PROCEEDINGS of the
23rd International Congress on Acoustics
9 to 13 September 2019 in Aachen, Germany

The potential of restorative spaces on noise-related wellbeing inschools: preliminary results of a documentation study of threedifferent spaces in Quebec schools.
Ingrid VERDUYCKT1,2,3 , Rachel BOUSERHAL 4,5 , Adriana LACERDA1 , Tiffany CHANG1 ,Nibal CHAHINE1 , Cécilia BORGES6 , Annelies BOCKSTAEL1;
1
2

University of Montreal, School of speech language therapy and audiology; Québec, Canada

Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater Montreal(CRIR), Québec, Canada
3
45International Laboratory for BRAin, Music and Sound Research

École de technologie supérieure de Montréal (ÉTS), Québec, Canada

Centre for Interdisciplinary Research inMusic Media and Technology (CRIMMT), Québec, Canada
6

University of Montreal, Faculty of educational sciences, Québec, Canada

ABSTRACTThe sound environment in schools causes stress, mental and physical fatigue in children and teachers anddisrupt student learning. Traditional noise abatement strategies mainly focus on reducing noise levels byroom acoustics techniques. These approaches have some shortcomings 1) they are costly and hard to
implement in existing infrastructure; 2) they fail to recognize the complexity of noise as a factor withboth negative and positive aspects; 3) they have a top-down approach offering little opportunity forengagement and learning. Implementation of restorative spaces could be a complementary and promisingavenue to the management of individual noise dose in schools. To date, these kinds of spaces have not been
extensively studied. Our objective is to study three different restorative spaces in three different secondary
schools in Quebec. We are documenting their visual/physical and acoustic characteristics, how they are usedby students (and teachers when applicable), and their perceived benefits. In this paper, we present the
preliminary results from the study of one of the spaces, the “Zen-room”, in a mixed gender private secondary
school in Quebec.
Keywords: Noise, Learning environments, Well being

1. INTRODUCTION
The quality of learning environments is essential to the academic development of our children andto the general health and well-being of both students and teachers [1]. The sound environment ofschools is alarming worldwide with average sound levels in classrooms far above the recommended
40-60 dBA for good speech intelligibility [2, 3]. Noise levels in schools cause stress, mental andphysical fatigue in children, and disrupt student learning with drops in results of up to 30% in sometasks [4]. Teachers also report negative health effects of noise such as annoyance, fatigue, voice strain
and stress. Noise was identified as the most stressful situation at school by 75% of teachers in anationwide French survey last year. The physiological stress reactions generated by noise, combinedwith the high speaking load of teachers, weakens their voice. In fact, voice disorders are developed by
50% of teachers compared to only 5% of adults in general [5]. Voice disorders in teachers also
negatively impacts student performance; leads to frequent leave of absence; and pushes 4.2% ofteachers to consider professional retraining [5]. In addition, with new pedagogies geared towards
collaborative work, quiet spaces, such as school libraries, are now more likely to become places ofnoisy communication. It is therefore difficult for students and teachers to escape noise during their4115

school day.
Traditional noise abatement strategies mainly focus on reducing noise levels by using room
acoustics techniques such as sound isolation and sound absorbing material. Although efficient for
reducing the overall noise levels, these approaches have some shortcomings. First, they are costly andhard to implement in existing infrastructure. Second, they mainly focus on external sound sources andfail to recognize that the main sound sources in schools are from the activities taking place in them.
Third, traditional strategies have a top-down approach offering little opportunity for engagement andlearning from the students. Recognizing the complexity of noise as a factor with both negative andpositive aspects, as well as the active part of students and teachers i n contributing to the noise is not
only more realistic, but also opens up to new strategies to manage it.
For outdoor environments in cities, an alternative approach to noise mitigation called soundscapehas recently gained increased attention from both academics and urban planners [6]. This approach
recognizes the critical and complex role that sound plays in our everyday experiences. Sound is viewed
as an inherent part of the environment that can be a serious nuisance, but it can also support ourwell-being, orientation, focus, and our lasting memories of spaces. Soundscape design has lately been
focusing on restorative spaces as a novel strategy to manage sound by offering easily accessible areas
with high-quality soundscape as a way to recover from the negative effect of noise exposure [6]. Wesuggest schools can be viewed as miniature cities, in the sense that they are complex environments
where individuals with different and sometimes contradictory perception in terms of sound mustcoexist. A restorative space inside the school, available for teachers and students, could be a tool that
could support the individual in managing their daily noise exposure, and also vocal dose, during aschool day.
As a first step in understanding the potential of restorative spaces on noise-related wellbeing inschools, it is important to define what a restorative space is. Kaplan [7] defined a restorative space asa place to recover from the fatigue caused by the directed attention required by our daily activities. He
listed four factors a space should contain to make it truly restorative. At the heart of the restorative
experience lies, according to Kaplan, soft fascination which occurs when the environment provides
pleasing and interesting stimulation that requires effortless attention. Another important ingredient is
the sensation of being away, of escaping from the daily routine. The perception of coherence of thespace (that it forms a whole) and the adequation of the space with one’s own purposes are the tworemaining factors. Kaplan argues that nature offers these four factors and thus, green spaces in cities
are often viewed as ideal restorative spaces. There is however little literature on what a restorative
space in a school setting should be like, or if the same four factors listed by Kaplan are applicable andhow they would translate in an indoor setting such as a school.
In this project, we are studying three different spaces that have recently been implemented in threedifferent secondary schools in Quebec with the intent of offering a restorative or a tranquil space tostudents and/or teachers. We are documenting their visual/physical and acoustic characteristics, how
they are used by students (and teachers when applicable), and their perceived benefits. Our intention is
to better capture the elements that contribute to the restorativeness of spaces in school settings andwhat the benefits of these spaces are.
In this paper, we present the preliminary results from the study of one of these spaces, the“Zen-room”, that is implemented in a mixed gender private secondary school in Quebec.

2. METHODS
2.1 General description
The general description of the spaces was done by semi-structured interviews with key informants
at the school (principal of the school, teacher, psycho-educator, technical staff). Questions were asked
about how and when the space was created, why it was created (what was the initial purpose) and if
there had been any sensitization activity for the use of the space.
2.2 Visual description
A visual description of the physical spaces was undertaken by a master student in industrial design
who visited each room at three different time points (morning, lunch hour, evening) one day when theroom was not in use, and one day when the room was in use. The following elements were
documented by observation: access to the room, colors, luminosity, window view, content and design(furniture, decoration, …), volume and capacity, efficiency of space use, materials and textures,

4116

aesthetic quality, temperature and scent.
2.3 Acoustic description
The impulse response of the Zen-room was measured. Then, sound levels were recorded for 10
consecutive school days during the winter semester of 2019. A calibrated recording device made up ofan omnidirectional microphone (Umik-1 from MiniDSP) suspended in the middle of the room andattached to a Raspberry Pi (3 Model B+) was used with a specifically designed software (noiseStation
version 1.0).
2.4

Habits of use and appreciation of the room

2.4.1 Real time appreciation of the room
During the acoustic recordings period, the students using the room were invited to rate their realtime appreciation of the room on an iPad made available in the room. A rating application was usedthat offered respondents to choose between three levels of satisfaction, illustrated with smileys(negative, neutral, positive). The analysis of these ratings is ongoing and will be presented in the full
paper reporting on the three rooms.
2.4.2 General appreciation: Users
A self-assessment questionnaire was used to document how students and teachers use the space andwhat they appreciate about it. The questionnaire was specifically designed for this study and included
subcategories exploring: 1) characteristics of the respondent; 2) frequency of use; 3) frequency andtime of use; 4) type of use; 5) perceived atmosphere and sounds; 6) preferred and desired changes.
2.4.3 General appreciation: Non-users
A self-assessment questionnaire was also used to document the reasons why students and teachers
don’t use the space. This questionnaire included subcategories exploring: 1) characteristics of the
respondent; 2) reasons for non-use; 3) believed reasons for use by others; 4) desired changes.

3. RESULTS
3.1 General description
The key informants for the Zen-room were the school principal and one teacher who was involvedin the research project. The Zen room was created in 2017, at the same time the library was renovated.
It was created because the direction felt there were no dedicated quiet space in the school, and they felt
the need to offer that possibility to students. The precise purpose of the room remains unclear, whether
it is for studying or relaxing, and the principal of the school acknowledges that there is a need to better
define it. No sensitization activity for the use of the space has been offered neither to students nor
teachers.
3.2 Visual description
To access to the Zen room, students have to cross the school’s library which has a rather lively
atmosphere. The Zen room is entered through a transparent glass door. It is not indicated by any signand not visually distinct either, making it difficult to spot if one is not aware of its existence.
The room can accommodate around 30 people. Its dimensions are 9,1m X 4,2m X 2,7m. It is shaped
as a narrow rectangle and furnished with rectangular laminated tables and plastic chairs (figure 1). It ispainted in grey and white with a plastic floor, conferring it a cold atmosphere. The back wall is coveredby bookshelves filled with science and history books. The opposite wall is made of transparent glassand overlooks the adjacent library, leaving little possibility for intimacy or shield ing from outside
agitation. One of the long walls is covered with windows, but the orientation of the room does notallow direct sunlight in.
The window view is limited to parts of other concrete buildings and electric pylons, thus
reinforcing the room’s rectilinear character. The furniture and equipment are fixed and leaves little
choice to the visitor as to how they prefer to sit. The temperature is rather low, contributing to the cold
atmosphere. No particular scent was noticed during the observation, conferring a neutr al character tothe room.

4117

Overall, the design and aesthetic of the room invites studious activities. However, any sound frominside the room is amplified by reverberation and all noise from the library outside penetrates the room
as well. Thus, although silence was respected by the students inside the room during our visit, the room
gives a noisy impression.

Figure 1 – A view of the Zen room taken from the entrance.
3.3 Acoustic description
The acoustic analysis of the Zen room is ongoing. The Zen room is a small room with a volume of
10 m3 . The measured T20 and T30 at 500Hz and 1000Hz is 0.6s making it quite reverberant for its size.
The A-weighted one hour equivalent continuous sound level, L eq1hr , from a random day are shown in
Figure 2. As can be seen, levels vary greatly throughout the day with use. A maximum level of 63.7
dBA is observed a little after noon. From various recordings over the two -week period that themeasurements were taken, as well as from answers to questionnaires, lunch time was the time period of
most use of the Zen room and thus the noisiest time.

Figure 2 — One hour Leq for a random day of the Zen room

3.4

Habits of use and appreciation of the room

3.3.1 General appreciation: Users
Respondents:
18 respondents using the Zen room answered the survey (first grade=1 respondent, second grade =8, third grade = 2, fourth grade = 1, fifth grade = 6), 7 girls, 9 boys and 2 preferred not to say. On the4118

item “There is a lot of noise at school”, the group mean on a scale of 0 (I don’t agree at all) to 5 (Itotally agree) was 3.78 (SD=0,98) with all but one participant agreeing at >3. On the item “I find thenoise in school annoying”, they had a mean of 2.6 (SD=1,24) with 61% of respondents agreeing at >3(see table 1 for a summary of the items rated on the agreement scale).
Frequency and time of use:
Five of the respondents were using the space once a week or more, 6 were using it at least once amonth, and 6 were using it less than once a month. The room was mostly used during lunch break(n=14), but also during classes (n=9). It was rarely used before or after classes (n=5).
Type of use:
Most respondents reported using the room with a friend (n=12) rather than alone. Most respondents
reported feeling serene before they went to the Zen-room (n=9) and after visiting it (n=10). The next
most frequent mood was nervousness (n=4 before visiting, and n=5 after visiting). One participant
commented on the nervousness by indicating they visited the room just before an exam.
The most frequent motivation to use the room was to study (n=12) and find tranquility (rest,
decompress, find calm, find silence) (n=12), followed by having specific needs (n=5). The mostfrequent activity reported was “doing homework” (n=12) and “reading” (n=8).
Perceived atmosphere and sounds:
Respondents were asked to indicate on a scale ranging from 1(don’t agree at all) to 5 (totally agree)
how much they agreed on the following statements: 1) The room offers an escape of the everyday
routine, 2) the atmosphere of the room is agreeable, 3) the atmosphere of the room is appropriate withregard to the activity I intend to do. They also had to identify how well they thought different
atmospheres characterized the room. Three items referred to tran quility (calm, monotonous, relaxing)
and four items related to agitation (animated, dynamic, chaotic, irritating). We regrouped these items
to form a tranquility score and an agitation score. Mean level of perceived escape was 3,2 (SD=1,37),
means level of perceived agreeableness was 3.67 (SD=1,19), and mean level of perceived
appropriateness was 4.11 (SD=1,2). Mean level of perceived tranquility was 3.42 (SD=1,49) and meanlevel of perceived agitation was 2.57 (SD=1,53) (see table 1 for a summary).
Table 1 – Levels of agreement to items related to general noise perception at school and atmosphere of
the Zen-room
Users (n=18)

Non-users (n=20)

Items *

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

There is a lot of noise at school

3.78

0.98

3.53

0.68

The noise at school is annoying

2.61

1.24

1.65

1.14

An escape from everyday routine

3.2

1.37

Agreable

3.67

1.19

Appropriate

4.11

1.2

Tranquil

3.42

1.49

The Zen-room is:

Agitated
2.57
1.53*Respondents rated how much they agreed with the different items on a scale ranging from1(don’t agree at all) to 5 (totally agree).
Respondents were also asked to enumerate the sounds they perceived inside and outside the room.
The most perceived sounds from outside the room were people speaking (n=16) and walking (n=8).
The most perceived sounds from inside the room were furniture mov ing (n=13), sounds fromhomework (pen on paper etc…) (n=13), and people speaking (n=11) and whispering (n=12).

4119

Preferred aspects and desired changes:
Respondents were asked to describe, in free text, one aspect they wished to change with the room,and one aspect they wanted to keep. Nine respondents mentioned they wanted to bring more silence tothe room, either by preventing people from talking inside (ex: “people speaking, they’re speaking all
the time, but it should be silent”) or by better isolation from outside noise (ex: “better isolation, we canhear everything happening outside”.) Three mentioned enlarging the room as a desired change, andone respondent wished for more relaxing furniture (beanbags, hammocks). Regarding the aspect of theroom to keep, six respondents mentioned tranquility or silence as the main aspect to keep, while two
mentioned the tables.
3.3.2 General appreciation: Non-users
Respondents:
20 respondents not using the Zen room answered the survey (first grade=14, second grade = 6), 18
girls and 2 boys. On the item “There is a lot of noise at school”, the group mean was 3,53 (SD=0.68)
with all participants agreeing at >3. On the item “I find the noise in school annoying”, they had a meanof 1.65 (SD=1,14) with 85% of the respondents agreeing at <2 (see table 1 for a summary).
Reasons for non-use and believed reasons for use by others:
Most respondents reported not using the room because they’re not allowed to talk inside it (n=9),
they find it boring (n=6) or that they find there’s no point in using it (n=4). Four answered that they did
not use it because it was already full when they wanted to. One respondent said the reason for not using
it was that it was not silent although supposed to be. This respondent also scored a 5 on noise-relatedannoyance.
We asked non-users what they believed were the reasons for other students to use the room. Most
believed it was because they wanted to do their homework (n=14), be calm (n=14), be alone (n=12) or
escape noise (n=8).
Desired changes:
We asked the non-users if certain changes to the room could make them want to use it. More space(n=13) and a warmer (more welcoming) atmosphere (n=13) were the most chosen changes. Free text
answers mentioned “dividing the room in smaller individual spaces” (n=3), and “if it really were silent”(n=1) (which was expressed by the respondent scoring a 5 on noise -related annoyance).

4. DISCUSSIONThe Zen-room has been in use for less than two years and is available to secondary school students.
The purpose of the room has not been clearly stated, other than it is a place dedicated to silence. Ourvisual analysis of the physical environment of the Zen-room reveals that out of the criteria outlined by
Kaplan [7] for restorative spaces, only one is immediately apparent: the coherence of the room. The
color palette, the furniture, the design, and the window view even, generate a cold and neutral feelinginviting to studious activities. There are no elements in the room providing soft fascination, on thecontrary, the incoming noise from outside and the reverberance (confirmed by our acoustical analyses)
as well as the visual noise from the library (visible through the glass wall) appear as disturbing
elements. Moreover, the design resembling a traditional school environment does not seem to offer an
escape from the everyday routine. As for the adequation of the room according to its purpose, although
it has not been clearly defined by the school administration, the answers of users and non -users to ourquestionnaire indicate that it is perceived as a place for studying in quietness. With that in mind,
although the visual design offers adequation, the noise levels do not. In fact, the sound levels present
in the room during lunch hour, the moment when the room is used by most respondents, are between 50– 63,7 dBA, values falling into the “annoying, irritating” range. This is hardly compatible with thevocation of a quiet space favoring cognitive abilities [4].
As stated above, although the purpose of the Zen-room has not been explicitly defined, our results
show that the main reason for students to visit the room for studying and finding tranquility. This is inline with the studious character reflected by the visual design of the room. Indeed, users agree strongly
with the appropriateness of the room for their purpose (Mean=4.11). According to perceived

4120

tranquility, there is a higher agreement on the fact that the room is tranquil (Mean=3.67) than on thefact that it is agitated (Mean=2.57). Nevertheless, 9 of the 18 respondents wanted the room to be moresilent. So, although users agree moderately with the statement that the room is tranquil, they still thinkthat this aspect could be improved. This perception is supported by our acoustic measurements.
Further, six respondents also expressed that tranquility or silence were the aspect s they absolutely
wanted to keep in the room. These comments show that quietness is indeed an important and desiredfeature of the Zen-room although it is not that well achieved right now. Regarding the “escape” aspectof the Zen-room, students agreed moderately that it offered an escape from daily routine (Mean=3.2),
however, since most users visit the Zen-room to study, it is reasonable to question if the sense of
escape is important to the adequation of the room.
To better understand the role of the Zen-room in the school, we also wanted to document how
students who are not using it perceive it, and why they don’t use it. The group of non-users differs fromthe group of users regarding several aspects but most interesting is that while both groups have asimilar level of agreement with the fact that there is much noise in the school (Mean=3,78 for users and
Mean=3,53 for non-users), the non-user group agrees less than the user group on the fact that the noise
is annoying (Mean=1.65 for users versus Mean=2.6 for non-users). The fact that the group of
non-users is not that much annoyed by the noise can explain why they do not seek out the Zen -room.
Most non-users’ understanding of the Zen-room is in line with how it is used. They believe students
use it to study, be calm or alone and escape noise. The main reason why they do not use the room isbecause it is not in adequation with their own purposes (for example wanting to talk to friends).

5. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
In conclusion, the Zen-room does not answer to the four criteria listed by Kaplan for a restorative
space. The question is if the Zen-room is to be considered as a restorative space. As the principal of theschool admitted prior to the study, the purpose of the Zen-room has not been explicitly defined.
Nevertheless, both users and no-users perceive the Zen-room as a place to study and where silence isdesired. Today, at this school, the library has been transformed into a collaborative space where there
is a lot of animation during lunch hours and the Zen-room seems to have overtaken the traditional role
formerly assigned to the library. Rather than a truly restorative space, offering soft fascination and asense of escape from the daily routine, the Zen-room offers a visually coherent environment forstudious activities, and aims towards offering a tranquil and quiet auditory space. The auditory
quietness is however not reached, as shown by our acoustic measurements and the users’ feedback on
our questionnaire.
The analysis of the results from the two other room we are studying is ongoing and these will becontrasted to the present results to increase our understanding of restorative spaces in schools.

REFERENCES
1. B Clark, C. and P. Sörqvist, A 3-year update on the influence of noise on performance and behavior.
Noise and Health, 2012. 14(61): p. 292.
2. Kristiansen, J., et al., A study of classroom acoustics and schoolteachers’ noise exposure, voice load andspeaking time during teaching, and the effects on vocal and mental fatigue development. Internationalarchives of occupational and environmental health, 2014. 87(8): p. 851-860.
3. Riel, J., Analyse de l'activité de travail des enseignantes et enseignants du secondaire. 2009.
4. Klatte, M., K. Bergström, and T. Lachmann, Does noise affect learning? A short review on noise effects
on cognitive performance in children. frontiers in Psychology, 2013. 4: p. 578.
5. Smith, E., et al., Voice problems among teachers: differences by gender and teaching characteristics.
Journal of Voice, 1998. 12(3): p. 328-334.
6. Aletta, F., J. Kang, and Ö. Axelsson, Soundscape descriptors and a conceptual framework fordeveloping predictive soundscape models. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2016. 149: p. 65-74.
7. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal ofenvironmental psychology, 15(3), 169-182.

4121