Post-secondary institutions require appropriately designed informal learning spaces (ILSs) outside of classrooms for studying and group-work activities, but few studies have investigated how these spaces perform, especially in terms of acoustics. We measured objective acoustical characteristics and architectural features in 23 such spaces, and captured environmental assessments and well-being outcomes from a survey of 850 student occupants. Objective measures indicated that sound levels generated by occupants and other sound sources tended to exceed maximum values recommended by standards. Some components of perceived suitability and well-being were greater in spaces with lower background sound levels (e.g., from ventilation systems), but with more occupant-generated sound, and more reverberation. Furthermore, some design features such as more vegetation, the presence of soft furnishings, and lower seating density predicted some components of perceived suitability and well-being. This evaluation of ILSs offers lessons for designers and suggests additional directions for further study.
American National Standards Institute. (1995). S12.2-1995: American national standard criteria for evaluating room noise. Melville, NY: Acoustical Society of America.
2.
American National Standards Institute. (2009). ANSI S12.60-2009: American national standard acoustical performance criteria, design requirements and guidelines for schools. Melville, NY: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
3.
AstolfiA.PellereyF. (2008). Subjective and objective assessment of acoustical and overall environmental quality in secondary school classrooms. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123, 163-173. doi:10.1121/1.2816563
4.
BairdG.DykesC. (2010). Acoustic conditions in sustainable buildings—Results of a worldwide survey of users’ perceptions. Journal of Building Acoustics, 17, 291-304.
5.
BangjunZ.LiliS.GuoqingD. (2003). The influence of the visibility of the source on the subjective annoyance due to its noise. Applied Acoustics, 64, 1205-1215. doi:10.1016/S0003-682X(03)00074-4
6.
BellP. A.HessS.HillE.KukasS.RichardsR. W.SargentD. (1984). Noise and context-dependent memory. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22, 99-100.
7.
BelojevicG.EvansG. W.PaunovicK.JakovljevicB. (2012). Traffic noise and executive functioning in urban primary school children: The moderating role of gender. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 337-341.
8.
BenfieldJ. A.RainboltG. N.BellP. A.DonovanG. H. (2015). Classrooms with nature views: Evidence of differing student perceptions and behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 47, 140-157. doi:10.1177/0013916513499583
9.
BengtssonJ.WayeK. P.KjellbergA. (2004). Evaluations of effects due to low-frequency noise in a low demanding work situation. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 278, 83-99.
10.
BeranekL. (2005). Criteria for noise in buildings and communities. In VérI.BeranekL. (Eds.), Noise and vibration control engineering (pp. 887-909). New York, NY: John Wiley.
11.
BerglundB.HassmenP.JobR. F. S. (1996). Sources and effects of low-frequency noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 99, 2985-3002.
12.
BrennanA.ChughJ. S.KlineT. (2002). Environment and Behavior, 34(3), 279-299.
13.
BrownK. W.RyanR. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822-848.
14.
CavanaughW. J.TocciG. C.SykesD. M.CarballeiraA. C.FullertonJ. L.DavennyB. C. (2006). Interim sound and vibration design guidelines for hospital and healthcare facilities. Melville, NY:The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
15.
ChoiC. Y.McPhersonB. (2005). Noise levels in Hong Kong primary schools: Implications for classroom listening. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 52, 345-360.
16.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
CohenS.EvansG. W.KrantzD. S.StokolsD.KellyS. (1981). Aircraft noise and children: Longitudinal and cross-sectional evidence on adaptation to noise and the effectiveness of noise abatement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 331-345.
18.
CohenS.GlassD. C.SingerJ. E. (1973). Apartment noise, auditory discrimination, and reading ability in children. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 407-422.
19.
CohenS.TrostleS. (1990). Young children’s preferences for school-related physical-environmental setting characteristics. Environment and Behavior, 22, 753-766.
20.
CullingJ. F.HodderK. I.TohC. Y. (2003). Effects of reverberation on perceptual segregation of competing voices. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 114, 2871-2876.
21.
CzubajC. A. (2002). School indoor air quality. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 29, 317-321.
22.
DarwinC. J.HukinR. W. (2000). Effects of reverberation on spatial, prosodic, and vocal-tract size cues to selective attention. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108, 335-342.
23.
DockrellJ. E.ShieldB. (2004). Children’s perceptions of their acoustic environment at school and at home. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 115, 2964.
24.
DravigneA.WaliczekT. M.LinebergerR. D.ZajicekJ. M. (2008). The effect of live plants and window views of green spaces on employee perceptions of job satisfaction. HortScience, 43, 183-187.
25.
EvansG. W.LeporeS. J. (1993). Nonauditory effects of noise on children. Children’s Environments, 10, 31-51.
26.
EvansG. W.LercherP.MeisM.IsingH.KoflerW. W. (2001). Community noise exposure and stress in children. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 1023-1027.
27.
FieldA. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
GiffordR. (2014). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (5th ed.). Colville, WA: Optimal Books.
29.
Hambrick-DixonP. J. (1988). The effect of elevated subway train noise over time on Black children’s visual vigilance performance. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8, 299-314.
30.
HartigT.EvansG. W.JamnerL. D.DavisD. S.GärlingT. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 109-123.
31.
HartleyL. R.BoultwoodB.DunneM. P. (1987). Noise and verbal or spatial solutions of Rubik’s cube. Ergonomics, 30, 503-509.
32.
HeineS. J.ProulxT.VohsK. D. (2006). Meaning maintenance model: On the coherence of human motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 88-110.
33.
HétuR.Truchon-GagnonC.BilodeauS. (1990). Problems of noise in school settings: A review of literature and the results of an exploratory study. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology/Review d’Othophonie et d’Audiologie, 14, 31-39.
34.
HodgsonM. (1999). Experimental investigation of the acoustical characteristics of university classrooms. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, 1810-1819.
35.
HoutgastT.SteenekenH. J. M.PlompR. (1980). Predicting speech intelligibility in rooms from the modulation transfer function. Acoustica, 11, 195-200.
36.
HyggeS. (2003). Classroom experiments on the effects of different noise sources and sound levels on long-term recall and recognition in children. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 895-914.
37.
International Standards Organisation. (2009). ISO 3382–1, Acoustics—Measurement of room-acoustic parameters—Part 1: Performance spaces. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
38.
JahnckeH.HyggeS.HalinN.GreenA. M.DimbergK. (2011). Open-plan office noise: Cognitive performance and restoration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 373-382.
39.
JenningsJ. R.NebesR.BrockK. (1988). Memory retrieval in noise and psychophysiological response in the young and old. Psychophysiology, 25, 633-644.
40.
JensenD. (2011). Time management. In PSY 1730 student lab packet, 6th edition (pp. 7-9).
41.
JoyeY. (2007). Architectural lessons from environmental psychology: The case of biophilic architecture. Review of General Psychology, 11, 305-328.
42.
KantrowitzE. J.EvansG. (2004). The relation between the ratio of children activity area and off-task behavior and type of play in day care centers. Environment and Behavior, 36, 541-557.
43.
KaplanR. (1993). The role of nature in the context of the workplace. Landscape and Urban Planning, 26, 193-201.
44.
KaplanR.KaplanS. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
45.
KennedyS. M.HodgsonM.EdgettL. D.LambN.RempelR. (2006). Subjective assessment of listening environments in university classrooms: Perceptions of students. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 299-309.
46.
KjellbergA. (2004). Effects of reverberation time on the cognitive load in speech communication: Theoretical considerations. Noise & Health, 7, 11-22.
47.
KlatteM.HellbrückJ.SeidelJ.LeistnerP. (2010). Effects of classroom acoustics on performance and well-being in elementary school children: A field study. Environment and Behavior, 42, 659-692.
48.
KristiansenJ.PerssonR.LundS. P.ShibuyaH.NielsenP. M. (2011). Effects of classroom acoustics and self-reported noise exposure on teachers’ well-being. Environment and Behavior, 45, 283-300. doi:10.1177/0013916511429700
LarsenJ. B.BlairJ. C. (2008). The effect of classroom amplification on the signal-to-noise ratio in classrooms while class is in session. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 451-460.
51.
LercherP.EvansG. W.MeisM. (2003). Ambient noise and cognitive processes among primary school children. Environment and Behavior, 35, 725-735.
52.
LjungR.KjellbergA. (2009). Recall of spoken words presented with a prolonged reverberation time. Building Acoustics, 16, 301-312.
53.
LjungR.SörqvistP.KjellbergA.GreenA. (2009). Poor listening conditions impair memory for intelligible lectures: Implications for acoustic classroom standards. Building Acoustics, 16, 257-265.
54.
LjungbergK. J.NeelyG. (2007). Stress, subjective experience and cognitive performance during exposure to noise and vibration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 44-54.
55.
MaherA.von HippelC. (2005). Individual differences in employee reactions to open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 219-229.
56.
MaxwellL. (2003). Home and school density effects on elementary school children: The role of spatial density. Environment and Behavior, 35, 566-578.
57.
McSporranE. (1997). Towards better listening and learning in the classroom. Educational Review, 49(1), 13-20.
58.
MehrabianA. (1977). Individual differences in stimulus screening and arousability. Journal of Personality, 45, 237-250.
59.
MeisM.NockeC.HofmannS.BeckerB. (2005). Subjective evaluation of speech and noise in learning environments in the realm of classroom acoustics: Results from laboratory and field experiments. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 117, 2437. doi:10.1121/1.4786781.
60.
MenardS. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis: SAGE University series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61.
MottM. S.RobinsonD. H.WaldenA.BurnetteJ.RutherfordA. S. (2012). Illuminating the effects of dynamic lighting on student learning. SAGE Open, 2, 1-9.
62.
NewshamG. R.BirtB. J.ArsenaultC.ThompsonA. J. L.VeitchJ. A.ManciniS.. . .BurnsG. J. (2013). Do “green” buildings have better indoor environments? New evidence. Building Research and Information, 41, 415-434.
63.
OldhamG. R. (1988). Effects of changes in workspace partitions and spatial density on employee reactions: A quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 253-258.
64.
OuisD. (2002). Annoyance caused by exposure to road traffic noise: An update. Noise and Health, 4, 69-79.
65.
PierretteM.Marquis-FavreC.MorelJ.RiouxL.ValletM.ViollonS.MochA. (2012). Noise annoyance from industrial and road traffic combined noises: A survey and a total annoyance model comparison. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 178-186. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.01.006
66.
PlantE. A.EricssonK. A.HillL.AsbergK. (2005). Why study time does not predict grade point average across college students: Implications for deliberate practice for academic performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 96-116.
67.
RyanR. M.WeinsteinN.BernsteinJ.BrownK. W.MistrettaL.GagneM. (2010). Vitalizing effects of being outdoors and in nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 159-168.
68.
SchlittmeierS. J.HellbrückJ.ThadenR.VerländerM. (2008). The impact of background speech varying in intelligibility: Effects on cognitive performance and perceived disturbance. Ergonomics, 51, 719-736.
69.
ShieldB. M.DockrellJ. E. (2003). The effects of noise on children at school: A review. Journal of Building Acoustics, 10, 97-106.
70.
ShieldB. M.DockrellJ. E. (2008). The effects of environmental and classroom noise on the academic attainments of primary school children. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123, 133-144.
71.
SommerR.BeckerF. D. (1971). Room density and user satisfaction. Environment and Behavior, 3, 412-417.
72.
SommerR.OlsenH. (1980). The soft classroom. Environment and Behavior, 12, 3-16.
73.
StandingL. G.LynnD.MoxnessK. (1990). Effects of noise upon introverts and extraverts. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 28, 138-140.
74.
StokolsD. (1972). On the distinction between density and crowding: Some implications for future research. Psychological Review, 79, 275-277.
75.
UlrichR. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In KellertS. R.WilsonE. O. (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 73-137). Washington, DC: Island Press.
76.
VeitchJ. A.CharlesK. E.NewshamG. R.MarquardtC. J. G.GeertsJ. (2003). Environmental satisfaction in open-plan environments: 5. Workstation and physical condition effects (IRC-RR-154). Ottawa, Ontario: Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council Canada.
77.
VeitchJ. A.NewshamG. R. (1996). Determinants of lighting quality II: Research and recommendations. Paper presented at the 104th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. August 12, 1996.
78.
VelardeM. D.FryG.TveitM. (2007). Health effects of viewing landscapes—Landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban Forestry and Greening, 6, 199-212.
79.
VenetjokiN.Kaarlela-TuomaalaA.KeskinenE.HongistoV. (2007). The effect of speech and speech intelligibility on task performance. Ergonomics, 49, 1068-1091.
80.
WålinderR.GunnarssonK.RunesonR.SmedjeG. (2007). Physiological and psychological stress reactions in relation to classroom noise. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 33, 260-266.
81.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
82.
WayeK. P.BengtssonJ.KjellbergA.BentonS. (2001). Low frequency noise “pollution” interferes with performance. Noise and Health, 4, 33-49.
83.
WeinsteinN. D. (1978). Individual differences in relation to noise: A longitudinal study in a college dormitory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 458-496.
84.
ZimmermanB.KitsantasA. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 660-668.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
