Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Document Type
- Article (2) (remove)
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- academic performance (1)
- classroom noise (1)
- inclusive education (1)
- judgement accuracy (1)
- noise-cancelling headphones (1)
- scoping review (1)
- social inclusion (1)
- sociometry (1)
- special educational needs (1)
- special needs (1)
Institute
- Department für Inklusionspädagogik (2) (remove)
Classroom noise impairs students' cognition and learning. At a first glance, it seems useful to prevent the negative effects of noise on academic learning by wearing noise-cancelling (NC) headphones during class. The literature and guidelines emphasize the academic benefits of wearing NC headphones (decreased auditory distraction, increased concentration, learning improvement, and decreased distress). These benefits are particularly expected for students with special needs. None of the recommendations to wear NC headphones during class refer to any empirical studies, indicating a potential research gap and lack of evidence. Therefore, the question arises: Is there any empirical evidence supporting academic benefits of wearing NC headphones during class for typically developing students or students with special needs? A total of 13 empirical studies (quantitative and qualitative) were identified through a systematic scoping review of the existing literature. A wide range of outcomes (cognition, learning, academic performance, behaviour, and emotions) were reported related to the use of NC headphones. Most of the studies refer to specific groups of students with special needs (learning disabilities, autism, ADHD, etc.). In view of the limited number of studies, small sample sizes, and lack of replication studies, all studies give the impression of being pilot studies on the academic benefits of wearing NC headphones. The practice of wearing NC headphones during class is an understudied topic. The current body of evidence does not meet the standards for evidence-based practices in both general and special education. Implications for educational practice and future research are discussed.
It is unclear to what extent teachers can accurately assess the social inclusion of their students with and without SEN. The study aims to shed light on these desiderata. Students (N = 1.644) with SEN (learning, behavior, and language problems) and without SEN and their teachers (N = 79) participated in the study. Sociometric peer nominations, students' self-perceived social inclusion, and teachers' assessments regarding students' social inclusion and self-perceived social inclusion were administered. The results suggest that teachers are moderately accurate in identifying social acceptance and social rejection, while accuracy is low when assessing students' self-perceived social inclusion. That said, rating accuracy varied strongly between teachers, ranging from no agreement to a perfect concordance. Teachers seem to be more accurate in estimating the social acceptance of students with learning problems. The results emphasize the importance of differentiating between various social inclusion criteria (i.e., students' self-report vs. peer nominations) and accounting for inter-individual differences in teachers' rating accuracy.