the data were

not normally distributed (the Shapiro-Wilks Test in SPSS yielded significant results in each

case), and therefore this non-parametric alternative was chosen.

In addition, two questions (intervention: yes/no; which group would you go to first: A/B/C/D)

reported here were given at both time points; the answers to these questions were categorical

(nominally scaled). McNemar’s Test and an extension of it were used to test the hypotheses

related to these questions. The McNemar’s Test assumes a dichotomous dependent variable,

as well as a categorical independent variable with two related groups, and that expected

frequencies are at least five (Bortz et al., 2008, p. 164). It looks only at cases where a change

73

has happened, and is also known as a test for significance of change; in other words, it tests

the null hypothesis that the changes in responses (e.g. from one time point to the next) have

occurred randomly (Bortz et al., 2008, p. 161). The McNemar-Bowker Test (or, Symmetry

Test from Bowker) is an extension of the McNemar test, used for contingency tables which

are larger than 2x2 (Bortz & Lienert, 2008, p. 128). It also tests for changes in responses (the

cells which are symmetrical to the main diagonal in the table are compared, according to their

frequencies), and also uses a chi-square distribution.

4.3 Results

In the following, the hypotheses and results will be described, grouped according to

theoretical deliberations and research questions. Unless otherwise noted, the following tests

were made on data from independent samples on an interval scale, which were not normally

distributed, and therefore the Mann-Whitney U Test was used.

H1.1 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on noise

Here it was tested if there was a difference between how much teachers focussed on noise in

both noise conditions. Three tests were carried out, and so a correction regarding an α error

(Bonferroni correction) was performed: the α level was adjusted (0.05/3=0.0167; e.g. Bortz et

al., 2008, p. 52).

Firstly, specifically the category of ‘noise - rules’ (creating rules for noise before class, see

Appendix B for further information) was compared between conditions. This relates to

recommendations for the teacher (the open question ‘recommendations to the teacher for

future group work’; this is question 3b). It was found that teachers gave significantly more

74

suggestions regarding ‘noise - rules’ in the high noise group (mean rank = 58.64) than in the

low noise group (mean rank=48.16; U=1126,5; p= .007). Note that due to the low frequency

counts here, the statistics for the exact test are reported (e.g. Bortz et al., 2008, p. 202).

Secondly, all comments regarding noise: ‘noise – total’ (noise in general; in other words, this

included suggestions for both rules and for interventions relating to noise) were compared in

this question (again, the open question regarding recommendations for the teacher). Also

here, teachers gave significantly more comments regarding noise in general in the high noise

group (mean rank=59.79) than in the low noise group (mean rank=46.97; U=1064.5; p=.005).

See Table 6.

The comments about noise were analysed separately for the student open questions (the open

questions about student groups: ‘which group grabbed your attention most strongly – and

why’; ‘which group would you go to first - and why’; these are questions 1b and 2b).

Teachers did not differ here depending on condition in their number of comments regarding

noise (U=1375, p=.824). Again, see Table 6 for descriptive statistics.

75

Table 6

Descriptive Statistics for Sub-categories for Noise

Note: the mean and sum values are reported for the analyses here, since the median values

were not informative due to the heavy skew of the answers.

H1.2 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on the sitting

behaviour of students

Teachers made comments regarding the ‘sitting behaviour’ of students; this related to how

students were sitting or moving in the class, not in a positive way (e.g. the child was sitting

on the table nearly the whole time’, or ‘the child nearly fell off the chair’). These comments

relate to the students (i.e. the open questions about the student groups; questions 1b and 2b);

note, the subject of sitting behaviour in relation to the teacher question (recommendations for

the teacher for future group work; question 3b) is part of a subsequent analysis (organisation

60dB 75dB

Sub-category n M

(SD)

Min Max Sum n M (SD) Min Max Sum

Noise - rules 52 .077

(.33)

0 2 4 54 .28

(.49)

0 2 15

Noise – total

(‘teacher’

question)

52 .17

(.47)

0 2 9 54 .41

(.53)

0 2 22

Noise

(‘student’

questions)

52 .42

(.75)

0 3 22 54 .43

(.69)

0 2 23

76

and intervention strategies) and not included here. Teachers did not significantly differ

between noise conditions in their focus regarding the sitting behaviour of the students

(U=1251; p=.282). See Table 7.

Table 7

Descriptive Statistics for Sitting Behaviour

H1.3 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on students’

work on task

Here, the teachers’ comments regarding ‘work on task’ were compared between noise

conditions. These were comments relating to students being engaged and working on task;

the sub-category of work on task included negative or inconclusive/neutral comments (e.g.

‘this group did not work on the task which they should have been working on’), while the

sub-category of work on task – positive, included explicitly positive comments.

This related to the behaviour of the students (open questions for student groups: which group

grabbed your attention most strongly - and why; which group would you go to first - and

why; questions 1b and 2b); note, the subject of work on task in relation to the teacher

question (recommendations for future group work; question 3b) is part of a subsequent

analysis (organisation and intervention strategies) and is not included here.

60dB 75dB

Sub-category n M

(SD)

Min Max Sum n M

(SD)

Min Max Sum

Sitting

behaviour

52 .63

(.99)

0 4 33 54 .72

(.86)

0 4 39

77

Again, due to the two tests performed here, a Bonferroni correction was carried out, so that

the α- level was adjusted to 0.025. Firstly, it was found that teachers made significantly more

comments regarding ‘work on task’ in the high noise group (mean rank = 60.04) than in the

low noise group (mean rank = 46.71; U=1051; p= .019). Again, this related to work on task

comments which were negative or inconclusive/neutral. When only specifically positive

comments regarding work on task were analysed, there was no significant difference between

teachers in the noise conditions (U=1230, p=.209). See Table 8.

Table 8

Descriptive Statistics for Work on Task

60dB 75dB

Sub-category n M

(SD)

Min Max Sum n M

(SD)

Min Max Sum

Work on

task (not

positive)

52 .85

(.98)

0 3 44 54 1.28

(1.0)

0 4 66

Work on

task

(positive)

52 .48

(.78)

0 3 25 54 .59

(.69)

0 2 32

78

H1.4 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on student

participation

Teachers made comments regarding the participation of students in groups; for instance, if

students were included in the group, or if students discussed the task with each other first

before carrying it out. Again, this was relating to student behaviour (the open questions for

student groups; questions 1b and 2b); note, the subject of participation in relation to the

teacher question (recommendations for future group work; question 3b) is part of a

subsequent analysis (organisation and intervention strategies) and not included here. The

analysis showed that teachers did not significantly differ between noise conditions in their

focus regarding student participation (U=1342.5; p=.650), nor did they differ for explicitly

positive comments regarding participation (U=1312; p=.337). See Table 9.

Table 9

Descriptive Statistics for Participation

60dB 75dB

Sub-category n M

(SD)

Min Max Sum n M

(SD)

Min Max Sum

Participation

(not positive)

52 .50

(.78)

0 3 26 54 .57

(.84)

0 3 31

Participation

(positive)

52 .25

(.62)

0 3 13 54 .13

(.39)

0 2 7

79

H1.5 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on student

conflict

The number of comments which teachers made regarding student conflict were analysed. An

example of one of these comments: ‘in the group in the back left there was a small scuffle’.

This relates to student behaviour (open questions pertaining to student groups; questions 1b

and 2b). Teachers did not significantly differ between noise conditions in their focus

regarding conflicts among students (U=1267.5; p=.141); note that the statistic for the exact

test is reported due to the low number of comments regarding conflict. See Table 10.

However, there was a tendency to notice conflict more in the low noise condition. It is

important to mention the following: one possibility is that participants in the high noise

condition adopted a strategy to deal with the noise by just trying to get through the situation

as quickly as possible, and thus not paying attention or investing attentional resources in the

task (Cohen & Weinstein, 1981); however, the total number of comments over questions did

not differ significantly between noise conditions (for student questions: U=1350, p=.73; for

the teacher question: U=1250.5, p=.317). Thus, it appears as though participants did answer

the questions to a similar extent in both conditions.

Table 10

Descriptive Statistics for Student Conflict

60dB 75dB

Sub-category n M

(SD)

Min Max Sum n M

(SD)

Min Max Sum

Conflict 52 .19

(.44)

0 2 10 54 .09

(.35)

0 2 5

80

H1.6 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on the subject

of visibility

The comments related to the main category of visibility included the categories visibility –

moving around (moving around to check progress), positive visibility, negative visibility, and

proximity. Combining the categories into their main category helped to maintain clarity; in

other words, this level of abstraction (at the level of the main category) was deemed

appropriate and relevant for investigating the hypothesis (Mayring, 2014).

Positive visibility refers to comments about being able to see or hear the situation well (e.g. ‘I

would go to this group because I understood them and could see them the best’), while

negative visibility refers to not being able to see or hear the situation well (e.g. ‘I could not

see what they were actually doing’). Proximity is for comments about the decision to take

action solely based on the position of the observer in the room (e.g. ‘I would start with the

table which is closest to me’). Visibility - moving around means comments relating to the

behaviour of getting up to move and monitor progress or behaviour of students (e.g. ‘I would

change my position during teaching a number of times, in order to keep an eye on all

groups’).

In this case, the questions regarding both the student groups (questions 1b and 2b) and the

teacher (question 3b) are relevant, and so the answers to these questions, in regards to

visibility, were combined and analysed together. In terms of content, they are closely related,

so it was deemed appropriate to analyse the subject of visibility over all answers. Teachers

gave significantly more comments regarding visibility in the low noise group (mean rank

=60.60) than in the high noise group (mean rank=46.67; U=1035; p=.014). See Table 11.

81

Table 11

Descriptive Statistics for Visibility (all sub-categories)

H1.7 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on visibility –

moving around (moving around to check understanding and progress of students)

Here, the comments teachers made regarding moving around to check the progress of

students were analysed. This sub-category was analysed individually, since these comments

specifically relate to the behaviour of a teacher to get up and monitor students: in other

words, this can be seen as particularly relevant for monitoring the classroom, with less

emphasis on the characteristics of the video itself. This sub-category is also individually

specific for the concept of interactive teaching (e.g. Gettinger & Kohler, 2006) in the context

of the low-profile-approach to dealing with disruption (e.g. Borich, 2007b, cited in Helmke,

2009, p. 188).

It was deemed relevant to analyse the total number of comments about visibility – moving

around, over both the student (questions 1b and 2b) and teacher questions (question 3b)

where this subject was mentioned; the answers are all semantically related to the main topic

of physically moving around in order to check the progress of students.

60dB 75dB

Sub-category n M

(SD)

Min Max Sum n M

(SD)

Min Max Sum

Visibility

(all)

52 1.44

(1.38)

0 5 75 54 .80

(.96)

0 4 43

82

Teachers gave significantly more comments regarding moving around to check the progress

of students in the low noise group (mean rank= 58.48) than in the high noise group (mean

rank= 48.7; U=1145; p=.036). See Table 12.

Table 12

Descriptive Statistics for Visibility – Moving Around

H1.8 High classroom noise leads to changes in how many general positive comments

were given regarding teacher performance

General positive comments given for the teacher (i.e. for the question relating to

recommendations for the teacher for future group work; question 3b) were analysed between

noise conditions. Teachers in the low noise group (mean rank= 56.1) gave significantly more

positive comments related to teacher performance, than teachers in the high noise group

(mean rank= 51; U=1269, p=.026). Note that due to the low amount of comments, the result

of an exact test of significance was reported here. See Table 13.

60dB 75dB

Sub-category n M

(SD)

Min Max Sum n M

(SD)

Min Max Sum

Visibility –

moving

around

52 .46

(.67)

0 2 24 54 .22

(.50)

0 2 12

83

Table 13

Descriptive Statistics for General Positive Comments

H1.9 High classroom noise leads to changes in which group the teachers elect to go to

first

The teachers’ responses relating to the question ‘which group would you go to first’ (question

2a) were analysed between noise conditions. For this analysis, the group the teacher would go

to first (i.e. either group 1, 2, 3 or 4) is relevant. The results here relate to the repeated

measures part of the experiment (i.e. this question was given at both time points).

Lehmacher’s test for marginal homogeneity (which tests if the distribution is the same at first

sample as at second sample) could not be used, due to the assumptions it makes regarding

expected frequencies in the row and column sums: these need to be at least 10 (Bortz &

Lienert, 2008, p. 125). There were four cells which did not meet this assumption; thus, this

test was not able to be carried out.

The McNemar-Bowker test was used to test if there were changes in responses over the two

time points (in other words, the answers of the same participant exposed to different noise

levels at each time point). It was found that pre-service teachers did not significantly differ

between conditions according to which group they would go to first (χ2 (4,101)=6.369; p=.173;

60dB 75dB

Sub-category n M

(SD)

Min Max Sum n M

(SD)

Min Max Sum

General

positive

comments

52 .10

(.30)

0 1 5 54 0 0 0 0

84

see Table 14); however, it is important to note here that 11 cells (68.8%) had an expected

count of less than five, and this reduces the accuracy of this test; in other words, due to the

cells with low expected counts, the chi-square approximation was reduced (Oberfeld-Twistel,

2010) . One way to deal with this (low expected counts) is to combine the cells in a

semantically relevant way (Kuckartz, Rädiker, Ebert, & Schehl, 2013, p. 97). In this case, that

means that the front groups and back groups are combined together. This approach is

relevant, since results have shown that with more noise, teachers may tend to focus on salient

and obvious aspects (here, the front groups - most easily visible), and the results here have

shown also that teachers in the low noise group focussed more on moving around to check

the progress of groups; thus it is conceivable that with less noise, teachers may check the

back groups more often. This combination of cells was carried out and McNemars’ test was

performed on this 2x2 table. Teachers in the high noise condition focussed significantly more

on the front groups, than teachers in the low noise condition (χ2 (1,101)=12.328, p=.049). See

Table 15. Note that due to missing data, there were n=101 at 60dB and n=102 at 75dB.

Table 14

Frequencies for ‘Which Group would you go to First’: per Group

60dB 75dB

Which

group

first?

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

9 73 15 4 12 79 7 3

Note. Group 1 is the front left group on the video; group 2 is the front right group; group 3 is

the back left group; group 4 is the back right group.

85

Table 15

Frequencies for ‘Which Group would you go to First’: for Front and Back Groups Combined

Which group first? (groups

combined)

60dB 75dB

Front groups 82 91

Back groups 19 10

Note. Front groups refer to groups 1 and 2. Back groups refer to groups 3 and 4.

H2.1 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on

organisational strategies in the classroom

Here, the categories relating to organisational strategies (noise - rules, classroom layout,

materials, clear instruction – task, clear instruction – social, group composition) were

combined and analysed together. As mentioned above, this combination of categories (i.e.

level of abstraction) was deemed appropriate for investigating this hypothesis (e.g. Mayring,

2014). This is related to the teacher question (recommendations for future group work;

question 3b). These categories all relate to strategies which the teacher would implement

before starting the work task, and thus are referred to as ‘organisational’ (versus

‘intervention’, which is reported underneath).

Teachers did not differ in how much they focussed on organisational strategies between the

conditions (U= 1351.5, p=.732). See Table 16. Also, when removing the influence of the sub-

category related to noise (noise - rules), which was reported above, there was more of a

tendency for focussing on organisation strategies in the lower noise condition; however, the

difference remained non-significant (U=1233.5, p=.261). See also Table 16.

86

Table 16

Descriptive Statistics for Organisational Strategies (with and without ‘noise – rules’)

H2.2 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on intervention

strategies in the classroom

The teachers gave comments regarding interventions which they would carry out (sitting

behaviour interventions, interventions - noise, interventions – work on task, interventions –

participation). These come from the teacher question (recommendations for future group

work; question 3b).

These categories relate to strategies which the teacher would implement during the task

situation, as opposed to before the task has started; thus, they are referred to here as

‘interventions’. Again, this combination of categories (i.e. level of abstraction) was deemed

appropriate for answering this hypothesis (e.g. Mayring, 2014). Teachers did not differ

60dB 75dB

Categories n M

(SD)

Min Max Sum n M

(SD)

Min Max Sum

Organisational

strategies

52 1.71

(1.47)

0 6 85 54 1.50

(1.22)

0 5 79

Organisational

strategies

(without

‘noise- rules’)

52 1.63

(1.43)

0 6 81 54 1.22

(1.06)

0 4 64

87

between noise conditions in how many interventions they named (U=1322, p=.553). See

Table 17.

Table 17

Descriptive Statistics for Intervention Strategies

H2.3 High classroom noise leads to changes in how much teachers focus on intervening

in the classroom

Teachers were asked the question ‘were there situations in which an intervention of the

teacher was necessary?’ (question 3a) and had to respond with yes/no. This result relates to

the repeated measures part of the experiment (i.e. the question was given at both time points).

As stated above, McNemar’s Test was used to analyse this question. Teachers did not

significantly differ in how much they would have intervened in the situation, depending on

the noise condition (χ2 (1,101)= 2.250, p=.134). However, there was a tendency for more

intervention in the high noise condition. See Table 18. Note that due to missing data, there

were n=101 at 60dB and n=102 at 75dB.

60dB 75dB

Category n M

(SD)

Min Max Sum n M

(SD)

Min Max Sum

Intervention

strategies

52 .38

(.80)

0 3 20 54 .50

(.67)

0 2 27

88

Table 18

Frequencies for Intervention (Yes/No)

Would you intervene? 60dB 75db

Yes 43 53

No 58 48

4.4 Summary of the most important results

Firstly, when giving recommendations for what the teacher could do next time, teachers in

the high noise condition gave significantly more suggestions for creating rules to deal with

noise, than those in the low noise group. Also for this question, there were significantly more

comments about the subject of noise in general in the high noise condition than in the low

noise condition.

In the high noise condition, teachers focussed more on the subject of the students’ work on

task, than those in the low noise condition: in particular, this related to more negative (or

inconclusive/neutral) comments about the work on task of students when there was more

noise. Furthermore, teachers in the high noise condition focussed significantly more on the

student groups at the front of the class, in comparison with teachers in the low noise

condition.

There was a tendency to note more student conflict in the low noise condition, however the

difference was not significant. Participants in the low noise condition focussed more on the

subject of visibility in their answers, taking this more into account than participants in the

high noise condition. In particular, getting up to move around to monitor the progress and

behaviour of students was focussed on more in the low noise condition. There were

89

significantly fewer general positive comments for the performance of the teacher in the high

noise condition, compared to the low noise condition.

Teachers did not differ significantly between noise conditions in terms of how many

organisational strategies, or intervention strategies, they recommended. Teachers in the high

noise condition tended to want to intervene more in the situation, however this was not

significantly different to those in the low noise condition.

90

Discussion

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of noise on teacher performance, and more

specifically, classroom management. In other words, classroom management was taken as a

measure of teacher performance, and it was investigated, which aspects of classroom

management the teachers focussed on and how this was influenced by noise. Participants

watched a short video twice, once at a lower (60dB) and once at a higher (75dB) noise level,

and had to pedagogically assess this situation (with regards to both the students in the video,

and the teacher who had organised the classroom situation).

Firstly, a short summary of the literature outlined in the introduction will be presented.

Previous studies on subjects such as stress and motivation have shown that noise does affect

teachers in the classroom (Kristiansen et al., 2013). However, there has been a lack of

research on the effect of noise on teacher performance. Even though this has been a neglected

area of study, research in related fields on the influence of noise on focus and performance

suggests various effects. Firstly, it has been demonstrated that with noise, there is a tendency

to focus on obvious and noticeable aspects of a situation, and to neglect the less obvious

aspects (e.g. Klatte, Meis, & Schick, 2002). Furthermore, noise has been shown to influence

the choice of strategies for carrying out a task (Smith & Broadbent, 1991), so that with noise,

the simplest and most familiar strategies tend to be chosen, even if they are not optimal in the

situation. Noise has also been shown to influence concentration and working memory

performance (e.g. Ising et al., 1996). Finally, noise has been demonstrated to reduce the

processing of social cues (Cohen & Weinstein, 1981; Jones et al., 1981). These findings

could have implications for the concept of classroom management investigated in this study.

Specifically, based on the theoretical framework outlined in the introduction, classroom

management in the current study consisted of four main aspects; these included elements of

91

the classroom environment, the level of work involvement of students, the social interactions

between students, and aspects of visibility in the situation. These were further sub-divided

into manifest expressions of classroom management; a list of these can be found in the

methods section.

With regards to the second research question concerning the intervention style of teachers,

research has shown that noise may increase anger, irritability and reduce helping behaviour

(Cohen & Spacapan, 1984; Schönwälder et al., 2004), which could conceivably reduce the

patience of teachers (Klatte et al., 2010) and promote a more controlling and direct approach

to managing student behaviour in the classroom.

In sum, this body of research suggests that the classroom management focus and intervention

strategies of teachers could be influenced by noise. In the following, the results of the current

study will be discussed, grouped according to significant behavioural differences which were

seen between noise conditions, and compared with the existing literature.

5.1 Noise and the tendency to focus on the obvious aspects of the situation

The tendency for teachers to focus more on the obvious aspects of the situation when it is

noisy will be discussed in this section. The results from the following three areas: focus on

noise itself (sub-categories: noise – rules, intervention – noise), work on task, and the

decision of which group to go to first, are relevant here and will be looked at in turn. Firstly,

the amount of focus on noise itself was different between noise conditions; when giving

recommendations for what the teacher could do better in a future group situation, the pre-

service teachers in the high noise group focussed more on making rules to deal with noise

than those in the low noise group (e.g. ‘an anchor – part of the organisational framework in

the class – such as wind chimes, is rung when it gets too loud’, or ‘provide an acoustic signal

92

for if it gets too loud for a student or the teacher’). They also focussed more on the subject of

noise in general (both creating rules or intervening directly; e.g. comment for intervening

with noise: ‘when it is too loud then intervene’) when giving recommendations to the teacher.

This may to be in line with findings that with more noise, focus tends to be placed on

noticeable and obvious aspects of a situation (Klatte et al., 2002): with more noise, the noise

itself may become a noticeable aspect of the situation, and teachers seem to then focus more

strongly on the noise.

Secondly, the amount of focus placed on the theme of work on task varied between noise

conditions. When asked about the student groups, pre-service teachers in the high noise group

focussed significantly more on the subject of ‘work on task’ of the students, compared to in

the low noise group. Specifically, this related to work on task when not mentioned in an

explicitly positive way; answers included ‘this group did not work as fast as the others’, ‘I

had the feeling, this group did not work on the task which they should have been working

on’. Since the students were given a task to work on, an obvious point to focus on is how they

are going on the task itself (such as their progress on the task or how quickly they start work),

and the theme of ‘work on task’ was focussed on strongly in both groups. This is in line with

Doyle’s (2005) statement that work involvement is the most well used student behaviour

dimension in studies of classroom management; also here it appears to be an important area

of focus for teachers. Of course, this is reasonable, since students need to be on-task in order

for learning to occur (Emmer & Stough, 2001). However, there was significantly more focus

on this theme in the high noise group; this appears to again be in line with the research

showing that noticeable and obvious aspects of a situation are more in focus when there is

more noise (Klatte et al., 2002). One possibility here is that the noise itself is perceived as a

cue that work is not being done properly. Teachers may see this as a cue that students need

more assistance. It could be that instead of perceiving the noise itself as something to be

93

reduced, they may focus instead on the poor work progress of students themselves. Related to

this possibility: pre-service teachers did not differ in how much they focussed on the subject

of noise in the student questions (questions 1b and 2b); potentially, instead of focussing on

the noise, they may have taken the noise as a cue that work was not being done properly, and

then focussed instead on the work on task of students.

Thirdly, the choice of which group to attend to first differed depending on noise. Pre-service

teachers in the high noise group elected to go significantly more often to the front groups

first, than the teachers in the low noise condition. Across both noise conditions, the front

groups were focussed on more than the back groups in general. This is in line with research

showing that students sitting at the front and centre of the classroom area interact most

frequently with the teacher (Adams, 1969; Doyle, 2005). However, why did participants in

the low noise group focus more on the back groups, than those in the high noise group? One

possibility is that the front groups are obvious aspects of the situation, and as discussed

above, the noticeable aspects of a situation tend to receive more focus when there is more

noise (e.g. Klatte et al., 2002).

When judging the sitting behaviour of students (answers included: ‘the child was sitting on

the table nearly the whole time’ or ‘the child nearly fell off the chair’), there were no

significant differences between teachers in different noise conditions. This is relating to how

the students were sitting or moving in the classroom. However, this subject was an important

one for all participants, with 33 comments about sitting behaviour in the low noise and 39

comments in the high noise conditions. How the students were sitting or moving about the

classroom may indeed be considered a salient and obvious aspect of the situation, however,

here there were no significant differences between conditions. Nonetheless, the results

discussed above show that when it is noisier, teachers tend to generally focus on the obvious

aspects of a situation. These findings may also suggest reduced monitoring of the class by the

94

teacher: if the teacher focusses only on the most obvious and salient aspects in the class,

she/he may miss what is going on in the background. In the following section, this influence

of noise on monitoring the class is discussed in more detail.

5.2 Noise and monitoring the class

It has been mentioned above that teachers in the loud noise condition focussed more on

aspects such as the noise itself, work on task, or the most prominent and obvious groups. This

raises the question, what were they missing? In the following, how noise affects the

monitoring ability of teachers will be discussed; specifically, with respect to the variables

concerning student conflict, visibility in general and moving around to check on students

(visibility – moving around). Firstly, a short recap from the introduction regarding the

concepts which are relevant for this section: ‘monitoring the class’ and ‘withitness’ (Doyle,

2005; Kounin, 1970, in Doyle, 2005). Principally, these concepts are related to ‘noticing

things’ (Snoeyink, 2010), and they can be understood as an awareness of what is going on in

the classroom. Teachers who are ‘withit’ pay attention to student behaviour, can notice

discrepancies early on (Doyle, 2005) and then respond to individuals (Snoeyink, 2010).

Berliner (2001) also emphasises the importance of recognising relevant cues early in the

classroom, in order to manage the class better. Research has shown that novice teachers are

generally not as ‘withit’ as experienced teachers: a recent eye-tracking study showed that

novice teachers process visual information slower, check up on pupils less regularly and miss

more classroom events/cues for action, than experienced teachers (Van den Bogert et al.,

2014).

To start with, conflicts among students can be an important cue for action. In the current

study, pre-service teachers in different noise conditions did not significantly differ in how

95

much they focussed on conflict among the students; however, there was a tendency for more

comments regarding conflict in the low noise condition. Example answers to illustrate this

point include: ‘this group quarrelled a few times’, ‘first I would settle the dispute in the front

right group’, ‘in the group in the back left there was a small scuffle’. In total, there was a low

number of comments specifically regarding conflict in either noise condition (10 at 60dB and

5 at 75dB), although it was focussed on more often in the low noise group.

That many teachers did not appear to notice or report student conflicts may indeed reflect the

findings mentioned above regarding a lower degree of withitness in novice teachers;

furthermore, from the results of this study, it seems that noise could compound this even

more. In understanding this effect of noise, other research has shown negative effects of noise

on concentration and working memory (Ising et al., 1996); this could help explain

participants missing the cues of conflict in this class. Moreover, research has suggested that

when people focus on the salient aspects of a situation due to noise exposure, they can

neglect subtle interpersonal cues, such as a child in distress (Cohen & Spacapan, 1984). In

summary, it is possible that teachers may miss events in the class due to noise, and this point

warrants further research.

Next, the topic of ‘visibility’ will be discussed. Pre-service teachers focussed more on the

subject of visibility in the low noise condition than the high noise condition. This included

responses such as ‘I would go to this group because I understood them and could see them

the best’, ‘the group at the front right: I could not see what they were actually doing’, ‘I

would start with the table which is closest to me’. It is important to note that this study used

videos which were shown to participants. For the participant, each group was not equally

visible in the video, and they could not change the focus to get a better view; thus, the topic

of visibility was an important aspect to consider. However, it was focussed on significantly

less in the high noise condition. Firstly, the topic of visibility may be interpreted as a non-

96

salient aspect of the situation: it is not an obvious aspect, and requires more thought to

consider it before judging something. In other words, in contrast to immediately judging

student’s behaviour, one first needs to think about if one can actually see and understand the

situation properly; so, considering the situation in more detail before reacting. Secondly, this

topic is important to consider in the context of monitoring. As mentioned earlier, with less

noise teachers may have more attentional resources on hand to be able to pay attention to

other aspects of the situation (Cohen & Spacapan, 1984). Thus, they are able to consider

aspects of the situation such as visibility: how well they can really see and hear the students.

Following on from this is a specific aspect of visibility: teachers specifically stating they

would move around to monitor students. Pre-service teachers in the low noise conditions

gave significantly more comments regarding moving around the classroom to monitor

students (visibility – moving around). An example answer: ‘I would change my position

during teaching a number of times, in order to keep an eye on all groups’. The findings here

are partly related to the previous section on visibility: this aspect of visibility, ‘visibility –

moving around’, was investigated further individually, since it specifically encompasses an

active approach to monitoring students.

Participants focussed more on this active approach in the low noise condition. To explain

this, teachers may have more attentional resources to be more curious and active in

monitoring, in the low noise condition (e.g. Cohen & Spacapan, 1984). Whereas teachers in

the high noise condition often focussed directly on the work progress of students, teachers in

the low noise condition may be more cautious in their appraisal of students: they are not

clear, so they would actively move to check them out first. This also relates to the findings

mentioned above regarding which group the teachers would go to first: teachers in the low

noise group appear more curious about those in the back groups, and more open to moving to

them and monitoring them. One hypothesis as to why teachers move around to check the

97

students more when it is quieter, could be in relation to withitness: perhaps with less noise,

teachers are more ‘withit’ and may have noticed something, but they may have wanted more

information and clarity - which they didn’t have at that time - and thus, actively monitor

students more closely, in order to get this clarity.

These findings have implications for how teachers deal with disruption. The low-profile-

approach to dealing with disruptive behaviour (outlined in the introduction) has been shown

to be a successful strategy (e.g. Borich 2007b, cited in Helmke 2009, p. 188). One element of

this approach is anticipation (e.g. monitoring the class); also, the concept of interactive

teaching (e.g. moving around the classroom in order to observe students and behaviour;

Gettinger & Kohler, 2006) is a related part of this approach. Thus, by monitoring the class

less and not moving around the classroom to check on students when there is more noise,

teachers may be employing a less effective strategy for dealing with disruption.

Furthermore, reduced monitoring in the class may also have implications for student

motivation. If teachers miss students who do not understand the task, or who are not

participating or engaged in conflict, the students could conceivably lose motivation for the

task (e.g. material related learn motivation, motivation related to goals; e.g. Schiefele, 2008).

Motivation is an important aspect of effective teaching (e.g. Helmke, 2009, p. 214).

Related to monitoring, previous research has shown that noise reduces the processing of

social cues (Cohen & Weinstein, 1981; Jones et al., 1981), and thus, it was expected that

other social cues may be missed in the high noise condition. However, pre-service teachers

did not differ under high or low noise on how much they focussed on student participation in

the group (example answers included ‘the group was not united’, ‘I would ask the girl at the

back to participate’, ‘the same boy always did the writing – the cooperation in the group was

not good’; or, on the positive side, ‘the girls divided out the tasks’, ‘they worked together

98

very well’). Thus, in terms of the participation analysed here, it does not seem to be the case

that social processing is reduced with more noise. It is interesting to note, that while this was

a prominent area of attention for all participants (in total 39 comments at 60dB, and 38

comments at 75dB), it was focussed on less than work on task, and particularly less so in the

loud noise condition.

In summary, the results above indicate that teachers may miss certain things happening in the

class when it is noisy; in other words, noise may reduce ‘withitness’ in the classroom.

However, the data from the current study are not conclusive on this point, and future studies

can investigate this further.

5.3 Noise and an interventionist approach

In the preceding discussion on monitoring, it was seen that with less noise, teachers appear to

consider more aspects of the situation before reacting. In other words, when there was less

noise teachers appeared more cautious and curious in their appraisal of the situation. This

suggests that with less noise, teachers may use a less direct approach to classroom

management. To address this issue in more detail, the results from the subjects of

‘organisational strategies’, ‘intervention strategies’ and ‘intervention frequency (yes/no)’ will

be discussed.

Firstly, teachers did not differ between conditions in how much they focussed on

organisational strategies. It was expected that teachers would take a more direct and

controlling approach to classroom management with more noise, and thus maintain a more

‘preventative’ and less direct approach with less noise. This did not appear to be the case in

regards to organisational strategies. When comments about noise itself were not included in

the analysis, there did appear to be a tendency for more focus on organisation strategies in the

99

low noise condition, however, this remained non-significant. In any case, organisation

strategies were mentioned numerously in both conditions, and this may be due to the question

itself: it was targeted at ‘further’ group work. A more specific form of questioning regarding

organisation and intervention strategies (e.g. of the current group work – ‘what would you

have done differently?’) may also be worth researching in the future.

Secondly, pertaining to which recommendations they would give teachers for future group

work, pre-service teachers did not differ significantly between conditions in how many

interventions (intervention strategies) they recommended. Thirdly, when asked if they would

have intervened in this situation (yes/no), pre-service teachers did not differ significantly

between conditions. However, there was a tendency to have intervened more in the high noise

condition. This will be further explored in the following. Other research shows that noise

increases irritability and reduces helping behaviour (Smith & Broadbent, 1991). Irritability

may be increased if, for example, teachers perceive the noise as a cue that students have not

listened, or are upsetting other students who are trying to learn. This may indeed reduce the

patience of teachers (Klatte et al., 2010), which may precipitate a more controlling and

directive approach to classroom management. Martin and Sass (2010) describe interventionist

and non-interventionist approaches to managing the classroom. While an interventionist style

aims for a high level of control over students, non-interventionists have a minimally directive

or less controlling approach to classroom management. One form of learning which is related

to the non-interventionist approach is cooperative learning: this is where the teacher acts as

more of a facilitator and may intervene less and give the students the chance to learn in

groups (Shaddock Bellamy, 2016; Emmer & Stough, 2001; Slavin, 1995). Developing social

competences and increasing accountability for learning are some of the goals of cooperative

learning (Helmke, 2009, p. 211).

100

In line with this, Stronge and colleagues (2011) found that the most successful teachers

encouraged student responsibility. In summary, the cooperative learning approach does

appear to have positive results. On the other hand, positive benefits for the interventionist

approach have been found (e.g. Soars & Soars, 1979, in Griffey, 1983). In total, both of these

approaches appear to have advantages depending on the situation. However, directly in a

group activity such as this is where skills such as working with peers and independent

learning can be developed. Further, group situations have also been shown to be one of the

most prevalent in primary school situations (Galton et al., 1999, in Dockrell & Shield, 2006)

and group work is where high noise can be expected. Thus, the quality of student’s learning

in group work is highly important, and also susceptible to noise since noise is prevalent in

group situations. However, noise could potentially reduce the willingness of teachers to use a

less controlling approach or to maintain the role of a facilitator; conceivably, this could

hinder students in developing skills important in collaborative groups and cooperative

learning. If teachers for instance do perceive the noise itself as being a cue that students are

not working and that intervention is necessary (as suggested above), then adopting a non-

interventionist approach to group work (where noise is present) could be a challenging task

and may require extra attention in teacher training programs.

In summary, certain findings of the current study (such as the tendency to move around to

check on students or take visibility into account in the low noise conditions) suggest that

teachers take on a more inquisitive approach when there is less noise, however in total, the

current results are not enough to confirm or rebuke this point, and it is recommended that

future research investigate this in more detail.

101

5.4 The effect of beliefs about control over the noise

The beliefs people have regarding their levels of control over the source of noise influence

how they perceive noise: perceiving little control over the noise is associated with emotions

such as helplessness (e.g. Cohen & Spacapan, 1984). This issue will be discussed in regards

to the variables related to noise: noise – rules (making rules for noise), and interventions –

noise (intervening about the noise). Even though there was significantly more focus placed on

noise in the high noise group, still only a proportionately low number of participants even

commented on noise in this group (in the high noise group, 15 comments were made related

specifically to making rules to deal with the noise, and in total, only 22 comments from this

group addressed the subject of noise in general). In other words, although there was a

significant difference between this group and the low noise group, still less than half of the

participants in the high noise group mentioned the subject of noise at all. There could be

different reasons for this. Firstly, personality factors such as noise sensitivity have a large

impact on the influence that noise has (e.g. Laszlo et al., 2012), and while some participants

did seem to be affected by noise (for example, one participant stated that ‘with this noise

level, I personally could not teach for 40 or more years’), perhaps some participants were just

not as affected by noise (please note, further studies from this research group will address

these factors). Secondly, the lack of suggestions or interventions regarding noise may reflect

the perception of a lack of control in relation to the noise. Even though the duration of the

video shown was only short (roughly five minutes), the participants could not do anything

about the noise level while watching it. Also, the participants had already had teaching

experience in a classroom, and possibly had already developed an attitude of a lack of control

regarding noise at the levels shown in the video. The perception of lack of control has been

shown to be associated with feelings of helplessness and anger (Cohen & Spacapan, 1984;

Laszlo et al., 2012). For instance, Evans and Johnson (2000) reported that office workers

102

subjected to even moderately low levels of noise who had little control over the noise,

showed signs of learned helplessness afterwards. The authors stated that it is not necessarily

the intensity of sound which makes noise stressful, but the uncontrollability of sound which

plays a crucial role. Using this lens, the comments that the participants did make relating to

noise in this study may be interpreted positively, as a form of actively coping with the noise;

indeed, this active coping has been shown to lead to lower noise annoyance (Laszlo et al.,

2012).

Particularly the comments regarding creating rules (or, procedures) to deal with the noise,

such as a gesture to indicate that it is too loud, can be seen positively; procedures are related

to specific behaviour and are implemented for situations which occur often, and they are an

important part of efficient classroom management: especially procedures which are backed

up with signals (e.g. gestures such as a finger in front of the mouth to indicate that it is too

loud) have the potential to relieve pressure for the teacher (Helmke, 2009, p. 182). In

summary, these strategies can be recommended in order to deal with noise.

One point about control beliefs relating to noise which may be interesting for future studies to

investigate, is related to the assessment of the students: in their assessment of students’

ability, are teachers only able to give marks based on work standard, or also attitude and

motivation? The effect of this type of assessment, or grading, of the students may also play a

role in beliefs which teachers have about their ability to control the noise. In future studies,

teacher attitudes regarding controlling noise in the classroom and their coping strategies with

noise could be an important topic of research, which may have implications, for instance, on

teachers’ well-being. See also the section on practical implications for further discussion on

this topic.

103

5.5 The effect of noise on evaluations about students and teacher

Some of the results point to a tendency for teachers to be more negative about evaluations of

both students and teacher when there is more noise. Firstly, pre-service teachers in the low

noise group gave significantly more positive comments to the teacher in this situation; these

were general comments such as ‘I found the organisation and execution of the teaching to be

good, and I would do it that way too’. Although this finding is difficult to interpret due to the

low level of positive comments in general (five vs zero), it may be an indication that teachers

focus more positively on the situation and evaluate the teacher more positively in lower noise

conditions. This is in line with results from a study showing that students rated other students

as well as their teacher as being less friendly and less patient with them in higher noise

conditions (Klatte et al., 2010); thus, it appears that teachers judging another teacher may also

rate them less positively when there is more noise.

Following on from this are results related to perception of the work progress of the students

(work on task). Teachers in the high noise condition focussed significantly more on the

negative or inconclusive/neutral aspects of work on task of students (there was no significant

difference between conditions regarding explicitly positive comments regarding work). In

other words, it appears to be the case that with more noise, teachers rate the work on task (or,

task-oriented achievement) of students more negatively. This would be in line with the results

from Klatte and colleagues (2010) mentioned above: that with more noise, teachers may be

quicker to perceive students more negatively.

To explain these results, it is important to note that typical teaching activities are complex

(e.g. teachers have a large amount of responsibility, need to store multiple units of

information in memory etc.) and this increases the probability that a stress reaction is evoked

with noise (Ising et al., 1996). Further, noise may increase feelings of annoyance (e.g.

104

Stansfeld & Matheson, 2003). Also, teachers may need to raise their voice when it is more

noisy, or repeat their instructions to the students; thus, it is conceivable that teachers could

react less patiently, or more negatively, with more noise and stress (e.g. Klatte et al., 2010).

These findings also match up with the results regarding moving around to monitor students: if

teachers are less patient when there is more noise, they would be more likely to react and

interpret the situation quickly and in a cursory manner, instead of being more careful and

checking first. This appeared to be the case in this study, as mentioned above.

How teachers perceive their students is an important factor in teaching and learning; indeed,

classroom atmosphere has been shown to affect academic performance (Dunn, 2009;

Adeyemo, 2012, cited in Shaddock Bellamy, 2016). Brophy notes the importance of a

cheerful disposition of the teacher in relation to creating a supportive classroom climate

(Brophy, 2000). Helmke underscores the importance of a supportive classroom climate in his

model of effective teaching: attributes of the teacher such as friendliness and care for

students, and a relaxed learning environment are important for learning (e.g. Helmke, 2009,

p. 220).

Reduced patience and a more negative evaluation of students from the teacher could also

have implications for the motivation of certain students: for example, some students are

motivated extrinsically by positive recognition for their achievement (e.g. Schiefele, 2008).

Due to noise, the teacher could potentially judge work quickly and more negatively, or miss a

cue regarding student achievement, due to reduced monitoring, so that students motivated in

this way may be left lacking.

Further work from this research group will address the effect of noise on the teacher’s

perception of students in more detail. In summary, the current research suggests that teacher’s

perception and assessment of their students (as well as another teacher) may be influenced

105

negatively by noise, and future research will be able to shed more light on this important

issue.

5.6 Fitting the results into models of effective teaching

In the preceding sections, the results of this study have been discussed. In this section, the

model from firstly, Helmke (2009), and secondly, Stronge and colleagues (2011) as well as

Danielson’s framework (2013) will be used in order to summarise and illustrate the results

relevant for the specific model.

The effects of noise indicated in this study are illustrated using the elements of effective

teaching in Helmke’s model; see Figure 4. Firstly, the component of quality of instruction is

implicated. This includes creating a supportive classroom climate (or, atmosphere conducive

to learning). Helmke notes that a positive student orientation as well as a relaxed learning

environment, friendliness and care for students constitute important aspects of effective

teaching and learning (2009, p. 220). In this study, teachers judged work on task more

negatively and tended to rate teacher performance less positively when there was more noise.

To explain this, teachers may perceive the noise itself as a cue that students are not working,

and further, increased annoyance may be experienced due to noise (e.g. Stansfeld &

Matheson, 2003). Also, in the classroom they may have to use a louder voice, repeat their

instructions more often or tell students to keep noise levels down, when it is noisier (e.g.

Klatte et al., 2010). In other words, teachers may feel more stress when it is noisier. Feeling

this kind of stress may reduce the teacher’s patience or friendliness with their students, in

comparison to teachers not exposed to this stress. In the long term, this could conceivably

contribute to a tenser social atmosphere in the class, and a less supportive classroom climate.

106

Another aspect of the quality of teaching is motivation. In this study, teachers showed less

readiness to move around the class to observe student progress, as well as judging the work

on task more negatively when there was more noise; thus, the actions teachers take which

may improve student motivation, such as monitoring of student understanding in order to

clarity a task when necessary, as well as giving students positive recognition for their work,

could be negatively influenced by noise.

In Helmke’s model, the component of the quality of instruction also affects the classroom

management of teachers; thus, a more negative classroom climate as well as reduced

motivation could also negatively influence classroom management. Furthermore, reduced

monitoring of the teacher can impact classroom management: this may lead to more

disruptions in the class (e.g. Doyle, 2005). To examine this further, in terms of the low-

profile-approach for dealing with disruptions (e.g. Borich, 2007b, cited in Helmke, 2009, p.

188), it can be seen that reduced anticipation of disruptions (reduced monitoring, as seen in

this study), and, related to this, reduced interactive teaching (such as less moving around the

classroom to observe student progress and behaviour, as was also indicated in this study; e.g.

Gettinger & Kohler, 2006), represent an ineffective method to deal with or prevent

disruption. In other words, noise may in this way contribute to a less effective approach to

handling disruptions, which may lead to more disruptions in the class. This may then

negatively impact the active learning time (i.e. when more time is spent on classroom

management than teaching or learning), in turn potentially impacting student achievement. In

summary, effects of noise (on the ‘quality of teaching’ as well as on ‘classroom

management’) can be illustrated using Helmke’s model of effective teaching.

107

In terms of the model from Stronge and colleagues, the largest effects of noise appear in

terms of the third dimension: the ‘learning environment’. A part of this dimension, related to

managing the classroom, is monitoring student behaviour. This may be negatively affected by

noise (as has been described above), and this may in turn impact another aspect of this

dimension: using the learning time well. A further facet of the ‘learning environment’ is

considering student’s social and personal needs. This may also be affected by noise: teachers

may react in a more cursory (and less inquisitive) fashion when there is more noise, and have

a tendency to negatively evaluate the work of students; this is unlikely to create an

atmosphere of mutual respect and attentiveness to student needs. Interestingly, Stronge et al.

(2011) found that student achievement is related in particular to the ‘learning environment’ in

the classroom. In summary, this model can be used to illustrate that by impacting in particular

the learning environment, noise can impact student achievement.

Figure 4: Helmke’s model of effective teaching (Helmke, 2009, p. 177; adapted). Translation: T. Haigh

Class Context

Class climate

Class composition

Teacher Personality

Professional knowledge

Competences

Pedagogical Orientation

Classroom Management

Dealing with disruption

Rules

Use of time

Active Learning

Time

Quality of Teaching

Atmosphere conducive to learning

Motivation

108

To summarise the impact of noise on Danielson’s framework, it can be seen that, in a similar

fashion to Stronge’s model, noise impacts the domains of ‘classroom environment’ as well as

‘instruction’. Managing student behaviour, including monitoring and responding to

misbehaviour, may be affected by noise, as discussed above. Further, the domain of

‘instruction’ incorporates engaging students in actual learning. If teachers focus primarily on

the most obvious aspects (e.g. students, groups) and monitor the others less, they may miss

opportunities for engaging all students effectively. In summary, these empirically validated

models of effective teaching may be influenced by noise in these ways. In the next section,

the results of this study, as outlined in the discussion, will be summarised.

5.7 Summary

In summary, the results here at least partially confirm that noise does influence the classroom

management focus of teachers. Pre-service teachers watching the same videos of the same

children performing the same tasks, focussed (at least in part) on different things depending

on noise levels. When there is more noise, focus tends to shift to more obvious aspects of a

classroom situation. With noise, teachers may miss relevant cues from individual students.

Also, when it is louder, teachers may interpret a situation faster, in a cursory manner, without

seeking out more information first. In short, noise may reduce the monitoring, or ‘withitness’,

of teachers. Further, teachers may rate the work of students more negatively with more noise.

The noise itself may act as a cue that students are not working on the task at hand, and then

teachers may perceive students as needing more assistance, or that they need to intervene

more. In summary, the results here indicate that noise can influence classroom management.

109

5.8 Limitations

The following are limitations of the current study. Firstly, the method of qualitative content

analysis is inherently interpretative, and will always have a subjective element involved with

it (Mayring, 2014). Secondly, this experiment was performed in a laboratory, where

participants watched a video. This reduces the ecological validity of the results. While the

control of extraneous variables would be difficult or perhaps inadequate in a natural setting

(e.g. Jones et al., 1981), performing studies in classroom settings would increase validity and

would enable a better investigation of the complexities and nuances of the effect (e.g. Stronge

et al., 2011). Thirdly, validity may have also been increased by comparing the responses of

novice teachers with experienced teachers. Experts tend to have a more global and functional

view of the classroom (e.g. Berliner, 2001). It could be interesting to compare the focus of

novice and expert teachers, and observe the effect that experience would have on judging

which events are important, or on which interventions or strategies should be implemented.

Fourthly, due to delays in the study, only part of the data was available for this thesis: this

was sufficient for the analyses performed here, however this impacted the experimental

design, so that the sequence the videos were shown in was not able to be controlled for.

Although experts have classified the videos as being equivalent, and it is improbable that

there was an effect of sequence, it is nevertheless recommended to collect further data (this

research group is currently in the process of carrying this out). Finally, while there was a lack

of males in comparison to females in the sample, this generally reflects the gender balance in

teaching in Austria (for example, in Austrian compulsory schools, 83% of teachers were

female in 2013/2014; BMBF, 2015).

110

5.9 Practical implications

One challenge in schools around the world today is to help a large proportion of students to

attain the levels of competence that were previously only within the reach of a few (Darling-

Hammond, 1996, in Stronge et al., 2011). Improving teaching is a crucial aspect of this: in

practice, ‘the common denominator of school improvement and student success is the

teacher’ (Stronge et al., 2011, p. 351). In this study it was seen that noise does appear to

affect teacher’s performance, in relation to classroom management. This is an important

finding since noise is a reality in classrooms, and further, teachers do not generally have the

skills needed to moderate the effects of noise; this seems to be even more so for novice

teachers (Dockrell & Shield, 2006; Dockrell et al., 2004). Importantly, research has shown

that appropriate strategies for dealing with noise can act as a buffer against its effects (Smith

& Broadbent, 1991). Thus, it appears that the learning of new strategies and receiving

feedback may support teachers (particularly novice teachers) to adapt effective strategies, in

order to deal with noise in everyday classroom situations. In short, the goal of such a program

for teaching these strategies should be to make pre-service teachers aware of the effect that

noise has on their classroom management strategies (for example, the effect on judging the

work progress of students, or monitoring the class).

This may be built into existing teacher education programs, to make education about the

effects of noise better than it is currently. One simple first step is outlined in the following:

showing the video from this study (roughly five minutes long) at two different noise levels,

and simply noting the effects this change in noise levels causes. This could be performed in a

lecture, for example, and incorporated easily into existing teacher training programs. In

summary, this would not need to last long, and students would get an experience themselves

of the effect of noise. Emmer and Stough (2001) recommend learning methods in teaching

education which promote a reflective-practitioner approach, as well as methods that position

111

learning in real events or contexts. They note that video may facilitate this and illustrate

varied contexts, as well as offer opportunity to analyse the situation. Furthermore, Helmke

(2009, p. 342) states that video allows an analysis of complex school and teaching situations

and their interpretation, again underscoring the effectiveness of video in teacher training.

Thus, showing a video of the situation may indeed be a simple yet effective method of

instruction regarding noise and its effects, and help to bridge the gap between this research

and practice.

Increased awareness about the effects of noise could potentially affect monitoring and

withitness in noisy classrooms. Furthermore, increased awareness about the effects of noise

may support teachers in consciously reappraising the behaviour of students; also, a further

key step could be emphasising the importance of active coping strategies to deal with noise,

since active coping has been shown to reduce noise annoyance (e.g. Laszlo et al., 2012).

These aspects address two important elements (firstly, the individual’s appraisal of noise, and

secondly, their perceived ability to cope with it) of a complex model of dealing with noise, a

model which takes into account the interaction between the person and their environment

(Passchier-Vermeer, 1993; Stansfeld & Matheson, 2003).This is expanded upon in the

following.

If noisy student behaviour is seen as intentional and controllable, teachers may experience

more anger, contributing to an unpleasant social atmosphere (Klatte et al., 2010), or also, to a

more direct approach to teaching (which, as noted above, may potentially have an impact on

students developing skills such as social competences and accountability). Therefore, specific

feedback regarding attitudes/ attributions towards the noise source could be key in developing

more effective attitudes, and such attitudes have been shown to be an important noise

annoyance modifier (Laszlo et al., 2012). In short, this ‘social side’ of noise is crucial, and

feedback may help to alter these attitudes and perceptions, thus preventing excess negative

112

influence of noise or noise annoyance (Maris, 2008). Future research could evaluate the

effect of interventions such as these; as relevant indicators of efficacy, for example,

monitoring pre-service teacher performance or reflection after practicum experience.

In conclusion, this research emphasises the effect of noise on teachers’ performance,

specifically relating to classroom management. The results provide strong arguments for

future research in this direction. Also, the implications outlined here are possible starting

points for the way forward: for teacher training programs to address this issue, should they

decide to do so.

113

Bibliography

Adams, R. S. (1969). Location as a feature of instructional interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of

Behavior and Development, 15(4), 309–321. Retrieved June 06, 2017, from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23082799

Åhlander, V. L., Rydell, R., & Löfqvist, A. (2011). Speaker’s comfort in teaching environments:

Voice problems in Swedish teaching staff. Journal of Voice, 25(4), 430–440. doi:

doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.12.006

Anfara, V., Brown, K., & Mangione, T. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research

process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38. doi: 10.3102/0013189X031007028

Babisch, W. (2002). The noise/stress concept, risk assessment and research needs. Noise Health,

4(16), 1-11. Retrieved from http://www.noiseandhealth.org/text.asp?2002/4/16/1/31833

Babisch, W., Fromme, H., Beyer, A., & Ising, H. (2001). Increased catecholamine levels in urine in

subjects exposed to road traffic noise: The role of stress hormones in noise research.

Environment International, 26(7–8), 475–481. doi: 10.1016/S0160-4120(01)00030-7

Barker, S. M., & Tarnopolsky, A. (1978). Assessing bias in surveys of symptoms attributed to noise.

Journal of Sound and Vibration, 59(3), 349–354. doi: 10.1016/S0022-460X(78)80003-0

Basner, M., Babisch, W., Davis, A., Brink, M., Clark, C., Janssen, S., & Stansfeld, S. (2014).

Auditory and non-auditory effects of noise on health. The Lancet, 383(9925), 1325–1332. doi:

10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61613-X

Basner M., Brink M., Bristow A., de Kluizenaar Y., Finegold L., Hong J. … Sörqvist, P. (2015).

ICBEN review of research on the biological effects of noise 2011-2014. Noise Health, 17(75),

57–82. Retrieved from: http://www.noiseandhealth.org/text.asp?2015/17/75/57/153373

Shaddock Bellamy, L. (2016) Classroom Environment: Content analysis examining characteristics of

classroom environments that affect students’ academic achievement (Doctoral dissertation, East

Tennessee State University). Retrieved from http://dc.etsu.edu/etd/3133.

Berliner, D. C. (2001). Learning about and learning from expert teachers. International Journal of

Education Research, 35(2001), 463–482. doi:10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00004-6

Beutel, M. E., Jünger, C., Klein, E. M., Wild, P., Lackner, K., Blettner, M., … Münzel, T. (2016).

Noise annoyance is associated with depression and anxiety in the general population- The

contribution of aircraft noise. PLOS ONE, 11(5), 1–10.

doi:doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155357

Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2006). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation [Research methods and

evaluation] (4th ed.). Heidelberg: Springer Medizin Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-33306-7

Bortz, & Lienert, G. A. (2008). Kurzgefasste Statistik für die klinische Forschung [Concise statistics

for clinical research] (3rd ed.). Heidelberg: Springer Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-75738-2

Bortz, Lienert, G. A., & Boehnke, K. (2008). Verteilungsfreie Methoden in der Biostatistik [Non-

parametric methods in Biostatistics] (3rd ed.). Heidelberg: Springer Medizin Verlag. doi:

10.1007/978-3-540-74707-9

Brophy, J.E. (2000). Teaching (Educational Practices Series, Vol. 1). Brussels: International Academy

of Education & International Bureau of Education. Retrieved from:

114

http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/archive/Publications/educationalpracticesserie

spdf/prac01e.pdf

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Frauen, Stockinger, S., & Schestak, S. (2015). Frauen und

Männer in Österreich: Gender Index 2015 [Women and Men in Austria: Gender Index 2015].

Vienna: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Frauen. Retrieved from

https://www.bmb.gv.at/frauen/gender/gender_index_2015.pdf?5lidom

Coe, R., Aloisi, C., Higgins, S., & Major, L. E. (2014). What makes great teaching? Review of the

underpinning research. United Kingdom: Durham University. Retrieved from:

http://dro.dur.ac.uk/13747/1/13747.pdf

Cohen, S., & Spacapan, S. (1984). The social psychology of noise. In D. M. Jones & A. J. Chapman

(Eds.), Noise and Society (pp. 221-245). Michigan: Wiley.

Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In

S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Health (pp. 31–67). Newbury Park,

CA: Sage Publications.

Cohen, & Weinstein. (1981). Non-auditory effects of noise on behavior. Journal of Social Issues,

37(1), 36-70.

Council for Exceptional Children, (2009). What Every Special Educator Must Know: Ethics,

standards, and guidelines (6th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.

Danielson, C. (2013). The framework for teaching: Evaluation instrument. Princeton, NJ: Danielson

Group. Available from: http://www.danielsongroup.org/framework/

Davies, D. R., & Jones, D. M., (1975). The effects of noise and incentives upon attention in short term

memory. British Journal of Psychology, 66(1), 61-68. doi:doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-

8295.1975.tb01440.x

Dockrell, J., & Shield, B., (2006). Acoustical Barriers in Classrooms : The Impact of Noise on

Performance in the Classroom, British Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 509–525. doi:

doi.org/10.1080/01411920600635494

Dockrell, J. E., Shield, B. M., & Rigby, K. (2004). Acoustic guidelines and teacher strategies for

optimising learning conditions in classrooms for children with hearing problems. In D. Fabry &

C. DeConde Johnson (Eds.), Proceedings of the first international conference. ACCESS:

Achieving Clear Communication Employing Sound Solutions 2003 (pp. 217-228). Chicago, IL:

Phonak.

Doyle, W. (2005). Ecological Approaches to Classroom Management. In C. M. Evertson & C. S.

Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of Classroom Management. Research, practice and contemporary

issues (pp. 97-125). New Jersey: Routledge. Retrieved from:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/243771420_Classroom_organization_and_managemen

t

Dreossi, R. C. F., & Momensohn-Santos, T. (2005). Noise and its interference over students in a

classroom environment: literature review. Pró-Fono Revista de Atualização Científica, 17(2),

251-258. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-56872005000200014

Emmer, E. T., Evertson, C. M., & Anderson, L. M. (1980). Effective classroom management at the

beginning of the school year. The Elementary School Journal, 80(5), 219–231.

doi:doi.org/10.1086/461192

Emmer, E. T., & Gerwels, M. C. (2002). Cooperative learning in elementary classrooms: Teaching

practices and lesson characteristics. The Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 75-91. doi:

doi.org/10.1086/499716

115

Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational

psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 103–112.

doi:doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_5

Evans, G. W., & Johnson, D. (2000). Stress and open-office noise. Journal of Applied Psychology,

85(5), p. 779. doi:doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.5.779

Evertson, C. M., Emmer, E. T., Clements, B. S & Sanford, J. P. (1981). Organizing and managing the

elementary school classroom. Austin, Texas: Texas University, Research and Development

Centre for Teacher Education. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED223570

Fields, J. M. (1992). Effect of personal and situational variables on noise annoyance: With special

reference to implications for en route noise (Report No. FAA-AEE-92-03). Washington, DC:

Federal Aviation Administration and NASA. Retrieved from:

http://ia700509.us.archive.org/17/items/nasa_techdoc_19930012128/19930012128.pdf

Filser, H. (2010, May 19). Wie bitte? In deutschen Klassenzimmern ist es viel zu laut. Darunter leiden

Lehrer und die Leistungen der Schüler. Forscher hätten Lösungen, aber die will keiner hören

[Excuse me? In German classrooms it is much too loud. Teachers and the performance of

students suffer due to this. Researchers have solutions, but no one wants to hear them].

Süddeutsche Zeitung: WISSEN. Retrieved August 20, 2017 from:

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/laerm-in-deutschen-klassenzimmern-wie-bitte-1.910424

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a

stressful encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 50(5), 992–1003. doi:doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.992

Funk, J. S. (2015). Intrapersonelle Determinanten der traditionellen und nicht-traditionellen Studien-

und Berufswahl von Männern und Frauen [Intra-personal determinants of traditional and non-

traditional choices for study and profession] (Master's thesis). Karl-Franzens University, Graz

Austria.

Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement

and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148–162.

doi:doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148

Gettinger & Kohler, 2006. Process-outcome approaches to classroom management and effective

training. In: C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weintein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management.

Research, practice, and contemporary issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 73-95.

Goines, L. & Hagler, L. (2007). Noise pollution: A modern plague. Southern Medical Journal,

100(3), 287-294.

Gordon, T., & Bruch, N. (1974). Teacher effectiveness training. New York, NY: PH Wyden.

Günther, M. A. (2013). Erfassung der Lärmsituation in steirischen Volksschulklassen sowie des

Hörvermögens und subjektiven Lärmempfindens von VolksschullehrerInnen [Capturing the

noise situation in Styrian primary school classes, as well as the hearing ability and subjective

response to noise from primary school teachers] (Master's thesis). Karl-Franzens University,

Graz Austria.

Helmke, A. (2009). Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität. Diagnose, Evaluation und

Verbesserung des Unterrichts [Instructional quality and teacher professionality. Diagnosis,

evaluation, and enhancement of teaching] (3rd Ed.). Seelze-Velber, Germany: Kallmeyer.

Hotter, E., & Zollneritsch, J. (2009). [Review of the book Lärm in der Schule [Noise in Schools], by

E. Hotter & J. Zollneritsch]. Graz-Leykam.

Hygge, S. (2014). Classroom noise and its effect on learning. In 11th International Congress on Noise

as a Public Health Problem (ICBEN), Nara, Japan. Retrieved from:

116

http://www.icben.org/files/4_k%20StaffanHygge_1.pdf

Ising, H., Sust, C. A., & Rebentisch, E. (1996). Lärmbeurteilung - Extra-aurale Wirkungen [The

evaluation of noise - extra-aural effects]. (Arbeitswissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse No. 98).

Dortmund, Germany: Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin. Retrieved from:

https://www.baua.de/DE/Angebote/Publikationen/AWE/AWE98.html

Ising, H., Sust, C. A, & Plath, P. (2004). Gesundheitsschutz 4. Lärmwirkungen: Gehör, Gesundheit,

Leistung [Health protection 4. Effects of noise: hearing, health, performance] (11th Ed.).

Dortmund, Germany: Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin. Retrieved from:

https://www.baua.de/DE/Angebote/Publikationen/Praxis/Gs04.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=9

Job, R. F. S. (1996). The influence of subjective reactions to noise on health effects of the noise.

Environment International, 22(1), 93–104. doi:doi.org/10.1016/0160-4120(95)00107-7

Jones, D. M., Chapman, A. J., & Auburn, T. C. (1981). Noise in the environment: A social

perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1(1), 43–59. doi:doi.org/10.1016/S0272-

4944(81)80017-5

Kaiser, A. & National Center for Educational Statistics. (2011). Beginning teacher attrition and

mobility: Results from the first through third waves of the 2007–08 beginning teacher

longitudinal study (NCES 2011-318). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational

Statistics. Retrieved from: https://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011318

Klatte, M., Hellbrück, J., Seidel, J., & Leistner, P. (2010). Effects of classroom acoustics on

performance and well-being in elementary school children: A field study. Environment and

Behavior, 42(5), 659–692. doi:doi.org/10.1177/0013916509336813

Klatte, M., Meis, M., & Schick, A. (2002). Lärm in Schulen – Auswirkungen auf kognitive

Leistungen von Kindern [Noise in Schools - Effects on the cognitive performance of children].

In L. Huber, J. Kahlert, & M. Klatte (Eds.), Die akustisch gestaltete Schule. Auf der Suche nach

dem guten Ton [The acoustically designed school. On the search for the right tone] (pp. 19–42).

Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Klemenjak, M. (2015). Retrospektiver Einfluss der schulischen Sozialisation auf die Studienwahl bei

Frauen – Überwindung des Gender-Gap in MINT-Studienfächern [Retrospective influence of

socialisastion in the school on the choice of study by women - Overcoming the gender gap in

MINT subjects] (Master's thesis). Karl-Franzens University, Graz Austria.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and

recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30(3), 411–433.

doi:doi.org/10.1093/hcr/30.3.411

Kristiansen, J., Persson, R., Lund, S. P., Shibuya, H., & Nielsen, P. M. (2013). Effects of classroom

acoustics and self-reported noise exposure on teachers’ well-being. Environment and Behavior,

45(2), 283–300. doi:doi.org/10.1177/0013916511429700

Kuckartz, U., Rädiker, S., Ebert, T., & Schehl, J. (2013). Statistik: Eine verständliche Einführung

[Statistics: An understandable introduction] (2nd Ed.). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer-Verlag.

doi:doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19890-3

Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: directions for future research. Educational Review, 53(1), 27–35.

doi: dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131910120033628

Laszlo, H. E., McRobie, E. S., Stansfeld, S. A., & Hansell, A. L. (2012). Annoyance and other

reaction measures to changes in noise exposure - A review. Science of the Total Environment,

435-436, 551–562. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.06.112

Lewis, R. (1999). Teachers coping with the stress of classroom discipline. Social Psychology of

Education, 3(3), 155–171. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009627827937

117

Maris, E. (2008). The Social Side of Noise Annoyance (Doctoral dissertation). Leiden, The

Netherlands: University Leiden. Retrieved from:

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/13361/?sequence=3

Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative Content Analysis. Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and

Software Solution. Klagenfurt: Beltz. Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-

ssoar-395173

Moskowitz, G., & Hayman Jr., J. L. (1974). Interaction patterns of first-year, typical, and “best”

teachers in inner-city schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 67(5), 224–230.

doi:doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1974.10884612

Münzel, T., Gori, T., Babisch, W., & Basner, M. (2014). Cardiovascular effects of environmental

noise exposure. European Heart Journal, 35(13), 829-836.

doi:doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu030

Oberfleld-Twistel, D. (2010). Bowker (1949) test for symmetry: Exact test. Retrieved August 22 2017

from: http://library.wolfram.com/infocenter/MathSource/7634/

Passchier-Vermeer, W. (1993). Noise and Health (Publication No. A93/02E). The Hague: Health

Council of the Netherlands. Retrieved from

https://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/sites/default/files/A9302E_1.pdf

Raggam, R. B., Cik, M., Höldrich, R. R., Fallast, K., Gallasch, E., Fend, M., … Marth, E. (2007).

Personal noise ranking of road traffic: Subjective estimation versus physiological parameters

under laboratory conditions. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health,

210(2), 97–105. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2006.08.007

Schiefele, U. (2008). Lernmotivation und Interesse [Motivation to learn and interest]. In W. Schneider

& M. Hasselhorn (Eds.), Handbuch der Pädadgogischen Psychologie (pp. 38-49). Göttingen:

Hogrefe

Schönbächler, M. T. (2006). Inhalte von Regeln und Klassenmanagement [Content of rules and

classroom management]. Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Bildungswissenschaften, 28(2), 259–

273. Retrieved from: nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0111-opus-41493

Schönwälder, H., Berndt, J., Ströver, F., & Tiesler, G. (2004). Lärm in Bildungsstätten: Ursachen und

Minderung [Noise in educational institutions: causes and reduction]. (Report No. Fb 1030).

Bremerhaven: NW Verlag für neue Wissenschaft. Retrieved from: The Federal Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health:

https://www.baua.de/DE/Angebote/Publikationen/Schriftenreihe/Forschungsberichte/2004/Fb10

30.html

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Research on cooperative learning and achievement : What we know, what we

need to know. Contemporary educational psychology, 21, 43-69

Smith, C. P. (2000). Content analysis and narrative analysis. In T. Reis & C. Judd (Eds.), Handbook

of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 313–335). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press

Smith, A. P., & Broadbent, D. E. (1991). Non-auditory effects of noise at work: A review of the

literature (HSE Contract Research Report, 30). London: HMSO

Smith, A. P., Jones, D. M., & Broadbent, D. E. (1981). The effects of noise on recall of categorized

lists. British Journal of Psychology, 72(3), 299-316.

Snoeyink, R. (2010). Using Video Self-Analysis to Improve the“ Withitness” of Student Teachers.

Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 26(3), 101-110.

Stansfeld, S. A., & Matheson, M. P. (2003). Noise pollution: Non-auditory effects on health. British

118

Medical Bulletin, 68(1), 243–257. doi:doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldg033

Steinlechner, P. (2013). Entwicklung eines Fragebogens zur Erhebung der Belastungssituation von

Volksschullehrer/innen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Faktors Lärm (BeVo-L)

[Development of a questionnaire for surveying the stress situation of primary school teachers,

with special respect to the factor of noise] (Master's thesis). Karl-Franzens University, Graz

Austria.

Steinlechner, P. (2017). Noise in the classroom: Psychological, physiological and pedagogical Effects

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation in preparation). Karl-Franzens University, Graz Austria.

Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., & Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case

analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal of

Teacher Education, 62(4), 339–355. doi:doi.org/10.1177/0022487111404241

Van den Bogert, N., van Bruggen, J., Kostons, D., & Jochems, W. (2014). First steps into

understanding teachers’ visual perception of classroom events. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 37, 208–216. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.09.001

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1994). What helps students learn? Spotlight on

student success (Report No. LSS-Ser-209). Philadelphia, PA: Mid-Atlantic Laboratory for

Student Success. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED461694.pdf

World Health Organization (2011). Burden of disease from environmental noise. Bonn, Germany:

World Health Organization (WHO).

Wild, E., & Möller, J. (2015). Pädagogische Psychologie (2nd ed.). Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.

119

Appendix A

Questionnaire

Notes on the construction of the Questionnaire: For the assessment of learning atmosphere,

(the first section) an adapted version of the Lernatmosphäre survey (Learning atmosphere;

Pisa 2003 ad Lernumfeld, adapted items from Ditton et al., 2002; appended, documented in

Neumann, 2001) was used. For the pupil assessment, the Beobachtungsbogen Partner bzw.

Gruppenarbeit (Questionnaire for Partner and Group Work; Böhmann, 2011, adapted) was

used. For the teacher evaluation, three self-constructed items regarding the organisation

and performance of the teacher were included.

Note, only the questions in bold were included in the current thesis.

QUESTIONNAIRE ‘pedagogical evaluation of the group work’

Information to the video/ group work:

- First time they have done a group work – the introduction/explaining of group work has

been done already

- Theme – Seasons of the year: make a poster of them

- Material is available in the class already

- Position of the teacher is just outside of the camera, near the washing basin at the front

- Info given to students - try to work alone without teacher, when there are questions, go to

the teacher only when really necessary

Please evaluate the situation shown in the video:

1. The Class

How did you perceive the conditions in this class? Please describe your impression of the classroom

climate, learning atmosphere and the spatial conditions in the following questions.

Questions Answer format Most children in this class get on well with each other. The students are very restless/unsettled in the class

I had the feeling that the students kept causing fidgety noise (knocking with their feet,

rattling objects)

A few children kept disturbing the class

The atmosphere among the students is appreciative and respectful

At the end of the video, I had the feeling that my head would ‘burst’

In this class, the children help each other

1 - Strongly disagree

2 - Disagree

3 - Somewhat disagree

4 - Somewhat agree

5 - Agree

6 - Strongly agree

120

When you think of the video you have just seen, how strongly did you feel stressed or annoyed by the noise in the class?

not at all 1 somewhat 2 moderately 3 strongly 4 extreme 5

2.The students

How did you go with observing the students? Please answer, how you perceived the groups

overall, and how you would evaluate the work of each individual group.

a. Perception of the groups overall

Nr Question Answer format 1a

Which group grabbed your attention most strongly?

Girls front left 1 boys front right 2 boys back left 3 girls back right 4

1b Please explain your answer:

Open – please write answer in the space provided

2a Please indicate in which order you would go to the individual groups?

Girls front left 1 boys front right 2 boys back left 3 girls back right 4

2b Please explain your answer:

Open

121

b. Individual evaluation for each group (Group 1/2/3/4)

How do the students start with the work?

1 2 3 4 5 6 not able to evaluate

1 Rapidly slowly

2 discussing it with each other not discussing it with each other

3 each alone together

4 immediately concentrated only after a long time

5 quietly, without disrupting others

loudly, and disrupting others

How was the cooperation in the group?

1 2 3 4 5 6 not able to evaluate

6 equality in the group one person dominated

7 Supportive Individuals were left out

Did problems occur?

1 2 3 4 5 6 not able to evaluate

8 Students worked in a concentrated way

Students were distracted

9 Students occupy themselves with the task at hand

Students occupy themselves with something else

10 Students are motivated Students are not enthusiastic

11 conflict free work environment

Conflicts are not solved

Which feedback would you give each group? (open question, please write answer underneath here)

..................................................................................................................................................................

How would you grade the group? (A B C D E) A B C D E

3.The Teacher

Now evaluate the organisation and execution of the group work by the teacher. Please give critical

feedback: what worked, where do you see opportunities for improvement?

(Note: this refers to the teacher who was not on the video, who had organised the group work)

122

Nr Questions Answer format

1 Was the choice of the theme appropriate for a first group work, in your opinion? yes 1 somewhat yes 2 somewhat not 3 no 4

1 Was the group work organised well (as far as you can tell)? yes 1 somewhat yes 2 somewhat not 3 no 4

1 Was the sitting arrangement appropriate for this task? yes 1 somewhat yes 2 somewhat not 3 no 4

3a Were there situations in which an intervention of the teacher was necessary? Yes - no

3b Which recommendations would you give the teacher, regarding the organisation / execution of future group projects?

open

4 Is there something else that you noticed which you would like to share? open

Finally, please assess how difficult the evaluation was for you:

Question Answer format

How simple / difficult did you find the pedagogical evaluation of the class seen in the film?

very difficult 1 difficult 2 simple 3 very simple 4

123

Appendix B

Coding Manuals

Q2_1b Which group grabbed your attention most strongly – and why?

Main Category: Classroom Environment

Subcategory Definition Example Rule

Noise Dealing with noise in the classroom

‚he spoke very loudly‘ ‚the group was very loud‘

Explicitly naming the theme noise (not explicitly positive)

Noise - Positive Dealing with noise in the classroom, when indicated in a positive way

‚they worked without much noise‘ ‘this group was in general much quieter’

Explicitly naming the theme noise in a positive way, as in quiet working

Sitting behaviour Dealing with behaviour of students relating to sitting, standing, laying down or moving about the room

‚sitting on the table‘ ‚swinging on the chairs‘

Explicitly naming a behaviour in relation to sitting, standing, laying down, moving around (e.g. getting materials) (not explicitly positive)

Positive Sitting Dealing with behaviour of students relating to sitting, standing, laying down or moving about the room in a positive way

‚the children stayed at their places‘

Explicitly naming a behaviour in relation to sitting, standing, laying down, moving around (e.g. getting materials) in an explicitly positive way

Ruhig (calm) Dealing with the general theme of calmness in the classroom (ruhe)

‚the group worked very calmly‘

The word ‘ruhe’ or ‘ruhig’ is mentioned; Not explicitly clear that it is about positive noise

Unruhig (not calm) Dealing with the general theme of disruption in the classroom (unruhe)

‚the group was not calm‘

The word ‘unruhe’ or ‘unruhig’ is mentioned; Not explicitly clear that it is about noise

124

Main Category: Social Interactions

Subcategory Definition Example Rule

Participation The theme is relating to social behaviour or social interaction – relating to participation of students, inclusion of students in the group, group behaviour

‘I wanted to know how the kids divided their work’ ‚directly in front of me, the group dynamic was different than the other groups‘ ‘directly in front of me, one boy did not do anything for a while, did not interact with the other students’

The theme of participation, inclusion of students: in other words relating specifically to social aspects of the group (e.g. division of labour or group composition) is the main subject of the utterance (with no specifically positive connotation) (if there is no specific social aspect, then it is work on task)

Participation - Positive The theme relates to social interaction – in an explicitly positive way

‚they talked about the design straight away‘

The theme of participation, inclusion, social aspects of the group is named in an explicitly positive way

Conflict The theme of conflict and how it is dealt with in the group

‚I would stop the conflict‘ ‘there was a quarrel’

The theme of conflict is explicitly named, or it is related to a particularly confronting or conflicting style in the group

Main Category: Work involvement

Subcategory Definition Example Rule

Working on task Main topic of sentence relates to working on the task

‚they were not on task‘ ‘they did not work fast’

The topic of work (or a work process) is explicitly named and is the main theme of the utterance; or it is clear that a work process is implied e.g. helping the students to begin; there is no positive connotation (unless there is a specific social theme of the utterance, it is marked

125

as work on task)

Working on Task – Positive

Main topic of sentence relates to working on the task – in an explicitly positive way

‚the group at the front right made the impression of being organised‘

The topic of work or work processes is named in a positive way

Main Category: Visibility

Subcategory Definition Example Rule

Positive Visibility Dealing with the theme of visibility relating to position in class or from the video

‘they were the easiest to see and hear’

The theme of visibility (seeing) or understanding (hearing) is explicitly named in a positive way, and not in relation to moving around to get a better view

Negative Visibility

Dealing with the theme of visibility relating to position in class or from the video

‚I could not see the back group‘ ‘I did not hear much from them’

The theme of visibility (seeing) or understanding is explicitly named (not in a positive way), and not in relation to moving around to get a better view

Proximity Dealing with the theme of proximity in choosing where to go

‚simply because they sat at the front‘

The theme of proximity (choosing where to go based only on spatial properties) is indicated

Differentiating rule: when something is not clearly different or when a sentence expands upon a

previous point, it is marked as one entry; only when it is clear that there are two different themes,

then it is marked differently.

2_2b In which sequence (order) would you go to each of the individual groups? – Please explain your answer.

Main Category: Classroom Environment

Subcategory Definition Example Rule

Noise Dealing with noise in the classroom

‚they discussed loudly‘ ‚the group had a loud work volume’

Explicitly naming the theme noise (not in a positive way)

Noise - Positive Dealing with noise in the classroom, when indicated in a positive

‚I would prase the group for their quiet work‘

Explicitly naming the theme noise in a positive way, as in

126

way ‘they made less noise’ quiet working

Sitting Behaviour Dealing with behaviour of students relating to sitting, standing, laying or moving about the room

‚they were sitting on the table‘ ‘they were moving around’

Explicitly naming a behaviour in relation to sitting, standing, laying down, moving around (e.g. for materials) (not explicitly positive)

Ruhig (calm) Dealing with the general theme of calmness in the classroom (ruhe)

‚in the back it was more calm‘ ‘the group was very calm in my opinion’

The word ‘ruhe’ or ‘ruhig’ is mentioned; Not explicitly clear that it is about positive noise

Unruhig (not calm) Dealing with the general theme of disruption in the classroom (unruhe)

‚at the front it was not calm‘

The word ‘unruhe’ or ‘unruhig’ is mentioned; Not explicitly clear that it is about noise

Main Category: Social Interactions

Subcategory Definition Example Rule

Participation The theme of social interaction or behaviour – relating to participation of students, inclusion of students in the group, team work, group behaviour

‚I would ask that girl to participate‘ ‘the group was not united’ ‚

The theme of participation, inclusion of students, or relating specifically to social aspects of the group (e.g. division of labour) is the main subject of the utterance (with no specifically positive connotation) (if there is no specific social aspect, then it is work on task)

Positive Participation The theme relates to social interaction – in an explicitly positive way

‚the group seemed very harmonious‘

The theme of participation, inclusion, social aspects of the group is named in an explicitly positive way

Conflict The theme of conflict and how it is dealt with in the group

‚they were rough with each other‘

The theme of conflict is explicitly named, or it is related to a confronting or conflicting style in the group

127

Main Category: Work involvement

Subcategory Definition Example Rule

Working on task Main topic of sentence relates to working on task

‚it took a long time for them to begin’ ‘they do not have a plan’ ‘they are not on task’

The topic of work (or a work process) is explicitly named and is the main theme of the utterance; or it is clear that a work process is implied e.g. helping the students to begin; there is no positive connotation (unless there is a specific social theme of the utterance, it is marked as work on task)

Work on Task (positive)

Main topic of sentence relates to a positive aspect of working on task

‚they have a plan‘ ‚they worked on the task at hand‘

The topic of work or a work process is explicitly named, in a positive way

Main Category: Visibility

Subcategory Definition Example Rule

Visibility - Positive Dealing with the theme of visibility relating to position in class or from the video

‚I could see this group well‘ ‘I could observe them the whole time’

The theme of visibility (seeing) or understanding (hearing) is explicitly named in a positive way, and not in relation to moving around to get a better view

Moving Around to increase visibility

Dealing with the theme of visibility in relation to moving around in the classroom in order to monitor students

‚I could not see them and wanted to get an overview of how they are working‘ ‘I could not see the children in the background, and because of this I would go to them first’

This relates to visibility, not in a positive way, in relation to moving around in order to increase visibility or understanding

Proximity Dealing with the theme of proximity in choosing where to go

‚I would simply make a round in a counter clockwise way‘ ‘I would start with the table nearest me’

The theme of proximity (choosing where to go based only on spatial properties) is indicated

128

Main Category: No Pedagogical Explanation

No Pedagogical Explanation

No pedagogical explanation has been included in the entire answer given

‚some children do not need help, at least that is how it looks‘ ‘that’s just how I make a round’

The answer given has no pedagogical explanation in it

Unclear Statement Single utterances in an entire answer which do not fit clearly into another category (e.g. participation or work on task) since there is no clear reason ‘why’ given

‚I would like to know from the girls at the front what their idea is’

In the statement, it is unclear ‘why’ this action is performed (mostly relating to checking progress of a group, without a particular reason given)

Differentiating rule: Where groups are clearly described separately. When there is a clearly different

theme per utterance (when something is not clearly different or when a sentence expands upon a

previous point, it is marked as one entry; only when it is clear that there are two different themes,

then it is marked differently).

Q3b What would you recommend to the teacher for the organisation and execution of future group work?

Main Category: Classroom Environment

Subcategory Definition Example Rule

Sitting Behaviour Dealing with behaviour of students relating to sitting, standing, laying or moving about the room

‚do not allow children to sit on the tables‘ ‘no swinging on chairs’

Explicitly naming a negative behaviour in relation to sitting, standing, laying down, moving around; (if it is mentioned in relation to class layout, then it is marked in class layout)

Noise - Rules Refers to setting up classroom rules or procedures to handle noise in the classroom

‚make a signal beforehand, music or a ritual‘ ‘provide an acoustic signal’ ‚make volume traffic lights‘

Explicit mention of creating a rule or procedure, which is done before the start of work; (if not stated before work, then classified as intervention); It is related to noise, not in relation to work processes or social interactions for this task;

129

Class Layout

Refers to the physical layout of the classroom, such as desks and chairs and use of space

‚make greater distances between the tables‘ ‘give the opportunity to design the poster on the floor’

The theme is using the physical space of the classroom; the utterance is relating to using space or layout of classroom in relation to work; (if it is more negative about how students are sitting, this is ‘Sitting Behaviour’)

Positive Class Layout Refers to the physical layout of the classroom, such as desks and chairs and use of space, in an explicitly positive way

‘the sitting arrangement worked well’

The theme is using the physical space of the classroom or layout of classroom, in an explicitly positive way

Material Refers to materials required for tasks

‚first get the work materials, and only then begin with work‘ ‘put the material in reaching distance’

The theme of materials for working is mentioned: e.g. preparing material, having correct material

Intervention – Noise Refers to the behaviour of students in relation to the classroom environment (noise)

‚now and then refer back to the volume‘ ‘now and again reduce the working volume’

The theme of classroom environment (noise) relating to the behaviour of students or how the teacher would deal with this, while students are actually working on the task (not before they start – this is then a rule), is the subject of the utterance

Group Composition This refers to the composition or creation of groups

‚Mix up the groups with boys and girls‘ ‘divide up the boys at the front right into another group’

This refers to the creation of groups, the heterogeneity of groups

130

Main Category: Social interactions

Subcategory Definition Example Rule

Clear Instruction - Participation

This refers to clear instruction before the begin of work, in relation to social interaction

‚make rules for group discussions‘ ‘make clear instructions, so that not just one child works and others watch’ ‘first clarify role allocation’

The theme of instructing students in relation to participation of students in the group, roles of students, group behaviour; it is clear that it is in relation to instructing students before the start of the task (if not, then it is an intervention) (if not clearly socially related, then goes in work on task)

Intervention – Participation

Refers to the behaviour of students in relation to social interactions

‚make sure that all group members are involved‘ ‘the groups should communicate with each other’

The theme of social interactions of students, including participation, roles of students, group behaviour, while students are actually working on the task (not before they start – then it relates to clear instruction - group), or how the teacher would deal with this, is the subject of the utterance (if not clearly socially related, then put in work on task)

Main Category: Work involvement

Subcategory Definition Example Rule

Clear Instruction – Work on task

Refers to instruction about the task or work processes for the task

‚first, discuss goals with the children‘ ‘present a structure for the poster’ ‘a precise explanation at the start’

Refers to teacher instruction relating to the task, or work processes for the task, or guidelines relating to the task; (e.g. time limits, examples of

131

correct work)

Intervention - Work Refers to the behaviour of students in relation to the task and work processes

‚motivate the boys a bit more‘ ‘now and then demand discipline and attention’ ‘the groups should not work on other things’

This relates to student behaviour relating to working on the task and work processes, or how the teacher would deal with this; it is specifically in relation to during work time, not before work has started (then it would be in ‘clear instruction’)

Main Category: General Positive Comments

Subcategory Definition Example Rule

This refers to positive comments in general

‚the learning climate was very pleasant‘ ‘the execution and organisation I found to be good, I would also do it that way’

This refers to utterances with a positive comment for the current group work, which is not relating to class layout (then it would be ‘Positive Class Layout’)

Main Category: Unclear Statements

Single utterances in an entire answer which do not fit clearly into another category (e.g. participation or work on task) since there is no clear reason ‘why’ given

‘Group works should be introduced much earlier‘

In the statement, it is unclear ‘why’ this action is performed (mostly relating to checking progress of a group, without a particular reason given)

Main Category: Visibility

Moving Around - Visibility

Dealing with the theme of moving around in the classroom in order to

‘I would change my position multiple times, to be able to keep all groups in

This relates to moving around in order to increase visibility or understanding

132

monitor students view’

Negative Visibility Dealing with the theme of visibility relating to position in class or from the video

‘in this short video, it was not clear enough for me, if I would change anything so much’ ‚unfortunately, the input from beforehand is not known‘

The theme of visibility (seeing) or understanding is explicitly named (not in a positive way), and not in relation to moving around to get a better view

Main Category: Missing Data

There is no answer given, or the data is missing

There is no answer given, or the data is missing

Differentiating utterances in each answer: if there is a category mentioned more than once in an

answer, it is only marked more than once if it is clearly different each time.

Q2 – Group feedback – Which feedback would you give the group? (open question)

Main Category: Praise

Subcategory Definition Example Rule

Noise - positive Dealing with noise in the classroom, when indicated in a positive way

‘quiet working

Explicitly naming the theme noise in a positive way, as in quiet working

Ruhig (calm) Dealing with the general theme of calmness (ruhe)

‚you have worked very calmly‘

The word ‘ruhe’ or ‘ruhig’ is mentioned; Not explicitly clear that it is about positive noise

Sitting - positive

Dealing with behaviour of students relating to sitting, standing, laying down or moving about the room in a positive way

‚all were sitting at their places‘

Explicitly naming a behaviour in relation to sitting, standing, laying down, moving around in an explicitly positive way

Participation - positive This deals with themes of participation, inclusion, teamwork, group behaviour, when mentioned in a positive way

‚nice cooperation‘ The theme of social aspects of the group such as participation, discussing work as a group, division of labour is the main topic of the utterance; it has a positive connotation

Work on task - positive

Main topic of sentence relates to a

‘well prepared’ ‘working quickly’

The topic of work or a work process is

133

positive aspect of working on task

explicitly named, in a positive way

General Positive Comment

This refers to general positive comments

‚keep going like that‘ This refers to utterances with a positive comment for the current group work which is not further specified

Main Category: Criticism

Subcategory Definition Example Rule

Noise Dealing with noise in the classroom

‚very loud‘ Explicitly naming the theme noise (not in a positive way); can also be advice for how to behave in the future.

Unruhig/ not calm Dealing with the general theme of disruption in the classroom (unruhe)

‚it would be nice when you could work a bit more calmly‘

The word ‘unruhe’ or ‘unruhig’ is mentioned; Not explicitly clear that it is about noise

Sitting

Dealing with behaviour of students relating to sitting, standing, laying or moving about the room

‚I would ask them to sit on their chairs‘

Explicitly naming a behaviour in relation to sitting, standing, laying down, moving around (not explicitly positive)

Participation The theme of social interaction or behaviour – relating to participation of students, inclusion of students in the group, team work, group behaviour

‚they should work as a group‘

The theme of social aspects of the group such as participation, discussing work as a group, division of labour is the main topic of the utterance; it is not explicitly positive; it can be advice for how to behave in the future

Work on task Main topic of sentence relates to a negative aspect of working on task

‚there are no results at the end‘ ‘they should focus more on the task at hand’

The topic of work or a work process is explicitly named or clearly implied, and not in a positive way; can also be named as advice for how to behave in the future

134

Conflict The theme of conflict and how it is dealt with in the group

‚they should speak about conflict‘

The theme of conflict is explicitly named, or it is related to a confronting or conflicting style in the group

Main Category: Missing Data

There is no answer given, or the data is missing

There is no answer given, or the data is missing

Main Category: Negative Visibility

Negative Visibility Dealing with the theme of visibility relating to position in class or from the video

‚unfortunately I did not look at this group enough in the video‘

The theme of visibility (seeing) or understanding is named (not in a positive way)

Differentiation rule: when something is not clearly different or when a sentence expands upon a

previous point, it is marked as one entry; only when it is clear that there are two different themes,

then it is marked accordingly.