Does Noise Affect How Children Learn Grammar in the Classroom?

Does Noise Affect How Children Learn Grammar in the Classroom?

Ashlynn Mayo

2023

In a classroom environment noise can be a significant impediment, obstructing and distorting essential information being taught. Extensive prior research consistently indicates that noise has a detrimental impact on learning, those who learn in noise retain and comprehend far less information than their counterparts who learn in quiet. To date there are no studies that investigate the effect of noise on learning grammar specifically -the primary aim of the current study is the address this research gap. This paper details our recruitment of 16 children aged 7– 12 through the Babylab database at Lancaster university. This study employed a between participants design, where children completed a three-part audio evaluation, engaged in an artificial grammar paradigm, and a undertook a working memory task. The artificial grammar paradigm was employed as our primary assessment tool, participants were exposed to the grammar either in noise or in quiet. Results were analysed using a multiple regression with total grammar score as the dependent variable and age, gender, condition, and working memory as the independent variables. In contrast the prior research, our results revealed that the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable was statistically nonsignificant, proving our null hypotheses to be true. These findings suggest that background noise does not affect how children learn grammar in the classroom challenging the existing understanding that noise negatively impacts learning.
Analysis
In order to answer our research questions we will carry out a multiple linear regression using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 28). We will be employing a between participants design where we will examine the effect of background noise (noisy and quiet) on total grammar score. Our additional independent variables will be working memory, gender and age. If we find a statistically significant result with regard to grammar score then we will be conducting a post hoc test on grammar score breaking them down into aX and Yb in order to determine the difference between the two types of grammar.

Grammar, Noise, Working Memory

Participants
16 children aged 7-12 years old participated in this study, unfortunately due to technical issues 5 participants’ data were excluded leaving 11 children’s data to be included in the analysis (M=8.64, SD=1.63, female=7, male=4). Children were recruited through the Lancaster University Babylab database and by flyers posted on social media and local community. A requirement of the current study was that children be English speaking monolinguals, this is because an abundance of research has indicated that those who can speak two or more languages are at a far greater advantage when it comes to new language acquisition (Antoniou et al., 2015). Therefore, in order to control the likelihood of extraneous variables such as this we ensured all participants were English speaking monolinguals only.
Furthermore, children were also required to have normal vision or corrected to normal vision. To rule out hearing loss all children had to pass an otoscope inspection, a tympanometry test, and a pure tone hearing screening at 20dB in the standard frequencies (250Hz-8kHZ).
The current study employed a between participant design whereby subjects were allocated to a condition based on their age and gender -age was categorised into 7-9 and 10-12 in order to ensure that there were as equal an amount of males and females in each condition over all ages. It is crucial for the validity of the study that children are only exposed to the artificial grammar paradigm once or data will be rendered unreliable as they will have an unfair advantage over the other participants.
Ethics for the current study have been obtained from the Departmental Ethics Committee (DEC), Psychology Department at Lancaster University.
Materials
This study was conducted within a double walled soundproof chamber at Lancaster University’s PELiCAN lab where the participant sat at a desk with a monitor placed in front of them. A secondary researcher was present in the lab for health and safety purposes.
Consent and assent forms, a background questionnaire on the child’s hearing, audio evaluation results, and task data were all recorded on REDCap (Harris et al., 2009; Harris et al., 2019): a GDPR compliant application for data capture.
Travel compensation was provided: £5 within 40 minutes and £10 for over 40 minutes.
Furthermore, children received a certificate and book of their choosing from the PELiCAN lab.
The audio evaluation
This study was comprised of three sections: an audio evaluation whereby an otoscope examination, tympanometry test, and audiogram using Affinity Suite were conducted. During the audiogram participants wore headphones and had a handheld button that they pressed when they heard the pure tone sounds.
The Artificial Grammar Paradigm
After passing the hearing evaluation the children completed an artificial grammar paradigm previously used by Torkildsen et al. (2013) consisting of two grammatical forms: aX and Yb. The paradigm was presented in the form of an alien game whereby the children helped an alien learn a new language. We presented the paradigm in this format in order to increase engagement; children are motivated by the colourful and curious nature of a game (Blumberg
et al., 2019) and therefore we are far more likely to obtain more data (less drop outs due to fatigue and boredom). This task was created in PsychoPy and hosted by Pavlovia.
The background noise
In order to imitate the background noise of a classroom speech shaped noise (SSN) (e.g. Leibold et al., 2013) was emitted through a speaker on the back wall of the booth behind the child. The background noise speaker was 180 degrees on the azimuth, and the target speaker was 0 degrees on the azimuth. Background stimuli was calibrated so that for the quiet condition the stimulus was emitted at 35dB and for the noisy condition it was played at 65dB.
The n-back Test of Working Memory
Lastly, we conducted the 1-back test of working memory (Owen et al., 2005) which was also created on PsychoPy and hosted by Pavlovia
Procedure
Prior to the commencement of the study guardians gave informed consent (See Appendix C), if the child was 11 or older they gave informed assent in addition to this (See Appendix D). Guardians were then asked to complete a short background questionnaire pertaining to their child’s hearing (See Appendix H). Whilst they completed these forms the researcher began the study inside the booth; using Affinity suite it was ensured that the microphone inside the booth was turned on in order for the guardian to be able to hear what was going on inside the booth by using the headphones places outside the booth. As aforementioned, the audio evaluation consisted of three tests, these were administered in the booth by the researcher and took up to 15 minutes. Firstly, an ear inspection was conducted using an otoscope, participants were required to have clear ears free of perforations and/or any infection. Secondly, a tympanometry test was conducted whereby participants must have passed with type A (normal) results. Lastly a pure tone hearing screening was conducted at 20dB in the standard frequencies (250Hz-8kHZ). The researcher left the booth for the audiogram in order to run the program on the desktop outside the booth while the child remained inside the booth.
The task consisted of 11 blocks comprised of 4 exposure items and 2 test items, before the test portion children were exposed to 4 examples of what is expected of them, they had to get these right in order for the software to move onto the test phase. If children did not get these right the researcher explained and promoted them to pick the correct answer. Children were required to press ‘x’ on the keyboard for right and ‘n’ on the keyboard for wrong, answers were saved and recorded automatically on Pavlovia. The software was run by the researcher from outside the booth and was mirrored onto the desktop inside the booth.
Lastly, we conducted the 1-back test of working memory (Owen et al., 2005), where children were exposed to a number of animal sounds and were required to record weather the stimuli was a new sound or one they had heard before, ‘x’ represented repeated sound and ‘n’ represented a new sound, participants had to ensure they made a button press after each noise. Once all tasks were completed the researcher collected the child from inside the booth and a short verbal and written debrief was given to the child and guardian. Guardians were given and signed for their travel compensation, and children received a certificate from the PELiCAN lab and were able to choose a book of their liking. Participants were walked back to their car or bus to bring a close to the visit.

Lancaster University

Text/Word.doc
Data/Excel.csv

Mayo2023

Tejasvita Rajawat
Audred Visaya

Open

None

English

Data

LA1 4YF

Dr. Hannah Stewart

MSc

Developmental

11 (7 females, 4 males)

Regression