Can pupils judge their school’s acoustics? Why measurement alone does not show the whole problem

A meter placed on the playground and a meter placed in the corridor outside the classrooms can show a similar average sound level. For pupils, though, these are two entirely different places: shouting on the playground belongs to break, it is predictable and bound up with play, whereas the same voices coming through the classroom door interrupt the teacher and force pupils to ask for the instruction again. A similar number, different consequences. A teacher will judge both places differently from a pupil in the back row, and a pupil with hearing loss differently again. Does the same reading on a meter therefore mean the same conditions for learning, talking and resting?

Not every sound is noise

Noise is not a separate physical category. The same acoustic signal becomes noise when it is unwanted or interferes with what the user is doing. Context decides, not the sound wave itself. Laughter at break, conversation at a canteen table, music in an art lesson, footfall in the sports hall - these are components of normal school life, not disturbances to be removed. The same conversations during a test or while a new topic is being explained are something else, because they compete with an activity that depends on receiving speech.

There is a practical consequence for assessing a building: a room’s function should set the criteria by which we judge it. A reading room and a canteen cannot be measured by the same yardstick, because in one the main task is concentration and in the other conversation. The aim is never “remove the sounds”, but “match the sound conditions to what is done in this place”.

One caveat is needed. Defining noise through annoyance does not abolish the technical definitions used in acoustics and regulation. Sound level, reverberation time and insulation have precise meanings, measurement procedures and values required by standards. A subjective assessment replaces none of them - it answers a different question.

What a soundscape is

A soundscape is the acoustic environment as perceived and understood by the people in it - in a particular context. Those last words are the key. It is not a catalogue of the sounds present in a place, but what those sounds mean to someone who is doing something.

A soundscape therefore comprises far more than the sources themselves: the activity under way, the meaning attributed to the sound, the user’s expectations of the place, the ability to control the situation or move away from it, the time of day, the architecture and organisation of the space, social relationships in the group and individual differences between people. The same scrape of a chair is one thing in a library and another in the after-school room.

Two things must be kept apart, because they are often confused. The acoustic environment is the physical state of a place - it exists whether or not anyone is there. A soundscape presupposes a person and their interpretation; without a listener it does not exist. The everyday phrase “acoustic climate” is used sometimes in one sense and sometimes in the other, so documentation should say which is meant. And noise level is simply one number describing one parameter - it is a synonym for none of the above.

Nor is the soundscape approach a trendier name for the same thing. It does not, however, excuse anyone from measuring: reverberation time, background noise level, insulation and speech intelligibility still have to be known. It supplements those data by showing what they mean for people.

What an instrument measures and what you have to ask a person

These two sources of information are worth separating explicitly, because in conversations about schools they are constantly conflated.

Professional measurement describes, among other things: the equivalent sound level over a defined period, maximum levels, variability, reverberation time, background noise level, insulation, speech intelligibility and differences between measurement points in the same room. These are data no conversation can replace: nobody can judge “by ear” whether a room meets a standard.

Users’ assessments describe: when sound interferes and in exactly which activity, which sources are most intrusive, where in the building it is hard to rest, where it is hard to hold a conversation, whether the teacher is clearly heard from a particular seat, whether the sounds are predictable, whether the user can move, and what strategies they use to cope. No meter supplies this information, because it is not a property of the air - it is a property of the situation.

Neither perspective is complete on its own and neither is “truer”. Measurement without users’ views does not say where the real problem begins. Views without measurement do not say what should be changed, or by how much.

Can children describe acoustic conditions reliably

The answer depends above all on how you ask. A well-constructed instrument matches the form of the question to the age: younger children use picture scales rather than numerical ones, and the questions refer to concrete, recognisable situations (“can you hear the teacher when the other children are working in groups?”) rather than generalities (“is it loud in the classroom?”). Technical terms have to be replaced with descriptions of events - a child will not rate reverberation, but will say whether the words run together.

It is also worth asking separately about three different things that everyday conversation treats as one: whether the pupil hears, whether the sound irritates them, and whether it makes the task harder. These are three independent dimensions - you can hear clearly and be irritated; you can be unbothered and still lose parts of an instruction. Children’s answers can then be set against measurements and teachers’ views; a discrepancy is then information, not an error.

The studies we turn to next show that children can distinguish listening situations and rate them consistently as easier or harder. That does not make them infallible observers, nor give a single answer the weight of an expert report. What has value is a recurring pattern in a group - twenty people naming the same room and the same situation say something a single answer does not. And conversely: dismissing children’s ratings simply because they are subjective would mean giving up the only source of knowledge about how the building works in practice.

What the research shows

Do children recognise differences between listening situations

A large London study (Dockrell and Shield, 2004). This is the most frequently cited work on how children perceive their own acoustic surroundings [1]. It covered 2,036 pupils from 43 primary schools in London, in two age groups: about 6-7 and about 10-11. The questionnaires were adapted to age, and their construction was preceded by interviews and pilot studies - the children were not answering questions written in adult language. They were asked about sounds heard at school and at home and about hearing the teacher in various lesson situations; some answers were set against noise measurements and teachers’ views.

The most important finding is also the simplest: children could distinguish situations in which they heard the teacher better and worse. They did not answer randomly or identically to everything. There is a nuance that must not be skipped, though - the associations between children’s ratings and objective measurements were not equally present in all the situations analysed. Agreement was sometimes partial and depended on what exactly was asked. The conclusion for schools is twofold: it is worth asking pupils, but a questionnaire is not a substitute for measurement. Limitation: the study covered particular schools in one urban area, with its own built environment and traffic.

The adolescent perspective (Connolly et al., 2013). The same line of research was extended to older pupils [2]. An online survey drew 2,588 pupils aged 11-16 from secondary schools in England, with the aim of developing an evidence-based instrument, not merely collecting opinions. Factor analysis identified four areas: ease of hearing in different parts of the school, noise sensitivity, the consequences of noise in class, and the intrusiveness of intermittent sounds. This has practical value: it shows that “noise at school” is not one dimension that can be captured in a single question.

The study also recorded greater difficulties reported by some pupils with additional educational needs, and differences linked to the organisation of space and to external sound sources. Caveats: this was a self-report questionnaire and the answers were not diagnoses; the study did not demonstrate causation; educational needs were self-declared, not documented; and school architecture may have co-occurred with other features of a school that the study did not control for.

Transferring an instrument to another country (Brännström et al., 2017). A Swedish team translated and applied a previously developed questionnaire to examine how children rate their school’s acoustic environment [3]. The work is interesting less for its result than for what it shows about method: moving a research instrument into another language and education system requires its properties to be re-checked, not merely a literal translation. Different vocabulary, a different school day, different building types - all of these can change how the questions are understood. The study covered ratings of listening conditions, children’s views on sound sources and differences between groups of pupils. Limitations: the number of participants and the exact age range require verification in the full text, which is why we do not quote them; and an adapted questionnaire is not a universal test ready for use in any school.

How to study the soundscape of the youngest children

A pilot study in classrooms (Visentin et al., 2023). An Italian team approached primary-school classrooms from a soundscape perspective rather than one of annoyance alone [4]. Questionnaires based on picture scales suited to younger children were used, and the study examined not only what disturbs but also the character and meaning of the sound environment - how children perceive the place. The aim was to develop assessment methods appropriate for this age group, because instruments designed for adults do not work with children.

The limitations need particular emphasis. This was a pilot study: it tested the feasibility of the method rather than delivering a definitively validated standard. The numbers of children and classes and the detailed results require verification in the full text, which is why we do not give them. Nor should the findings be transferred automatically to other age groups - an instrument designed for eight-year-olds will not necessarily work with teenagers.

How specific the questions can be (Renaud et al., 2024). A Canadian study shows how far precision in questions put to pupils can be taken [5]. The questionnaire was completed by 408 primary and secondary pupils in Quebec. They were asked about emotional and bodily reactions to noise, the coping strategies they use, and the sound sources they perceive; the picture that emerged varied markedly between individuals. The value of this work for schools is chiefly methodological: it shows that pupils can answer questions far more specific than “is it loud”.

The caveats matter. Bodily reactions were reported by the pupils - no physiological measurement was taken on that basis and the study did not confirm medical diagnoses. It was cross-sectional, so a reported reaction does not establish the direction of causation. We write more fully about the relationship between noise and pupils’ wellbeing in the article on stress, fatigue and wellbeing at school.

What this research field looks like as a whole

Scoping review (Kurukose Cal, Kang and Aletta, 2024). This review makes it possible to gauge how much is actually known about school soundscapes [6]. Publications from January 2000 to September 2023 were searched and, after selection, 11 studies were included. That number is itself a finding: the field is far less researched than the effects of noise. Primary-school children were studied most often, and questionnaires were the dominant method. Many publications focused on negative sound sources, especially transport noise, leaving neutral and desirable sounds outside the analysis.

The authors identified two clear gaps: there is a lack of studies covering whole school sound environments rather than individual rooms, and of studies taking in the perspective of older pupils and the building’s varied interior spaces. Two caveats for the reader: a scoping review maps a field and is not a meta-analysis - it neither combines results nor assesses effect sizes. And the obvious point that is easy to forget: a small number of studies means a gap in knowledge, not the absence of a problem.

The teachers’ perspective - for comparison

A large UK study (Kurukose Cal, Aletta and Kang, 2025). This cross-sectional survey covered 452 teachers in the United Kingdom and asked about perceptions of the soundscape in different parts of the school [7]. An online questionnaire with closed and open questions was used, and the comparison covered classrooms, corridors, canteens, playgrounds, sports halls and the school environment overall. Differences in perceived engagement, comfort, intrusiveness of sounds and privacy were analysed, along with how teachers use sound in their teaching. The finding relevant to our question is structural: the different spaces of a school were rated markedly differently - confirming that a building cannot be described by one characterisation.

Caveats. The participants were teachers, not pupils - the publication serves here to compare perspectives, not to replace children’s voices. The study rested on self-report. The observed link between wellbeing and soundscape ratings was a correlation, not proof of causation. Online recruitment limits the sample’s representativeness, and the results concern schools in the United Kingdom, with different organisation and architecture from Polish ones.

When sound is added rather than subtracted

Natural and musical sounds (Kurukose Cal et al., 2025). This study inverts the usual question: instead of reducing unwanted sounds, it examines what happens when particular sounds are introduced into a school environment [8]. Mixed methods were used - questionnaires before and after the intervention, observations, interviews and measurements. One intervention used natural sounds, the other music. The key distinction that emerges concerns deliberately added sound versus incidental sound: the first has a purpose, is predictable and usually time-limited; the second has none of these features. Pupils’ responses varied.

The conclusion must therefore be cautious. This study does not show that playing music or nature sounds always improves wellbeing - it shows that this is a direction worth researching. The number of participants, the duration of the intervention and the detailed results require verification in the full text, which is why we do not quote them. Nor is there any basis for advising schools to play sound continuously without regard to purpose, the context of the space and individual pupils’ needs - for some of them additional sound is one more stimulus, not a relief.

Classroom, corridor and canteen are three different environments

A school cannot be assessed as if it were one room. Each space has a different task and therefore different criteria - below is what tends to matter most in each.

• Classroom - speech comprehension, concentration, hearing the teacher and other pupils’ answers, reverberation, sound coming in from adjacent spaces.
• Corridor - movement and sudden sounds, many people in a short time, noise passing into classrooms, orientation and the ability to communicate, and a realistic chance of a short rest during break.
• Canteen - the ability to hold a conversation, overlapping voices, the noise of crockery and equipment, very high intensity over a short period of use, and the comfort of catering staff as much as of pupils.
• After-school room - several activities running at once, the need to reconcile play with rest, zoning of the space, and the long hours some children spend there.
• Sports hall - large volume and strong reflections, shouts and signals as part of the activity, and above all the intelligibility of safety instructions.
• Outdoor areas - physical activity and conversation, natural sounds, transport noise, relations with neighbours, and the chance to recover between lessons.

Two notes. There is no universal hierarchy of importance among these spaces - it depends on how a particular school is used. And there is no sense in expecting a canteen or a playground to be as quiet as a room during a test; that would not be an improvement but the removal of those places’ function.

Pupils and teachers can see the same problem differently

Divergence between a teacher’s and a class’s ratings is common and usually has a simple explanation: the two are doing different things in the same room. The teacher communicates to the whole group and judges whether that is possible; the pupil receives sound from one specific place - and conditions at the board and in the back row can be incomparable. The teacher attends to being able to run the lesson and keep the work in order; the pupil rather to tiredness after several hours, to the possibility of talking to a friend, or to the absence of any privacy. Adults and children may also interpret the sounds of play differently: for some it is noise, for others the point of break. And a pupil with a particular need - hearing, language, sensory - may experience the same space quite differently from most of the group.

A divergence does not mean that one side is wrong. It usually means that different users pay different costs for the same conditions - which is exactly why both assessments are worth collecting rather than choosing one.

How to ask pupils so the answers are useful

The quality of the answers depends on the quality of the questions. A good question concerns a specific space and a specific activity, not the school in general. It distinguishes hearing from irritation and from interference with a task. It asks about moments in the day, because conditions in the first and sixth lesson can differ. It does not suggest the expected answer (“does noise from the corridor bother you?” already assumes that it does). It uses age-appropriate language. It lets pupils name not only unwanted sounds but also needed ones. It allows “I don’t know” and “it depends”, because both can be true. It takes account of where the pupil sits. And it allows an anonymous answer if the topic touches on personal discomfort.

An important caveat: a questionnaire a school writes itself is a supporting material, not a validated research instrument or a diagnostic test. It can point to where and when something is worth looking at - it cannot rule on compliance with a standard or on whether something worrying is happening with a pupil.

Not every sound needs eliminating

A school soundscape contains things worth protecting rather than curtailing: the freedom to talk, laughter, music-making, play, the sounds of working together on a shared task, natural sounds outdoors, the general sense of life and community in the building, and the signals needed for safety and for organising the day. A soundless school is not the goal and would not be a good place to learn.

The goal is to match the environment to the activity - a harder task than simply turning things down, because the same sound can be needed by one group and disruptive for the space next door, appropriate at one time of day and not at another. That is why decisions about change are best made knowing each place’s function and how it is really used. On what technical refurbishment does and does not deliver, we write in the article on the effectiveness of acoustic treatment.

What the research does not allow us to say

All the instruments discussed rest on self-report, and that has its limits. Younger children need specially designed instruments - an adult questionnaire handed to an eight-year-old will produce answers, but not necessarily true ones. Answers depend on how questions are worded: different phrasing, different distribution of results. Views also shift with mood and circumstances, so one snapshot does not describe a school year.

There are limits to transferability too. Studies conducted in London, England, Sweden, Italy, Quebec and the United Kingdom need not reflect Polish schools exactly - different architecture, a different school day, different class sizes. Some studies included no professional measurements, so they describe experience only. Where ratings were compared with measurements, correlation did not mean full agreement [1]. An average response can hide the needs of smaller groups - twenty satisfied people and three in serious difficulty still produce a good mean.

And two closing notes. Recent research on school soundscapes remains sparse - the scoping review covered just eleven studies [6] - and interventions using music or nature sounds provide no basis for universal recommendations [8]. Pupils’ perspective supplements a technical expert report; it does not replace it.

Summary

Let us return to the two meters from the start - the one on the playground and the one outside the classrooms. A similar number does not mean similar conditions, because in one place the sound is the content of break and in the other an obstacle to the lesson. That difference is invisible in the measurement and immediately visible once you ask the users - provided you ask about a specific space and a specific activity.

A good acoustic diagnosis of a school starts with measurement but should not end at a number. It is worth checking what that number means during a lesson, a conversation, a rest and the daily business of moving around the building. Pupils will not replace an acoustician and will not rule on compliance with a standard. But they can say something no meter will: where and when conditions get in the way of what they came to school for.

References

1. Dockrell J.E., Shield B.M., Children's Perceptions of Their Acoustic Environment at School and at Home, „The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America” 2004; 115(6): 2964-2973. DOI: 10.1121/1.1652610; PMID: 15237821.
2. Connolly D.M., Dockrell J.E., Shield B.M., Conetta R., Cox T.J., Adolescents' Perceptions of Their School's Acoustic Environment: The Development of an Evidence Based Questionnaire, „Noise & Health” 2013; 15(65): 269-280. DOI: 10.4103/1463-1741.113525; PMID: 23771426.
3. Brännström K.J., Johansson E., Vigertsson D., Morris D.J., Sahlén B., Lyberg-Åhlander V., How Children Perceive the Acoustic Environment of Their School, „Noise & Health” 2017; 19(87): 84-94. DOI: 10.4103/nah.NAH_33_16.
4. Visentin C., Torresin S., Pellegatti M., Prodi N., Indoor Soundscape in Primary School Classrooms, „The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America” 2023; 154(3): 1813-1826. DOI: 10.1121/10.0020833; PMID: 37728288.
5. Renaud F., Verduyckt I., Chang T., Lacerda A., Borges C., Bockstael A., Bouserhal R.E., Student's Self-Reported Experience of Soundscape: The Link Between Noise, Psychological and Physical Well-Being, „International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health” 2024; 21(1): 84. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph21010084; PMID: 38248548.
6. Kurukose Cal H.K., Kang J., Aletta F., Methodological Approaches and Main Factors Considered in School Soundscape Studies: A Scoping Review, „Building Acoustics” 2024. DOI: 10.1177/1351010X231216016.
7. Kurukose Cal H., Aletta F., Kang J., Perception of Indoor and Outdoor School Soundscapes: A Large-Scale Cross-Sectional Survey With UK Teachers, „Applied Acoustics” 2025; 227: 110219. DOI: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2024.110219.
8. Kurukose Cal H., Aletta F., Kang J., Clarke P., Student Perception of School Soundscapes and Wellbeing: A Mixed Methods Examination of Natural and Musical Sounds, „Building and Environment” 2025; 277: 112946. DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112946.

This article is for information only. The instruments and questions described are supporting material - they do not replace an acoustic measurement, a technical expert report or an individual assessment of a pupil’s needs.