Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Preschool is an important time for children to grow in their experiences, abilities, and knowledge before entering formal school. Therefore, it is vital that the classroom acoustic environment supports children’s listening, learning, and wellbeing. The aim of this scoping review was to determine what is known from the literature about the effect of classroom acoustics and noise on preschool children’s listening, learning, and wellbeing, and what the knowledge gaps are. The scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Seven papers met the criteria to be included in the review. The findings suggest that poor classroom acoustic conditions and particularly high noise levels, can have a negative effect on preschool school children’s listening and wellbeing, but may not affect word learning at the SNRs investigated. Nevertheless, it would be beneficial to install acoustic solutions and manage noise in preschool classrooms to enhance children’s listening, learning, and wellbeing. Future research avenues are discussed.

Keywords

Classroom acoustics noise listening learning wellbeing preschool

Introduction

Preschool is an important time for children where they can use play activities to grow in their experiences, abilities, and knowledge before they enter formal school. Preschool education has been shown to improve children’s cognitive abilities, social skills and contribute to children being more successful at school.^1,2 Therefore, it is important to understand how the classroom acoustic environment design and management may affect children’s listening, learning, and wellbeing. Room acoustic parameters that are helpful to consider when characterising a space include the reverberation time (the time it takes for a sound to reduce in level by 60 dB), early decay time (EDT; the time it takes for sound to decrease by 10 dB), speech clarity (C50; the ratio of the early sound energy (between 0 and 50 ms) and the late sound energy (that arrives later than 50 ms)), definition (D50; the ratio between the sound energy between 0 and 50 ms. and the total energy). These measures quantify how sound behaves in a room. Noise refers to unwanted sound and, in the classroom, includes external noise such as traffic and aircraft noise, and internal noise such as equipment noise from heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems, speech and movement from the children. Noise and/or reverberation can affect speech intelligibility. Measures specifically related to speech intelligibility include the signal-to-noise energy ratio (SNR; the ratio between the target signal and the background noise), speech transmission index (STI; a measure of the transmission of speech in a space) and the useful-to-detrimental ratio (U50; obtained from D50 and the signal to noise ratio). The AS/NZS2107:2016 standard³ does not have specific acoustic recommendations for preschool classrooms, however, the standard recommends that unoccupied noise levels in school classrooms should be 35–45 dBA. The recommended reverberation time depends on the volume of the classroom, but for typical classrooms it should be 0.4–0.5 s.

Recent reviews have shown that poor classrooms acoustic conditions can have a negative effect on primary school children’s speech intelligibility, listening comprehension, literacy, numeracy, cognition, behaviour, physical health and mental wellbeing.^4–11 Additionally, poor classroom acoustic conditions affect speech intelligibility and are a barrier for primary school children who have hearing loss or are non-native speakers to engage in listening and learning.^12–15 Noise can increase repetitive behaviours in children on the autism spectrum.¹⁶ Furthermore, children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are more affected by auditory distractions than children without ADHD.¹⁷ Noise and poor acoustics have also been shown to have a negative effect on high school and university students’ listening, learning, and wellbeing.^18,19 However, what about the effect on preschool children’s listening, learning, and wellbeing? Preschool children’s auditory and cognitive neurological systems are less developed than primary school children, so we may expect different results.

The Listen to Learn for Life (L³) Assessment Framework²⁰ provides a framework to understand how the classroom acoustic environment affects children’s listening, learning and wellbeing. Listening is categorised along a spectrum – hearing, listening, comprehending and communicating.²¹ Hearing is a passive function that concerns the perception of sound. Listening is active and involves intention and attention. Comprehension involves the reception of information. Communication involves the bi-directional transfer of information. For preschool children, listening is both important for learning (e.g. remembering stories as they cannot yet read), and for their social development.²² Listening skills are critically formed up to age three, but continue to develop until age 15.²² Playful learning is also important in preschool as it can enhance academic, social, and emotional outcomes in children.²³ As there are important links between children’s listening, learning and wellbeing, gaining an understanding of the impact of the acoustic environment of preschools on these outcomes would be beneficial.

Therefore, a scoping review was conducted in order to systematically map research investigating the effect of classroom acoustics and noise on preschool children’s listening, learning and wellbeing. The review also aimed to identify any existing gaps in knowledge to inform future research needs in this area. The research question for the review was: What is known from the literature about the effect of classroom acoustics and noise on preschool children’s listening, learning, and wellbeing? In terms of listening, the scoping review investigated the effect of classroom acoustics and noise on speech perception, speech intelligibility, listening comprehension or communication. In terms of learning, the scoping review investigated the effect of classroom acoustics and noise on any type of learning activities or learning processes and behaviours such as cognition, attention or memory. In terms of wellbeing, the scoping review investigated the effect of classroom acoustics and noise on physical or mental health, quality of life, annoyance or disturbance.

Method

Protocol

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR)²⁴ was the protocol used for this scoping review. The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews website can be found here: http://www.prisma-statement.org/Extensions/ScopingReviews.

Eligibility criteria

The peer-reviewed journal articles had to meet the following criteria to be included in the review: (i) conduct a study on the effect of classroom acoustics (e.g. reverberation) or noise on children’s listening, learning, or wellbeing, (ii) be conducted with preschool children (i.e. include children aged < 6 years) and (iii) have the full text in English available.

Information sources

To identify potentially relevant documents, the following bibliographic databases were searched by author 1: ERIC, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. The final search results were exported into .csv files where duplicates were removed.

Search

A comprehensive search of the four online databases by author 1 was conducted on 25th September 2023 to identify the effects of classroom acoustics and noise on preschool children’s listening, learning and wellbeing. The search term was (preschool OR ‘early childhood’ OR ‘day care’) AND classroom AND (acoustic* OR reverb* OR nois*) AND (listen* OR intelligibility OR ‘speech perception’ OR comprehen* OR communicat* OR learn* OR cognit* OR atten* OR memor* OR behav* OR health OR wellbeing OR ‘quality of life’ OR annoy* OR disturb*). No publication date restrictions were applied.

Selection of sources of evidence

All publications identified in the searches were evaluated by the titles, and then abstracts and full text when needed for potentially relevant publications.

Data charting process

Data from eligible studies were charted to capture the relevant information on key study characteristics on the effect of classroom acoustics or noise on children’s listening, learning and wellbeing.

Data items

Data was abstracted on the following characteristics: populations that have been studied, the types of acoustic conditions that have been assessed, the types of measures used to assess listening, learning or wellbeing, and the effect of the acoustic conditions on children’s listening, learning and wellbeing.

Synthesis of results

Studies were grouped by the outcome measured and summarised according to the effect of the acoustic conditions on pre-school children’s listening, learning and wellbeing.

Results

Selection of sources of evidence

The search and selection process of the papers to be included in the review is shown in Figure 1. A total of 240 papers (132 after removing duplicates) were returned in the searches. These were vetted for relevance via reading the title, abstract and when needed for clarification, the full text. Seven papers were deemed relevant for the review.

Figure 1.

Database search results.

Characteristics and results of sources of evidence

The general information for the seven papers included in the review is shown in Table 1. The following sections describe the years of publication of the papers, the age and demographics of the children studied, the acoustic conditions investigated, the measures and methods used to assess listening, learning and wellbeing, and the outcomes of the papers.

Table 1.

General information for the seven papers included in the review and effect on children’s listening, learning and wellbeing.

Category	Authors	Aim	Population/Age	Acoustic cConditions	Measure	Noise exposure		Effect of louder noise/lower SNR			Effect of longer reverberation time
						Chronic	Acute	Negative	None	Positive	Negative	None	Positive
Learning	Blaiser et al.²⁵	To examine the impact of repeated exposures on word learning of preschool children with and without hearing loss in quiet and noise conditions.	Children with hearing loss aged 37–68 months (n = 19) and children with normal hearing aged 26–72 months (n = 17).	Laboratory study. Quiet and noise (multi-talker babble played 1 m behind child at +7 dB SNR).	Production of 16 unfamiliar words		x		x
Learning	Dombroski and Newman³¹	To explore the effect of background speech noise on children’s early word learning.	Monolingual children aged 31.6 months–36.2 months (n = 72).	Laboratory study. Quiet and two noise conditions (multi-talker babble blended with stimuli played at +5 and 0 dB SNR).	New word-to-object mappings using gaze measures.		x		x
Listening	Kwon and Yang²⁸	To investigate the combined effects of face-mask usage and room acoustics on speech recognition in preschool children.	Children aged 4–6 years (n = 67).	Laboratory study. Quiet (+22 dB SNR) and babble noise at +12 dB SNR. Reverberation times of 0.6 s and 1.2 s.	Korean-standard monosyllabic-word list for pre-schoolers (KS-MWL-P)		x		x		x^a	x^a
Listening and wellbeing	McAllister et al.²⁹	To explore how children describe the preschool environment and experiences in relation to noise, voice, and verbal communication.	Children aged 5–6 years (n = 48).	Classroom study. Subjective perceptions of noise.	Interview.	x		x
Listening	Newman et al.²⁶	To compare children’s recognition of familiar words in the presence of background noise when the speaker’s face was present and absent.	Children aged 2–5 years with and without autism (n = 47).	Laboratory study. Quiet and noise (+5 dB SNR with 1-speaker distractor speech).	Familiar words using a preferential looking procedure.		x	x
Listening	Niemitalo-Haapola et al.³⁰	To investigate developmental and noise-induced changes in central auditory processing indexed by event-related potentials in typically developing children.	Children aged 2 and 4 years (n = 14).	Laboratory study. Quiet and noise (+20 dB SNR nonsemantic cafeteria noise).	CV words with P1, N2, N4, and MMN responses recorded.		x	x
Wellbeing	Persson Waye and Karlberg²⁷	To study the association between an acoustic intervention and children’s perceptions of and reactions to sounds in their preschool environment.	Children aged 4–6 (n = 61).	Classroom study. Noise level: Pre = 85 dBA; post = 83 dBA. Reverberation time: Pre = 0.3–0.5 s; post = 0.1 s. C50: Pre = 8–10 dB; post = 11–13 dB. D50: Pre = 86%–89%; post = 92%–95%.	Inventory of Noise and Children’s Health interview with the children.	x		x^b	x^b		x^b	x^b

Negative effect of longer reverberation time for children aged 4 and 5 years, but no effect for children aged 6 years.

See Table 5 in Persson Waye and Karlberg²⁷ for specific results.

Publication years

The range of publication years was from 2014 to 2023.

Population

All seven of the studies involved typically developing children. One study also included children with hearing loss.²⁵ Another study included children with autism.²⁶ The age range across studies was 2–6 years.

Acoustic exposure

All seven studies investigated the effect of noise on children’s listening, learning and wellbeing. Two studies examined the effect of reverberation.^27,28 One of these studies also reported C50 and D50 values.²⁷ Two studies examined the effect of chronic exposure, that is, long-term exposure to reverberation or noise,^27,29 while five examined the effect of acute exposure, that is, short-term exposure to reverberation or noise.^{25,26,28,30,31}

Measures and methods

Two studies used word perception/production methods.^25,28 Two studies used eye gaze measures.^26,31 One study used electrophysiology event-related potentials.³⁰ Two studies used interviews.^27,29

Outcomes

An overview of whether increased noise/reverberation resulted in a negative effect, no effect, or positive effect on children’s listening, learning, or wellbeing can be found in Table 1, Figure 2 (SNR studies) and Figure 3 (reverberation time studies). Note that McAllister et al.²⁹ is not included in the figures as the noise levels were subjective so could not be quantified. Additionally, Persson Waye and Karlberg²⁷ were the only study assessing noise level (not SNR) so a figure was not constructed as there was only one study. Below is a summary of the findings categorised by the outcome measure.

Figure 2.

Effect of SNR (negative, no effect) on children’s listening, learning, and wellbeing for different noise levels compared to the reference condition collated from reviewed papers. Note that a SNR of +25 dB was chosen for a quiet condition.

Figure 3.

Effect of reverberation time (negative, no effect) on children’s listening and wellbeing for different noise levels compared to the reference condition collated from reviewed papers. Lines represent when a range of levels were studied.

Listening

Kwon and Yang²⁸ investigated the combined effects of face-masks and room acoustics on children’s speech recognition. The authors found no effect of SNR (quiet at +22 dB and noise at +12 dB). However, they did find a negative effect of longer reverberation time (1.2 s vs 0.6 s for children aged 4 and 5 years, but no effect for children aged 6 years). Children’s speech recognition scores were significantly negatively affected by masks in the poorest acoustic conditions (+12 dB SNR and 1.2 s reverberation time).

McAllister et al.²⁹ explored how children describe the preschool environment and experiences in relation to noise, voice, and verbal communication via interviews. The authors found that children can have difficulty hearing when there is noise.

Newman et al.²⁶ compared recognition of familiar words in the presence of background noise (+5 dB SNR) versus quiet when the speaker’s face was present and absent in children with and without autism. The authors found that all children were negatively affected by noise. However, when the children could see the speaker’s face, the children without autism performed better than the children with autism, suggesting that they could make better use of the cues from the speaker’s face.

Niemitalo-Haapola et al.³⁰ investigated developmental and noise-induced changes in children’s central auditory processing. The authors found that noise played at +20 dB SNR degraded sound encoding, degraded echoic memory, and negatively affected auditory discrimination in the children.

Learning

Blaiser et al.²⁵ examined the impact of repeated exposures of words on word learning in preschool children with and without hearing loss in quiet and a +7 dB SNR noise condition. The authors found no effect of the noise level when given repeated exposures.

Dombroski and Newman³¹ assessed children’s ability to map a label on to an object in quiet, a +5 dB SNR, and 0 dB SNR noise conditions. Children did not show any difference in word learning across conditions.

Wellbeing

Persson Waye and Karlberg²⁷ assessed the effect of an acoustic intervention on children’s wellbeing. The reverberation time of the classroom without acoustic treatment was 0.3–0.5 s and with acoustic treatment it was 0.1 s, and the noise levels were 85 dBA pre-treatment and 83 dBA post-treatment. The authors found that the acoustic intervention was associated with a 31% reduction in children’s perception of scraping and screeching sounds and a 29% reduction in the frequency of reported stomachache.

Discussion

The purpose of this scoping review was to synthesise research assessing the effect of different classroom acoustics and noise on preschool children’s listening, learning and wellbeing. Seven papers fitted the criteria to be included in the review and all of them assessed the impact of noise (measured mostly by the SNR) on children’s listening, learning or wellbeing, but two of them also assessed the impact of reverberation. The results were a mix of negative effects and no effects of SNR/noise and/or reverberation.

In terms of the SNR studies, for listening, a negative effect of SNR was found at +5 dB,²⁶ but no effect was found at +12 dB.²⁸ However, a negative effect was again found at +20 dB.³⁰ The reason for these inconsistent results may be because of the measure and the noise source. Newman et al.²⁶ used a one-speaker distractor rather than the babble noise used by Kwon and Yang.²⁸ Only having one speaker distractor is more distracting than having multiple people speaking as the distracting source.³² This may also explain in addition to the lower SNR, why a negative effect of SNR was found at +5 dB,²⁶ but no effect was found at +12 dB.²⁸ Regarding the negative effect that appears again at +20 dB,³⁰ this may be because of the measure. Niemitalo-Haapola et al.³⁰ used electrophysiological measures (event-related potentials) to determine if there was a difference in the children’s processing of speech in quiet and noise. This method is likely to be more sensitive to processing in contrast to the behavioural measures used by Newman et al.²⁶ and Kwon and Yang²⁸ which is why we may have seen a negative effect here despite the higher SNR. In regard to learning, both studies assessed the effect of noise on children’s word learning, and neither of them found an effect of noise at 0, +5 or +7 dB SNR.^25,31

In terms of noise (excluding the SNR studies described above), noise could negatively affect children’s reports of how well they could hear, and also could have a negative effect on their wellbeing.^27,29 In terms of reverberation, there were mixed effects for both studies depending on the age of the child (younger children more affected than older children) and the measure.

These results have practical implications for preschool design and management. Noise from the children talking and playing is inevitable, but the impact can be reduced through room acoustic treatment and classroom management strategies. Although there does not seem to be an effect of SNR on children’s word learning, there can be negative effects on the children’s listening and wellbeing. Therefore, minimising noise where possible is of benefit. Future research is needed to understand what the optimal noise level and reverberation time for preschool classrooms are that balances the need for necessary sound but is not at a level that significantly negatively affects children’s listening, learning and wellbeing.

Limitations and future research needs

Listening

According to Kiessling et al.,²¹ listening can be divided into four auditory functions: hearing, listening, comprehending and communicating. Hearing is a passive function that concerns the perception of sound. Listening is active and involves intention and attention. Comprehension involves the reception of information. Communication involves the bi-directional transfer of information. The studies reviewed included studies of hearing and listening, however, the higher-level processing of listening comprehension and communication were not examined. Therefore, future research would be beneficial to investigate the effect of different classroom acoustic and noise conditions on preschool children’s comprehension and communication.

Learning

The only type of learning examined in the reviewed studies was word learning. This is very important for preschool children, however, it would be interesting to also investigate other types of learning. As preschool education is important for children’s cognitive abilities, social skills and success at school,^1,2 examining the effect of noise and the acoustic environment on learning the skills that contribute to these abilities is also of importance.

Wellbeing

Both of the reviewed studies used interviews to assess children’s wellbeing. Subjective interviews can be helpful for exploring the effects of different acoustic conditions and noise on children’s wellbeing, however, they can be subject to response bias. Therefore, complementing subjective data with objective physiological measurements would be beneficial.

General considerations

One limitation of this review is the diversity of studies found over the preschool age range of 2–6 years, where children’s listening, cognitive, and emotional skills rapidly develop.³³ For example, at 2 years of age, children are using between 50 and 200 words and can put two words together in a sentence.³³ At 3 years of age, sentences start to develop further into paragraphs and children begin to take part in back-and-forth conversation.³³ At 5 years of age, children use more than 2000 words, know consonants and vowels sounds, and can read around 25 words.³³ These milestones demonstrate the large changes in development that happen over the preschool years. Therefore, strong, generalised conclusions cannot be drawn for preschool children in as a whole due the wide range of studies reviewed across this age range. Additionally, some of the reviewed studies included special populations such as children with autism and hearing loss, who may have different development trajectories.^34,35 Future research is needed to systematically assess the effect of the classroom acoustic environment on children’s listening, learning, and wellbeing at each age of the preschool age range as there is a large developmental change across these years so the effect of the acoustic environment might be different depending on the child’s age. More research is also needed with different populations including children with special educational needs as only two studies included children with hearing loss or autism. Further research is needed examining the effect of different acoustic conditions on listening, learning, and wellbeing for children with language delays, attention deficits, as well as more studies on children with hearing loss and autism. Additionally, research with children who are second language learners or bilingual would be beneficial as listening in noisy conditions can be more difficult for these children.¹⁵

Another limitation of the reviewed papers is that all of the studies investigated the effect of internal noise (mostly babble) on children’s listening, learning and wellbeing. This is important, however, it would also be beneficial for research to be conducted looking at the effect of external noise such as road traffic, aircraft and railway noise. These types of noises can negatively affect primary and high school students’ listening, learning and wellbeing,^4–8,18 so it would be beneficial to also examine the effect on preschool children.

A further limitation of the reviewed studies is that all of the studies assessed the effect of the acoustic parameter of noise on children’s listening, learning, and wellbeing. Only two studies examined the effect of reverberation and only one of these studies also reported C50 and D50 values. Therefore, there is a need for room acoustic parameters to be investigated including EDT, C50, D50, U50 and STI to more fully understand the effect of different acoustic conditions on preschool children’s listening, learning and wellbeing and how particular acoustic treatment can be optimally installed.

Finally, it would be beneficial to examine some of the positive effects of different soundscapes on preschool children’s listening, learning and wellbeing. For example, primary school children prefer sounds that promote calmness and restoration during lessons, such as music and nature sounds.³⁶ Therefore, it would be interesting to see if these sounds promote preschool children’s listening, learning, and wellbeing.

Conclusions

The findings of this scoping review suggest that poor classroom acoustic conditions and particularly high noise levels, can have a negative effect on preschool school children’s listening and wellbeing, but may not affect word learning at least at the SNRs investigated. Nevertheless, it would be beneficial to install acoustic solutions in preschool classrooms to help reduce the exacerbation of the noise in reverberant spaces. It is also important for the teacher to manage the noise in the classroom and to be aware of when the noise is too high and might impact listening, learning, and wellbeing, so they can control it. This requires future research to determine optimum classroom acoustic parameter values and noise limits so that a balance can be found between allowing noise that is necessary, but also controlled to enhance children’s listening, learning and wellbeing.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by The Martin Lee Centre for Innovations in Hearing Health.

ORCID iD

Kiri Mealings

References

Barnett

. Preschool education and its lasting effects: Research and policy implications. Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/preschool-education (2008, accessed 1 March 2024).

Camilli

Vargas

Ryan

, et al Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teach Coll Rec 2010; 112(3): 579–620.

Australia/New Zealand Standard. AS/NZS2107:2016. Acoustics - Recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors. 2016.

Mealings

The effect of classroom acoustic conditions on literacy outcomes for children in primary school: a review. Build Acoust 2022; 29(1): 135–156.

Mealings

A scoping review of the effect of classroom acoustic conditions on primary school children’s numeracy performance and listening comprehension. Acoust Aust 2022; 51(1): 129–158.

Mealings

Classroom acoustics and cognition: A review of the effects of noise and reverberation on primary school children’s attention and memory. Build Acoust 2022; 29(3): 401–431.

Mealings

Classroom acoustic conditions and primary school children’s behaviour: a scoping review. Build Acoust 2022; 29(4): 543–558.

Mealings

A scoping review of the effects of classroom acoustic conditions on primary school children’s physical health. Acoust Aust 2022; 50(3): 373–381.

Mealings

A scoping review of the effects of classroom acoustic conditions on primary school children’s mental wellbeing. Build Acoust 2022; 29(4): 529–542.

10.

Minelli

Puglisi

Astolfi

Acoustical parameters for learning in classroom: a review. Build Environ 2022; 208(July 2021): 108582.

11.

Lamotte

Essadek

Shadili

, et al The impact of classroom chatter noise on comprehension: a systematic review. Percept Mot Skills 2021; 128(3): 1275–1291.

12.

Crandell

Smaldino

JJ.

Classroom acoustics for children with normal hearing and with hearing impairment. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2000; 31(4): 362–370.

13.

Todorov

Galvin

Punch

, et al Barriers and facilitators to engaging in mainstream primary school classrooms: voices of students who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. Deafness Educ Int 2022; 24(1): 2–23.

14.

Todorov

Galvin

Klieve

, et al Engagement of children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing attending mainstream schools. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2021; 26(3): 395–404.

15.

Nelson

Kohnert

Sabur

, et al

Classroom noise and children learning through a second language: double jeopardy?

Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2005; 36(3): 219–229.

16.

Kanakri

Shepley

Tassinary

, et al An observational study of classroom acoustical design and repetitive behaviors in children with autism. Environ Behav 2017; 49(8): 847–873.

17.

Adams

Finn

Moes

, et al Distractibility in attention/deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): the virtual reality classroom. Child Neuropsychol 2009; 15(2): 120–135.

18.

Mealings

Buchholz

JM.

The effect of classroom acoustics and noise on high school students’ listening, learning and well-being: a scoping review. Facilities 2024; 42(5/6): 485–503.

19.

Mealings

A scoping review of the effect of classroom acoustic conditions on university students’ listening, learning, and well-being. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2023; 66(11): 4653–4672.

20.

Mealings

Miles

Parrila

, et al An interdisciplinary approach to enhance children’s listening, learning, and wellbeing in the classroom: the listen to learn for life (L3) assessment framework. Front Educ 2023; 8.

21.

Kiessling

Pichora-Fuller

Gatehouse

, et al Candidature for and delivery of audiological services: Special needs of older people. Int J Audiol 2003; 42 Suppl 2: 2S92–101.

22.

Jalongo

MR.

Listening in early childhood: an interdisciplinary review of the literature. Int J List 2010; 24(1): 1–18.

23.

Hirsh-Pasek

A mandate for playful learning in preschool: applying the scientific evidence. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009.

24.

Tricco

Lillie

Zarin

, et al PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169(7): 467–473.

25.

Blaiser

Nelson

Kohnert

Effect of repeated exposures on word learning in quiet and noise. Commun Disord Q 2015; 37(1): 25–35.

26.

Newman

Kirby

Von Holzen

, et al Read my lips! Perception of speech in noise by preschool children with autism and the impact of watching the speaker’s face. J Neurodev Disord 2021; 13(1): 4–20.

27.

Persson Waye

Karlberg

. Sound quality characteristics of importance for preschool children’s perception and wellbeing after an acoustic intervention. Front Built Environ 2021; 7: 1–14.

28.

Kwon

Yang

Effects of face masks and acoustical environments on speech recognition by preschool children in an auralised classroom. Appl Acoust 2023; 202: 109149.

29.

McAllister

Rantala

Jónsdóttir

VI.

The others are too loud! Children’s experiences and thoughts related to voice, noise, and communication in nordic preschools. Front Psychol 2019; 10: 1–13.

30.

Niemitalo-Haapola

Haapala

Kujala

, et al Noise equally degrades central auditory processing in 2- and 4-year-old children. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2017; 60(8): 2297–2309.

31.

Dombroski

Newman

RS.

Toddlers’ ability to map the meaning of new words in multi-talker environments. J Acoust Soc Am 2014; 136(5): 2807–2815.

32.

Simpson

Cooke

Consonant identification in N-talker babble is a nonmonotonic function of N. J Acoust Soc Am 2005; 118(5): 2775–2778.

33.

Scharf

Stroustrup

Developmental milestones. Pediatr Rev 2016; 37(1): 25–37.

34.

Ching

TYC

Crowe

Martin

, et al Language development and everyday functioning of children with hearing loss assessed at 3 years of age. Int J Speech Lang Pathol 2010; 12(2): 124–131.

35.

VanMeter

Fein

Morris

, et al Delay versus deviance in autistic social behavior. J Autism Dev Disord 1997; 27(5): 557–569.

36.

Visentin

Torresin

Pellegatti

, et al Indoor soundscape in primary school classrooms. J Acoust Soc Am 2023; 154(3): 1813–1826.

The effect of classroom acoustics and noise on preschool children’s listening,learning,and wellbeing: A scoping review

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Method

Protocol

Eligibility criteria

Information sources

Search

Selection of sources of evidence

Data charting process

Data items

Synthesis of results

Results

Selection of sources of evidence

Characteristics and results of sources of evidence

Publication years

Population

Acoustic exposure

Measures and methods

Outcomes

Listening

Learning

Wellbeing

Discussion

Limitations and future research needs

Listening

Learning

Wellbeing

General considerations

Conclusions

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References