The aim of this study was to examine the effects of sound-field amplification intervention on the acquisition of specific educational goals for children in mainstream cross-cultural classrooms. Twelve classes of Year 2 children participated in the project. For classes 1 to 8, the listening environments were alternated between amplified and unamplified conditions, each condition being for two terms (one semester) of the school year. Beneficial effects of amplification were obtained in all three skill areas of reading, writing and numeracy. The beneficial effects occurred irrespective of whether the children had English as a native language or as a second language. Classes 9 to 12 were alternated between single-channel and dual-channel transmission options, each condition being for one semester of the school year. The results indicated that using different numbers of microphones did not affect the rate of acquisition of educational outcomes.
American National Standards Institute (ANSI). (2002). Acoustical performance criteria, design requirements and guidelines for schools. ANSI S 12.60.
2.
BessF.H.SinclairJ.S.RiggsD. (1984). Group amplification in schools for the hearing impaired. Ear and Hearing, 5, 138–44.
3.
BurnipL. (1994). Hearing impairment, phonological awareness, and the acoustic environment of the classroom. Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 26(1), 4–10.
4.
ChermakG.D.MusiekF.E. (1997). Central auditory processing disorders: New perspectives. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.
5.
ClarkJ.G. (1981). Uses and abuses of hearing loss classification. Asha, 23, 493–500.
6.
CrandellC. (1991). Classroom acoustics for normal-hearing children: Implications for rehabilitation. Educational Audiology Monograph, 2(1), 18–38.
7.
CrandellC. (1996). Effects of sound-field FM amplification on the speech perception of ESL children. Educational Audioliology Monograph, 3, 15–30.
8.
CrandellC.BessF. (1986). Speech recognition of children in a ‘typical’ classroom setting. Asha, 29, 82.
9.
CrandellC.SmaldinoJ. (1994). An update of classroom acoustics for children with hearing impairment. The Volta Review, 96, 291–306.
10.
CrandellC.SmaldinoJ. (1995). Speech perception in the classroom. In CrandellC.SmaldinoJ.FlexerC. (Eds.), Sound-field FM amplification: Theory and practical applications (pp. 29–48). San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
11.
CrandellC.SmaldinoJ. (1996). Speech perception in noise by children for whom English is a second language. American Journal of Audiology, 5(3), 47–51.
12.
CrandellC.SmaldinoJ. (2000). Classroom acoustics for children with normal hearing and with hearing impairment. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 362–70.
13.
CrandellC.SmaldinoJ.FlexerC. (Eds.) (1995). Sound-field FM amplification: Theory and practical applications. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
14.
CrandellC.SmaldinoJ.FlexerC. (1999). An overview of sound-field FM amplification. The Hearing Review, 6(6), 40–2.
15.
DaraiB. (2000). Using sound-field FM systems to improve literacy skills. Advance for Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists, 10(27), 5–7.
16.
BrophyA. EriksAyukawaH. (1999). Alternatives in amplification: Use of sound-field FM systems in classrooms of Nunavik. Frequences, 11(1), 26–8.
17.
BrophyA. EriksCragoM.B. (1994). Transforming classroom discourse: An Inuit example. Language and Education, 8(3), 105–22.
18.
FlexerC. (1995). Classroom management of children with minimal hearing loss. The Hearing Journal, 48(9), 10 & 54–8.
19.
FlexerC. (2000). The startling possibility of sound-field. Advance for Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists, 10(36), 5 & 13.
20.
FlexerC. (2002). Rationale and use of sound-field systems: An update. The Hearing Journal, 55(8), 10–18.
21.
FlexerC.CrandellC.SmaldinoJ. (1995). Considerations and strategies for amplifying the classroom. In CrandellC.SmaldinoJ.FlexerC. (Eds.), Sound-field FM amplification: Theory and practical applications (pp. 125–143). San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
22.
FlexerC.BileyK. KempHinkleyA.HarkemaC.HolcombJ. (2002). Using sound-field systems to teach phonemic awareness to pre-schoolers. The Hearing Journal, 55(3), 38–44.
23.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Training (2002). Boys: Getting it right. (Report on the enquiry into the education of boys.) The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
24.
HowardD. (1991). Mild hearing loss and Aboriginal children's learning. The Aboriginal Child at School, 19(1), 33–50.
LongS.FlexerC. (2001). Sound-field amplification for all: Data on the reduction of special education referrals can influence administrators. Advance for Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists, 11(27), 10–11.
27.
MassieR. (2000). The effects of sound-field FM amplification on the communicative interactions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia.
28.
MassieR.TheodorosD.ByrneD.McPhersonB.SmaldinoJ. (1999). The effects of sound-field amplification on the communicative interactions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Audiology, 21(2), 93–109.
29.
NabelekA.NabelekI. (1994). Room acoustics and speech perception. In KatzJ. (Ed.), Handbook of clinical audiology (4th ed., pp. 624–37). Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.
30.
NelsonP.B.SoliS. (2000). Acoustical barriers to learning: Children at risk in every classroom. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 356–61.
31.
NienhuysT. (1994). Aboriginal conductive hearing loss for life. Australian Language Matters, 2(1), 8–9.
32.
NilssonM.J.GellnetD.SullivanJ.SoliS.D. (1992). Norms for the hearing in noise test: The influence of spatial separation, hearing loss, and English language experience on speech reception thresholds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 92, S2385.
33.
NorthernJ.L.DownsM.P. (1991). Hearing in children. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.
34.
PageS. (1995). Dual FM sound-field amplification: A flexible integrated classroom amplification system for mild to moderate conductive hearing loss. Paper presented at the Second National Conference Childhood Conductive Deafness-Otitis Media, Melbourne, Australia.
35.
PekkarinenE.ViljanenV. (1991). Acoustic conditions for speech communication in classrooms. Scandinavian Audiology, 20, 257–63.
36.
RobertsonL. (2000). Literacy learning for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Washington DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
37.
RosenbergG.Blake-RahterP. (1995). Sound-field amplification: A review of the literature. In CrandellC.SmaldinoJ.FlexerC. (Eds.), Sound-field FM amplification: Theory and practical applications (pp. 107–123). San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.
38.
RosenbergG.Blake-RahterP.HeavnerJ.AllenL.RedmondB.PhillipsJ.StigersK. (1999). Improving classroom acoustics (ICA): A three-year FM sound-field classroom amplification study. Journal of Educational Audiology, 7, 8–28.
39.
SmaldinoJ.CrandellC. (1995). Acoustic measurements in classrooms. In CrandellC.SmaldinoJ.FlexerC. (Eds.), Sound-field FM amplification: Theory and practical applications (pp. 69–81). San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.
40.
StelmachowiczP.G.HooverB.M.LewisD.E.KortekaasR.PittmanA.L. (2000). The relation between stimulus context, speech audibility, and perception for normal-hearing and hearing-impaired children. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 43, 902–14.
41.
WestL. (1994). Cultural behaviour, conflict and resolution. In HarrisS.MalinM. (Eds.), Aboriginal kids in urban classrooms (pp. 7–19). Wentworth Falls, NSW: Social Science Press.
