University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

How does working in an ILE at ISSA influence teacher practice?

(USC Thesis Other)

How does working in an ILE at ISSA influence teacher practice?

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

How Does Working in an ILE at ISSA Influence Teacher Practice?
by
Brendan Riley

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December 2022

© Copyright by Brendan Riley 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Brendan Riley certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Wesley Imms
Darlene Robles
Lawrence Picus, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
This dissertation is an attempt to learn about the experiences of educators who currently work in
innovative learning communities (ILEs) throughout the International School in Southeast Asia
(ISSA). By learning about how teaching in such spaces has influenced their practice, we can
better understand how to support our students and teachers who are currently working in, or who
soon might find themselves working in an ILE. There is growing research to support the claim
that innovative spaces and programs lead to better student learning outcomes (Biggs, 1987;
Fullan & Langworthy, 2013; Imms et al., 2017; Kember et al., 2004), however, there is still a
need for more evidence-based conversations to be had in order to garner support for developing
new innovative learning spaces (Imms et al., 2016; Lippman, 2010a, 2010b; OECD, 2015). This
qualitative study interviewed five focus groups of teachers and coaches who have worked in
ILEs in the elementary, middle and high school. The themes that emerged from this study were
(a) informal versus formal collaboration, (b) personalized learning, (c) interdisciplinary project-
based learning, and (d) informal versus formal professional development. The study also asked
participants to share the benefits and challenges of working in such spaces. The themes that
emerged for the benefits were (a) strong sense of community, (b) opportunity for enhanced
professional growth, and (c) flexible time and space facilitates learning. The themes that
emerged for the challenges of working in an ILE were (a) excess noise, (b) the flexibility of the
space is heavily dependent on whether you have flexible walls, and (c) collaboration overload.
By examining the themes that emerged from this study, ISSA as an institution can gain a better
understanding of how to support our students and teachers who find themselves working in an
ILE.

v
Dedication
To my husband, Byron Aguilar-Rodriguez, who lovingly encouraged me throughout this process,
and who never once made me feel bad about having to say “no” to many social events during the
time it took to complete my doctoral degree. Without his love and support, I would never have
been able to achieve the goals I set out to accomplish at the beginning of this arduous endeavor.

vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the faculty of USC for helping me along the way. Special mention
to Dr. Wesley Imms, whose research influenced much of the work I am currently doing at my
own school, and will continue to do in the future. Dr. Imms was kind enough to be my third chair
for this dissertation, a favor for which I am truly grateful.
I would also like to thank all the participants who agreed to be in my study. Taking the
time out of one’s own work schedule isn’t always easy, as ISSA is a busy place, therefore, a big
thank-you to those who were able to find the time to be a part of my focus group discussions.
This researcher currently works at ISSA, and so at times, balancing doing a doctoral
program, while working full time as a teacher was quite the challenge. I would, therefore, like to
thank the administration of ISSA for first, helping to arrange this opportunity through the
University of Southern California, as well as providing us with funds and time so that we may
pursue this challenging task.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 5
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 5
Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 6
Delimitations ....................................................................................................................... 8
Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 8
Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 11
A Brief History of Educational Spaces ............................................................................. 12
Innovative Learning Environments in the 21st Century ................................................... 16
Flexibility: What’s in a Name? ......................................................................................... 18
Spatial Competence and the Affordances of Space .......................................................... 23
Student-Centered Pedagogy .............................................................................................. 25
Collaboration Is Key in an ILE ......................................................................................... 36
Team Teaching .................................................................................................................. 40
Successfully Transitioning to an ILE ................................................................................ 47
The Role of Professional Development ............................................................................ 53
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 55

viii
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 59
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 61
Site Description ................................................................................................................. 63
Sampling Method and Participants ................................................................................... 66
Interview Analysis ............................................................................................................ 71
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 72
Positionality and Role of the Researcher .......................................................................... 73
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 75
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 77
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 77
Results: Research Question 1 ............................................................................................ 78
Summary of RQ1: How Does Teaching in an ILE Influence Teacher Practice? ............. 90
Results: Research Question 2 ............................................................................................ 91
Summary of RQ2: What Are the Perceived Benefits and Challenges of Working
in an ILE? ........................................................................................................................ 101
Suggestions for Current and Future ILE Educators ........................................................ 102
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 109
Summary and Discussion of Findings ............................................................................ 110
Findings Regarding How the Space Has Influenced Teacher Practice ........................... 111
Perceived Benefits of Working in an ILE ....................................................................... 114
Perceived Challenges of Working in an ILE .................................................................. 116
Suggestions for Current and Future ILE Educators ........................................................ 118
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................. 121
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 127
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 128
References ................................................................................................................................... 131

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Five Co-Teaching Typologies ......................................................................................... 42
Table 2: Interview Questions for Pathway Teachers ..................................................................... 68
Table 3: Research Timeline and Activities .................................................................................... 71

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Classroom Typologies ................................................................................................... 21
Figure 2: Framework for Conceptualizing and Enacting Personalized Learning ......................... 28
Figure 3: Grand Themes: Fourteen Characteristics of Teacher Transition into ILEs ................... 52
Figure 4: Success Case Method Bucket Categories ...................................................................... 61
Figure 5: Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 63
Figure 6: 6A Pathway Floor Plan .................................................................................................. 65

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
The evolution of educational spaces over the course of history continues into the 21st
century. Our views of what we deem appropriate schooling are being influenced by the rapid
expansion of information production and communication technologies, not to mention the
formation of new social structures (Cleveland, 2011). When we examine past educational
reform, it is evident that schools have struggled to keep pace with these societal changes
(Cleveland, 2011). The global resurgence of unconventional learning spaces and the student-
centered pedagogy that characterizes them, is an attempt to keep ahead of these societal changes
to prepare students for a world where 21st century skills such as creativity, collaboration,
communication, critical thinking, and problem-solving will be in high demand. The learning
spaces that were the focus of this dissertation are innovative learning environments (ILEs). An
ILE, sometimes referred to as a flexible learning environment (FLE), is often a shared space that
includes more than one class and teacher. These spaces bring together educators that once
worked in isolation. These terms will be further explained in the literature review of Chapter
Two.
One school attempting to be on the cutting edge of the ILE movement is the International
School in Southeast Asia (ISSA).
1
According to their school’s website
2
, ISSA aspires to be a
world leader in cultivating exceptional thinkers prepared for the future. ISSA understands the
role that 21st century skills will play in the success of their future graduates. ISSA is remarkably
committed to innovative programs, including the improvement of their learning environments.

1
A pseudonym is used to protect the identity of the school site.
2
The URL of the school website is not given to protect the identity of the school site.
2

The school understands the role that ILEs, and the teachers who work within them, play in
preparing students for the future, hence their multi-million-dollar investment in a future build
project which will see multiple ILEs built throughout the K–12 school.
In their recent research, French et al. (2020) found a disconnect between leadership and
school culture. Leaders are underestimating the importance of their role in the process and
preparation for a school’s transition into adopting ILEs, which in turn results in very few
emergent changes in pedagogy to match the novel design of the space. Furthermore, due to the
collaborative model of the ILE, teachers who teach in these spaces will need to embrace the
deprivatization of their practice or run the risk of falling back into their traditional pedagogical
praxes (French et al., 2020). In other words, teachers need to become comfortable working
outside of the siloed confines of their ‘private’ classroom in order to successfully transition into a
collaborative ILE model that incorporates innovative teaching techniques.
One of the keys to success for de-privatizing practice in an ILE is to adopt a collaborative
team-teaching model. The OECD (2013) stated that team collaboration is an essential key to a
successful ILE. In a collaborative model, teachers constantly learn best practices from each
other, which then go on to have positive benefits for the students with whom they work. Nair
(2014) stated that the combined expertise of a team of teachers, along with the opportunities that
the space provides, otherwise known as spatial affordances, helps to facilitate effective
differentiation of learners according to their unique needs. When ILEs function collaboratively,
they become an ecosystem of afforded possibilities, producing multiple perspectives from which
one can take advantage. Collaboration, when effectively executed, affords teachers an
advantaged opportunity to meet the diverse needs of their student body, thus achieving a vision
of 21st century learning (Jensen, 2019), in a 21st century space.
3

Simply occupying an innovative space, however, does not necessarily equate to
innovative pedagogical change (Blackmore et al., 2011; Bradbeer, 2020; Cleveland, 2011;
Gislason, 2010; Halpin, 2007; Lackney, 2008; Lippman, 2010a; Mulcahy et al., 2015; Woolner
et al., 2012). Teachers need support in being able to perceive and actualize the affordances of a
novel educational space (Young et al., 2021). Questions like, “what practices work?” and “which
ones should be abandoned?” need to be considered.
Transitioning from a traditional teacher-centered, single-cell classroom model into an
ILE continues to be a struggle for many teachers who are attempting to make the shift. It takes a
concerted effort to be successful in such a paradigm change (Wood, 2017). Monahan’s (2002)
‘built pedagogy’ concept recognized the influence that space has on educational practices.
Teachers in a new ILE will be required to adjust to new dispositions, pedagogical approaches,
learning environments, and educational technologies. The acquisition of these new skills,
afforded by the ILE, are at the heart of this dissertation in the hopes that it might inform teachers
who are making the transition from single-cell classrooms to an ILE model.
Statement of the Problem
It should be noted at this point that the school at the heart of this dissertation research
uses the term “FLE,” rather than “ILE,” and so when referring to the ISSA context, the term
“FLE” will be used. Therefore, for purposes of this dissertation, the terms “FLE” and “ILE” will
be used interchangeably to mean a flexible space where innovative learning practices take place.
There is growing research to support the claim that innovative pedagogies lead to better
student learning outcomes (Biggs 1987; Fullan & Langworthy 2013; Imms et al., 2017; Kember
et al., 2004), however, there is still a need for more evidence-based conversations to be had in
order to garner support for developing new innovative learning spaces (Imms et al., 2016;
4

Lippman, 2010a, 2010b; OECD, 2015). Imms et al. (2016) added that although there has been a
fair amount of research around how the use of physical space has impacted student learning,
much of it is obscured by the poor quality of the research methods and data that came from
earlier studies.
ILEs and their ability to support diverse teaching practices are increasingly becoming
popular, however, there remains less of an awareness of how to support teachers in their
transition into the new learning environments (Young et al., 2021). A review of the literature
showed that most teachers continued to use the same traditional pedagogical practices, even after
moving into an ILE (Carvalho & Yeoman, 2018; Niemi, 2020; Sigurðardóttir & Hjartarson,
2016; Woolner et al., 2012). ISSA has been exploring the use of ILEs over the past several years
and plans to make them part of their new campus build project in 2022. The organization wishes
to collect further data specific to their context regarding how ILEs at ISSA have influenced
teacher practice so that it might help teachers at the school successfully transition into an ILE
model, without devolving into traditional methods that are not appropriate in a student-centered
environment. Though Imms and Kvar (2021) feel that there is good evidence to suggest that
teachers are transitioning into ILEs successfully, they do note that future work needs to be done
that can be added to their growing list of high leverage practices teachers can use when they
occupy ILEs. They also noted that the use of innovative practices when transitioning into an ILE
is not immediate, and so such a list could prove very helpful in quickening the transition for
teachers.
5

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to learn about the successful practices of teachers who are
currently working in an ILE model, so that it might help inform teachers who may find
themselves working in an ILE in the future.
Two research questions guided this study:
1. How does teaching in an ILE at ISSA influence teacher practice?
2. What are the perceived benefits and challenges of working in an ILE at ISSA?
Significance of the Study
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an
international organization that works with governments and policy makers to better the lives of
their citizens (OECD, 2017). Over the past decade, the OECD (2017) reported that there has
been a 20% increase in education spending per student with almost no improvement on student
outcomes. The OECD (2017) pointed to what industry does when they stagnate—they innovate!
Innovation in schools rarely works when it is a top-down mandate (OECD, 2017). For true
change to take hold, teachers and administrators need to play a central role in school reform
(OECD, 2017). If schools are going to succeed in bringing education into the 21st century, they
are going to need sound knowledge and systems to be effective game changers.
Imms et al. (2017) reported that positive correlations have been shown between the
effective use of ILEs and student learning. Work by the OECD (2017) has shown similar
findings, but there is still much to be learned in the realm of innovative spaces and teacher
practice. Regardless of the world-wide growing interest and investment in ILEs, there continues
to be a shortage of data which can be used to evaluate the impact of ILEs on teaching and
learning (Blackmore et al., 2011; Brooks, 2011; Bradbeer et al., 2019; Gislason, 2010).
6

Additionally, in a world-wide examination of innovative learning environments, Borri (2018)
stated that there is a history of less than stellar research in the field of effective learning, but also
noted that when provided with clear evidence, teachers are willing to try new practices.
Based on its global review of innovative developments of teaching and learning, the
OECD has suggested several key elements of learning in innovative environments, one of them
being the opportunity for students to learn in an interdisciplinary manner, which also connects to
personal interest (Campbell, 2020; OECD, 2013). This speaks to the kind of work that is
currently being done at ISSA. Teachers who teach in ILEs at the school teach as part of an
interdisciplinary professional learning community (PLC) team who work collaboratively to
provide a personalized, student-centered education. The school refers to this interdisciplinary
team-teaching endeavor as the Pathway
3
project. Pathway PLC teachers have been tasked to
learn everything they can about working in an ILE to pave the ‘pathway’ for future teachers who
will transition into this model of teaching. This study, therefore, not only adds to the broader
topic of innovative education, but it subsequently serves ISSA through the acquisition of
contextual data regarding what is and is not working in their Pathway project.
Limitations
Lock et al. (2010) stated that a good research design will always discuss limitations of the
study. The first limitation of this study is the global pandemic. The novel Coronavirus continues
to affect countries worldwide; Southeast Asia is no exception. Over the past year, the country
where ISSA is located has mandated that schools adhere to strict guidelines pertaining to student
movement, class size configurations, mask wearing, and so on. These measures have thankfully

3
A pseudonym is used to protect the identity of the program.
7

allowed the school to remain open, but it has severely affected how Pathway teachers and
students use their space. This might have had some effect on how teachers answered the focus
group questions for this study. To counter this scenario, the study only included participants that
have worked in an ILE prior to the COVID restrictions. In other words, one criterion for
participation in this study was that teachers must have taught at least 1 year in an ILE where
COVID was not a consideration.
A second limitation is the generalizability of the study. The Pathway project is unique in
several ways. First, teachers work as part of a collaborative interdisciplinary team. Benefiting
from a low student to teacher ratio, Pathway teams share roughly 110 students among seven
teachers: one math, one science, one social studies, two English Language Arts, one physical
education, and one learning support. They use project-based learning (PBL) to contextualize and
tie the subjects together through thematic units, as well as an approach to personalize the
learning experience. This all takes place in a large ILE that has a flexible layout regarding
architecture and furnishings. It goes without saying that this does not represent how most
students around the world experience school.
Third, most of the participants in the study are from the Middle School Pathway; teachers
from the elementary and high school are underrepresented, and could limit the scope of possible
interview answers, meaning that the findings of this study might only be useful to Middle School
teachers, as opposed to teachers in other divisions, such as pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and
high school. There was only one interviewer conducting the interviews, which could have
introduced some level of bias. For example, the author of this study was once a teacher who
taught in an ILE and continues to believe in the power of ILEs and interdisciplinary project-
8

based learning. Another effect of having only one interviewer is that it affected the number of
interviews that could be done in the timeframe allowed for this study.
Finally, the student perspective is missing from the data. However, this was by design
because the researcher was trying to eliminate possible ethical scenarios that could have arisen
while working with students. Administrator voices are also missing, as the researcher purposely
planned to target only teachers.
Delimitations
This study only involved teachers who have worked in an ILE for at least 1 year. Further
delimiting this study is the COVID-19 factor. For the past couple of years (2020–2022), COVID-
19 restrictions have not allowed Pathway teachers to use the ILE as it was intended, therefore,
teachers who joined the Pathway project during the 2020–2021 school year were not invited to
participate in the study. Another delimitation is the exclusion of the physical education teacher
since most of their work with students takes place outside of the ILE, even though they are
considered a core team Pathway member. Finally, participation in the interviews were voluntary
and teachers were able to back out at any time.
Assumptions
This study assumed that teachers who have worked for at least 1 year in an ILE, prior to
COVID restrictions, will accurately remember what it was like to teach as part of an
interdisciplinary team without any restrictions due to COVID-19. We can learn from both
positive and negative experiences, and so this study also assumed that participants' interview
answers would be truthful, whether that means painting the ILE experience in a positive or
negative light, or a combination of both.
9

Definitions
Innovative learning environment (ILE): ILEs are learning spaces that are intentionally
designed to support and reinforce 21st century learning (Bisset, 2014). The OECD (2017) shared
seven principles that help to shape an ILE (Imms et al., 2018), those being that the learning
environment: Recognizes the learners as its core participants, encourages their active
engagement and develops in them an understanding of their own activity as learners; is founded
on the social nature of learning and actively encourages well-organized cooperative learning;
professionals within the space are highly attuned to the learners’ motivations and the key role of
emotions in achievement; is acutely sensitive to the individual differences among the learners in
it, including their prior knowledge; devises programs that demand hard work and challenge from
all without excessive overload; Operates with clarity of expectations and deploys assessment
strategies consistent with these expectations; places a strong emphasis on formative feedback to
support learning; Strongly promotes “horizontal connectedness” across areas of knowledge and
subjects as well as to the community and the wider world (OECD, 2017, p. 25).
Personalized learning: Prain et al. (2014) stated that learning becomes personalized when
it promotes a sense of learners’ unique interests and capabilities. Additionally, from a
psychological perspective, learners judge an experience as being personalized when teachers
show concern for, and knowledge of, students as unique individuals. Further, learning is
personalized when teachers can apply differentiated strategies to help individual students who
might have different needs (Prain et al., 2014).
Project-based learning (PBL): This study draws on the work of Bullock (2013) who used
the Buck Institute for Education (BIE) (2009) definition of PBL as a “process of inquiry in
response to a complex … problem” where “students learn key academic content (and) practice
10

21st Century Skills” through the creation of a project (p. 1). Additionally, interdisciplinary PBL
refers to the combination of core subjects (English language arts, social studies, science, and
math) in the pursuit of cross-curricular conceptual connections.
Student-centered learning: The overall goal of student-centered learning, according to
Bennett (2007) and Chism (2006), is to require the involvement of the student in the learning
process. The requirements of the curriculum are traditionally what drives instruction, which is
more centered on the teacher, hence the term ‘teacher-centered.’ ‘Student-centered’ learning
positions the student at the nexus of the learning. This style of instruction is sometimes referred
to as ‘active-learning’ (Brooks, 2011).
Professional learning community (PLC): “A group of teachers sharing and critically
interrogating their practice in an on-going, reflective, collaborative, inclusive, learning-oriented,
growth-promoting way” (Stoll et al., 2007, p. 2).

11

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review aims to highlight certain parts of the rapidly expanding research
within the field of educational innovative learning environments (ILEs), also commonly known
as flexible learning environments (FILEs). The review will begin by examining how the
interconnectedness of educational spaces and teacher praxis has evolved over time and will then
shift into our contemporary understanding of current practices in this field. Most of this literature
review will focus on teacher praxis within ILEs in the present-day context for reasons that
connect to the overarching research question, “How does teaching in an ILE influence teacher
practice?”
The literature review will begin by walking through a short history of educational spaces,
beginning back in the Colonial Era and continuing through to the present day. It will then spend
time digging into topics such as spatial competence and spatial affordance theory, student-
centered pedagogy and social construction of knowledge, personalized learning, project-based
learning (PBL), collaborative team teaching, and finally the transition process into ILEs and the
importance of professional development (PD). For organizational purposes, the literature review
is divided into five main topics: A Brief History of Educational Spaces; Innovative Learning
Environments In the 21st Century; The Use of Innovative Space and Student-Centered
Pedagogy; Collaboration is Key in an ILE; and Successfully Transitioning To an ILE.
Mahat et al. (2018) explained that the emergence of the concept of learning environments
stems from the psychological, pedagogical, and sociocultural influences that have changed how
we comprehend the learning context and the roles of the student and teacher within it. These
influences, including the evolution of educational praxis, according to Imms et al. (2018), have
impacted the iterative pursuit of optimal spatial design for learning environments throughout the
12

years. The topics highlighted in this literature review are by no means meant to be an exhaustive
list of all the ways in which FLEs are purported to influence teacher practice, rather, they
represent some of the major elements of teacher praxis when working as part of a team in an
ILE.
If schools or individual teachers are preparing to transition toward an innovative FLE
model, then it would be beneficial to first understand the context of educational spaces as they
evolved throughout history, and so, what follows in this first section is an abridged history of
those spaces.
A Brief History of Educational Spaces
The long history of school reform in America, among other Western societies, is well
established. Changes in education tended to result from societal shifts. As the world transitioned
to the industrial age, standardization and conformity were preferred. This was the knowledge age
which valued comprehension and analysis of information, which now contrasts with the
contemporary creative age that emphasizes innovation (Pink, 2006; Sawyer, 2019; Trilling &
Fadel, 2009).
As educational philosophy evolved over time, so too did the physical space of school
itself. This evolution of the form and function of school has been categorized into different eras
(Snyder, 2019). Lippman (2010b) devised a ‘school design’ timeline that ranges from the
colonial era (1600–1750) through to the Postmodern Era (1981–2000). What follows is a more
detailed account using Lippman’s (2010b) timeline structure.
The Colonial and Industrial Eras (1600–1890)
The Colonial Era (1600–1750) saw education mostly taking place in the home, as very
few schools were built during that period. Schools that were constructed were usually one-room
13

schoolhouses with the teacher's desk perched up on a raised platform overlooking their class who
were sitting in rows that resembled pews in a church (Bissell, 1995). This era gave way to
industrialization. It is well established that the industrial age valued efficiency when designing
both factories and schools (Lippman, 2010b). The population growth slowly began to shift from
rural to urban settings. This period of population growth saw more demand for schools, and with
this came the introduction of public schools, led by Horace Mann (Lippman, 2010b). The United
Kingdom’s Elementary Education Act of 1870 initiated compulsory primary education, which
eventually became the norm in the United States as well (Imms et al., 2018). Schooling became
standardized in order to better prepare students for life as industrial workers in the new economy.
Though changes in school structure were beginning to take place, it still resembled one-room
schoolhouses where students were passive vessels being ‘filled’ with information (Imms et al.,
2018; Lippman, 2010b).
The Progressive Era (1890–1945)
The Progressive Era in North America was a significant time for many reasons; namely
there was considerable social, technological, and economic change, and a large population
increase, not to mention two World Wars (Gidney & Millar, 2012; Snyder, 2019). These societal
changes also influenced a shift in educational philosophy. John Dewey was arguably the most
noteworthy educational philosopher of the Progressive era who focused on student-centered
pedagogy, social construction of knowledge, and flexible learning environments (Dewey, 1923;
Tanner & Lackney, 2006). Graham (2008) explained that after the First World War, as
modernism began to evolve, so too did the teachings of Freud and Jung, which influenced an
array of school philosophies and designs linked to the ideas of Montessori, Steiner and Isaacs.
Regardless of the philosophical changes in education, scores of junior and senior schools were
14

constructed which maintained a teacher-centered pedagogy (Lippman, 2010b). Wotherspoon
(2014) clarified that having to educate such large numbers of students suggested that
implementing student-centered pedagogy was extremely challenging.
The Modern Era (1946–1979)
Soon came the Modern Era which was criticized by Lippman (2010b) for its factory
approach to the construction of schools. There seemed to be a contradiction between the student-
centered philosophy of the time and the egg carton-like, isolated silo of the classrooms (Dovey &
Fisher, 2014; Imms et al., 2018; Pasalar, 2001). Trained professionals oversaw educating the
masses, and they did so with strict discipline and same-paced standardization of the curriculum
(Bisset, 2014). There were, however, exceptions such as the “flexible modular schedule” (FMS)
initiated by Lloyd Trump. The FMS attempted to experiment with flexibility of school time and
space (Pasalar, 2001). Trump (1959) stated that schools needed to implement the FMS if they
wanted to meet the academic needs of the individual student. Pasalar (2001) and Imms et al.
(2018) explained that although these plans were attempting to put the needs of the student first,
most school construction was driven by the baby boom.
As part of education reforms of the 1960s and 1970s, communities turned to open-plan
schools that could be swiftly built to meet the needs of the booming population (Bennett &
Hyland, 1979; Tanner & Lackney, 2006). Maling (1990) and Whyte (2017) stated that the
foundational characteristic of the open-plan movement was the idea that students should be
active members of the learning process where they could be free to explore their own world, and
teachers would engage collaboratively to integrate the curriculum. Though well-intentioned, the
design of these schools failed to meet the student-centered needs of their inhabitants, primarily
because there was an incompatibility between teacher practice and the layout of the schools
15

(Allen, 1976; Bennett & Hyland, 1979; Imms et al., 2018; Lippman, 2010b; Marshall, 1981).
Cameron and Robinson’s (1986) research showed that teachers in New Zealand were seeing the
same failures of open-plan classrooms, noting that there was a lack of pedagogical training
needed to adapt to the change in classroom layout. Likewise, in the United States, Brogden
(2007) was seeing the same results due to lack of professional development support for teachers.
Research out of Canada showed that despite the design of the space, teachers were still primarily
engaged in direct instruction (Cook, 1973).
The research at the time was inconclusive as to whether open-plan schools were more
beneficial for students in comparison to that of single-cell classrooms (Horwitz, 1979).
Complaints of noise and endless distraction of students because of the open-plan layout added to
their eventual demise (Costa, 2004; Dovey & Fisher, 2014; Horwitz, 1979). There was data,
however, to suggest that open-plan classrooms had an advantage in their potential for teachers to
connect more personally with their students (Grapko, 1972). Ultimately, however, the lack of
student achievement results pertaining to open-plan education, flexible block scheduling, and
other such reforms made it difficult to support a continuation of these programs. Most schools
did an about-face, returning to the traditional methods of education.
The Postmodern Era (1981–2000)
The Postmodern Era was largely seen as a highly mobile and diverse society. The
physical layout of the baby-boomer schools was in question, and support grew for smaller, more
personable community-based schools, such as charter and alternative schools (Lippman, 2010b;
Tanner & Lackney, 2006). Schools began to reconfigure open-plan layouts back into single-cell
classrooms (Cuban, 2004a; Franklin, 2015; Shield et al., 2010). Cubin (2004) also noted that a
major reason for falling back into a siloed-classroom model was due to the public perception that
16

desegregation had failed and that academic standards had slipped, a message which was
amplified by the national media. Though classrooms reverted into walled-up spaces, educational
philosophies and pedagogy continued to evolve. Benade (2017) argued that schools were not
geared to the ‘real’ world of work. He added that just as the factories that inspired them were
obsolete, so too were the ‘cells-and-bells’ architecture of schools. Bisset (2014) declared that
students should no longer be considered as empty vessels to be filled with knowledge. Instead of
the “know what” philosophy that dominated much of recent history, students of the forthcoming
21st century would need the “know how” kind of knowledge.
Innovative Learning Environments in the 21st Century
The 21st Century Context (2001–Present)
As we can see from this brief walk through history, the evolution of school reform is
nothing new. Bradbeer (2020) reflected that many of the justifications for opening up classrooms
in the 1960s remain the same today in the context of the FLE. These include democratizing
learning; improving teacher-student relationships; use of inquiry-driven pedagogy; increased
flexibility within the curriculum and how it is carried out; self-directed learning; and increased
opportunities for collaboration.
The resurgence of unconventional open-plan schools characterizes the beginning of 21st
century education. Western countries around the world begin to propose new reforms in the
attempt to transform how education is conducted (Cardellino & Woolner, 2020). New innovative
programmes and learning spaces intentionally designed to support and reinforce 21st century
learning skills began popping up in places like New Zealand, Australia, the UK, Canada,
Finland, Peru and the United States. Some examples of this include the Building Schools for the
Future programme in England and Wales (4ps and Partnerships for Schools, 2008), the building
17

the education revolution government programme in Australia (ANAO, 2010), the innovative
learning environments project (ILEs) in New Zealand, Canada, and Peru (OECD, 2017), and
most recently the ILECT and P2P projects out the University of Melbourne (Imms, personal
communication, June 1, 2021).
Just as there is not one unifying definition of 21st century skills and 21st century
pedagogy, similarly, there is not one agreed upon definition of 21st century learning spaces
(Snyder, 2019). There are, however, several characteristics of FLEs that do satisfy educators and
researchers such as, Bosch (2018), Nair et al. (2009), and Thornburg (2013). They, for example,
suggested that since collaboration is an important 21st century trait, then the FLEs should be
designed in such a way that they provide the opportunity to have small and large spaces with
furniture that will facilitate collaboration. Spaces within the FLE have been given metaphors like
campfire, cave, and watering hole. Direct instruction takes place at the campfire, the cave is a
quiet space meant for individual work and reflection, while the watering hole is a collaborative
gathering spot (Bosch, 2018; Nair et al., 2009; Thornburg, 2013).
Imms (2018) mentioned that the OECD shared seven principles that help to shape an
innovative learning environment (ILE). Those seven principles can be seen in the “definitions”
section of Chapter One. Additionally, Cleveland et al. (2018) presented nine attributes for the
design and use of ILEs:
• a dynamic and social environment
• variety and choice, with respect to both settings and activities
• the capacity to differentiate and personalize learning experiences, including across
independent, small group, and whole class activities
18

• ready access to multiple learning settings, commonly differentiated by furniture
arrangements and/or glazed separations between spaces of different sizes
• engaging and meaningful teaching and learning experiences, including opportunities
for instruction, interaction, and reflective retreat
• options to socially organize students in varied ways, within the same class and/or
across multiple classes.
• good acoustics, especially in more open spaces
• good sightlines, to enable consistent observation and monitoring of students, activities
• a design that recognizes the physical, organizational, temporal, and cultural histories
of the school/school sector and allows for pedagogical development over time,
without alienating teachers from their past practices
Flexibility: What’s in a Name?
One major factor that sets these new open plan designs apart from their historical
counterparts is the element of flexibility. The term flexibility, as it pertains to learning
environments, has come to mean several things, including transforming walls, moveable
furniture, learning streets, and multi-functional areas (Fisher, 2016). This new concept is often
referred to as a flexible learning environment (FLE; Dovey & Fisher, 2014), or modern learning
environments (MLE; Parnell & Procter, 2011), or as preferred by Mahat et al. (2018), an
innovative learning environment (ILE; OECD, 2017). The ILECT combined two characteristics
to define an ILE: The innovative space itself, coupled with innovative teacher and learning
practices (Mahat et al., 2018). In other words, a space may very well be innovative, however, it
cannot be considered an ILE if it is not combined with innovative teaching practices. As
mentioned in Chapter One, the school at the heart of this dissertation research uses the term,
19

“FLE,” and so it is more likely to be used throughout this dissertation. The term “FLE” and
“ILE” will be used interchangeably to mean a flexible space where innovative learning practices
take place.
Woodman (2016) explained that these new spaces facilitate pedagogy that can
accommodate a large community of students and team of teachers, while also being able to
manipulate the architecture, such as sliding partitions for specialized work areas, and flexible
furniture, when smaller, more personalized group sizes are required. Fisher (2016) stated that
flexibility can also be categorized into four main themes:
1. “Time flexibility” relates to the ability of a structure to change over an extended
period to satisfy significant changes in need.
2. “Space flexibility” relates to the manipulation of elements to create different spatial
arrangements and could be described as a transformational type of change.
3. “Use flexibility” relates to changing the use of a space without altering the space
itself. This change could be to permit different pedagogical activities to be
undertaken within the same space.
4. “Movement flexibility” relates to the movement of students, teachers, and others
within and around the learning space. (p. 56)
Nair (2014) pointed out that there is still a place for conventional teaching methods in an
FLE. However, the space also offers the flexibility to engage in other forms of teaching when
needed. This might look like splitting a larger room into two smaller rooms that might involve
different sized groups, allowing for opportunity to collaborate using technology in smaller
breakout spaces that might even spill to the outdoors.
20

Today, there are some schools that are being designed with a variety of FLEs. These
designs can accommodate various group sizes which can be reconfigured to fit the needs of the
activity (Benade, 2015; Nair, 2019). Mahat and Imms (2018) described the design of innovative
spaces as having the “widest array of flexibility in teaching, learning, and social educational
activity” (p. 148). Additionally, Imms (2018) included that when a wide array of spatial designs
are combined, they allow for the most comprehensive array of possible teaching and learning
methods.
Imms et al.’s (2016) classroom typologies (see Figure 1), which was adapted from Dovey
and Fisher (2014), is one way to describe this innovative spectrum of spatial designs (Imms,
2018). The concept of ILEs comprises a range of possibilities (Dovey & Fisher, 2014); a visual
diagram of these designs will be shown in Chapter Two. Some designs suggest more agility and
flexibility, while others connote a more traditional approach to pedagogy. Mahat et al. (2018)
pointed out, however, that innovative learning can still take place in traditional spaces. Snyder
(2019) cited Dovey and Fisher (2014) in describing the types as follows:
Type A – A cluster of traditional classrooms connected by a corridor.
Type B – Identical to type A except that the corridor connecting the traditional
classrooms are widened to create a breakout space, identified as ‘street space.’
Type C – The walls between two or more adjoining classrooms are made flexible,
enabling these classrooms to be joined, creating a new space identified as ‘commons.’
Type D –The space between adjoining classrooms and the street space are flexible,
allowing the entire learning environment to become one large space, while also retaining the
ability to close it down into traditional classrooms.
21

Type E – The space is open plan. The environment cannot be converted into traditional
classrooms without major renovation. (pp. 10–11)

Figure 1
Classroom Typologies

Note. Adapted from “Designing for Adaptation: The School as Socio-Spatial Assemblage,” by
K. Dovey and K. Fisher, 2014, The Journal of Architecture, 19(1), 43–63.

22

Unfortunately, simply occupying an innovative space does not equate to innovative
pedagogical change (Blackmore et al., 2011; Bradbeer, 2020; Cleveland, 2011; Gislason, 2010;
Halpin, 2007; Lackney, 2008; Lippman, 2010a; Mulcahy et al., 2015; Woolner et al., 2012). In
other words, the successful use of an innovative space is dependent on the environmental
competency of the teacher. The lack of proper training was one of the key reasons why the open-
plan movement failed (Bradbeer, 2020). Environmental competence, explained by Lackney
(2008), means the ability to effectively use the instructional space for a purpose that is
pedagogically advantageous.
In a study of a newer school design which featured the characteristics of an FLE, Deed
and Lesko (2015) found that teachers needed to engage in a continuous process of negotiation, as
teachers acted to effectively navigate the needs of the class within the space. The space alone
will not accomplish the educational goals, rather, the teachers had to learn how to adapt their
practice to align with the physical space. It is the teaching and learning that takes place within
the environment that makes all the difference (Seaman, 2020). Nevertheless, without a well-
designed FLE to support the goals, the intentional learning activities may be difficult to execute
which may cause them to simply be avoided altogether (Deed & Lesko, 2015).
Some researchers believe that a classroom can be better understood as a system— a
complex relationship between the physical space, and the distribution of material, teacher, and
student (Gump, 1987; Rivlin & Rothenberg, 1976). Moreover, classrooms are organizational and
physical units where the physical traits of a space can influence the behaviour as well as the
educational programme (Rivlin & Weinstein, 1984). With this in mind, understanding how the
environment can be manipulated to serve the optimal functioning of the room is a skill that is not
widespread. When used properly the learning environment can serve as a meaningful teaching
23

instrument; in contrast, it can have a negative influence on the behaviors of both teachers and
students (Martin, 2002).
Spatial Competence and the Affordances of Space
Rigid practices and design of space can influence the type of learning opportunities one
would like to enact. Sociocultural, distributed cognition, and space as a social construct theory
align with the idea of space as affordance (Goffman, 1963; Niemi, 2020). These concepts teach
that people manipulate space based on their personal interests and needs using spatial, material
and social affordances (Goodwin, 2017; Niemi, 2020). Affordances are the action possibilities
which result from the relationship between the environment and the user (Gibson, 1979). Gibson
(1979) pointed out that perceived or not, affordances are always present and ready to be
actualized in any environment. Additionally, it has been theorized that among other factors,
cultural contexts influence a person’s ability to perceive affordances (Gave, 1991; Ingold, 2008;
McGrenere & Ho, 2000; Norman, 1988; Young et al., 2019). Additionally, the ability to perceive
and actualize spatial affordances may be hindered by entrenched cultures of practice, and an
inability to imagine doing things differently (Cleveland et al., 2018; French et al., 2019).
The key variable for success of an ILE is the teacher and their ability to effectively use
the space (Halpin, 2007). The main facets of spatial competence are:
The transaction determined by an individual’s physical presence in a teaching space; the
materiality of the space (which helps them decide how to engage with it); their perceived
assessment of the space’s usefulness to their goal (i.e., to teach); and importantly, if they
perceive the environment and its affordances worthy of their attention to activate it for
teaching. (Leighton, 2017, p. 32)
24

In other words, a spatially competent teacher intentionally uses the components of a
learning environment to enact purposeful pedagogical goals. Additionally, they are adept at
modifying the space to meet the goals of different learning experiences. Young et al. (2019)
illustrated how furniture can offer many affordances: Mobile furniture, affording the ability to
reconfigure spaces for different activities; circular tables (both sitting and kneeling heights),
affording enhanced collaboration; standing tables or joinery designed to afford working whilst
standing up; whiteboard surfaces on tables, walls and storage units, affording sharing, testing and
brainstorming; stackable cushions, affording sitting (or lying) on the floor in different
arrangements; and accessible storage for learning resources, affording ready access for students
and teachers.
Leighton and Byers (2020) studied teacher spatial behavior and reported that a teacher’s
effective use of the learning environment, i.e., their spatial competency, had a direct positive
impact on student academic outcomes. This would suggest that how a space is inhabited is just as
important, if not more, than the design of the space itself (Leighton & Byers, 2020). It is worth
considering that when teachers learn how to teach, they rarely are trained how to take advantage
of the affordance of the learning environment to enhance learning experiences for students.
Many skilled teachers are not even aware that spatial skills are a key pedagogical tool that is
available to them, and that it is a skill that can be developed over time. This is not to say that
teachers are spatially inept, but the consideration of space affordance is generally not front and
center when planning a lesson. Byers et al. (2018) claimed that a systematic review of the
literature indicated that when used effectively, ILEs can improve student outcomes, and so,
teacher training should include spatial competency.
25

Student-Centered Pedagogy
As a result of the work of seminal educational scholars, such as Dewey, Piaget, and
Vygotsky, a debate about the learning process began which questioned the role of the student.
The fruits of this debate are what we now refer to as ‘student-centered learning,’ which was a
shift from having the subject matter as the center focus (Czarapata & Friskney, 2014).
In his attempt to understand how flexibility in learning spaces affect student learning,
Fisher (2016) began by first bringing to our attention that over the past two decades, education
has slowly shifted toward a student-centered, constructivist learning philosophy. Fisher (2016)
explained that constructivism has its roots in Rousseau (1762/1962), Dewey (1916), Piaget
(1963), Vygotsky (1935/1994), and Montessori (1966). He goes on to say that constructivists
oppose the idea that the teacher is the knower of all things, whose job it is to fill the empty
student vessel.
The overall goal of student-centered learning, according to Bennett (2007) and Chism
(2006), is to require the involvement of the student in the learning process. The requirements of
the curriculum are traditionally what drives instruction, which is more centered on the teacher,
hence the term “teacher-centered.” “Student-centered” learning positions the student at the nexus
of the learning. This style of instruction is sometimes referred to as ‘active-learning’ (Brooks,
2011).
ILEs encourage the flexibility of space and pedagogical practices that enable and
empower student-centered learning (Blackmore et al., 2011; Istance, 2015). The OECD (2015)
innovative learning environments project describes ILEs as a learner-centered, collaborative,
personalized and motivating space, supported by ongoing formative feedback. According to
Atkin et al. (2015), an ILE needs to adhere to a learning-centered approach, one that supports
26

inquiry, collaboration, and personalized learning, as opposed to a teaching-centered approach,
which tends to disseminate knowledge to a passive audience.
Personalized Learning
Prain et al. (2014) claimed that to understand personalizing learning, one must examine it
with an academic, social, and cultural perspective. Paludan (2006) added that personalized
learning is a combination of psychological, socio-cultural, and economic perspectives, and that it
is a necessary endeavor to support and motivate the next generation of students. Borrowing from
the insights of sociocultural and psychological perspectives, there are ways that students and
teachers define what ‘meaningful’ learning really means. This definition often combines a robust
and rigorous curriculum with possibilities to differentiate the what, where, when, why, and how
of learning. The act of this personalization or differentiation is perceived as more engaging
compared to a standardized curriculum, where everyone learns the same thing at the same time.
In other words, people find things more meaningful when there is a well-planned balance
between the needs of the learner and the goals of the curriculum (Prain et al., 2014).
Prain et al. (2014) further clarified their understanding of personalized learning by stating
that learning becomes personalized when it promotes a sense of learners’ unique interests and
capabilities. Additionally, from a psychological perspective, learners judge an experience as
being personalized when teachers show concern for, and knowledge of, students as unique
individuals. Further, learning is personalized when teachers can apply differentiated strategies to
help individual students who might have different needs (Prain et al., 2014).
Prain et al. (2015) offered a framework to explain the nuanced factors involved in the
personalization of learning (See Figure 2). Seen in the framework, ‘relational agency’ operates
within a ‘nested agency, which attempts to explain that ‘nested agency’:
27

Recognizes that teacher and student agency is constrained by structural, cultural and
pedagogical assumptions, regulations, and practices, including prescriptive curricula,
actual and potential roles and responsibilities of teachers and students in school settings,
and expectations about norms for teaching and learning processes. (Prain et al., 2015, p.
17)

28

Figure 2
Framework for Conceptualizing and Enacting Personalized Learning

Prain et al. (2014) claimed that you can consider learning to be personalized when a
student is either intrinsically or extrinsically motivated, or both. Personalized learning can,
therefore, be initiated by the learner and/or the teacher through intentioned strategies. This,
29

therefore, is an indication that educators have a key role in the personalization process by, for
example, designing engaging experiences, providing differentiated instruction, and giving
appropriate feedback. Campbell et al. (2007) similarly stated that personalizing learning would
entail using a range of pedagogies, such as “cooperative learning, mentoring, valuing
experiential learning, incorporating learners’ personal and social experience, using ICT, and
providing individual support” (p. 140).
Just as personalization is expected in health care, business, and other real-world practices,
Hargreaves (2005) believed that personalized education should be the norm. He asserted that
certain key features must be present for learning to be personalized: students must be engaged in
the learning, they must take ownership over their own learning, they must show maturity when
collaborating with peers and adults, and they must be a part of the lesson design
process. According to the UK Department for Children, Schools and families (DCSF; 2008),
there are nine key elements to good, personalized learning pedagogies. These include high-
quality teaching, target setting, purposeful assessment, intervention, student grouping, the
learning environment, the organization of curriculum, the extended curriculum, and supporting
the wider needs of children (Prain, 2014).
Critics of personalized learning point to an incompatibility of a prescriptive curriculum
coupled with the freedoms afforded to learners when learning is personalized (Prain, 2014).
Campbell et al. (2007) also noted that a highly prescriptive age-based curriculum does not seem
to allow for authentic student choice. These concerns call into question the appropriate balance
between student freedom of choice and school curriculum. Meyer et al. (2020) agreed that it is
evident that there are challenges when trying to implement a personalized learning program,
especially regarding the educational philosophy and pedagogy. Through a cognitive perspective
30

lens, students find learning meaningful when they are capable of self-regulation. This involves
the intentional manipulation of learning strategies in the quest to attain academic success
(Boekaerts & Corno, 2005; Butler & Winnie, 1995). To define ‘self-regulation,’ we turn to
Pintrich’s (2004) model of self-regulated learning (SRL): (a) forethought, planning and
activation, such as effort and persistence; (b) monitoring, such as keeping up with task
management; (c) control, which is being able to use different strategies to complete a set of
tasks; and (d) reflection, such as the skill of self-assessment and the ability to look inward.
When students can use these coping skills and strategies, learning is more likely to be
both personalized and therefore, meaningful. Prain et al. (2014) agreed that the skill of self-
regulation is truly developmental and that teachers play a part in helping to develop this skill in
their students, through the co-regulation of learning experiences.
Project-Based Learning
What Is Project-Based Learning?
With a clear emphasis on the need for building 21st century skills with student-centered
pedagogy, teachers are presented with the question, “How?” (Bybee, 2014). Project-Based
learning (PBL) is one very important answer to this question (Bullock, 2013; Gradias, 2017;
Nunez, 2018). PBL usually begins with an authentic driving question and culminates in an
exhibition of learning by showcasing a product or performance. It is sometimes done
individually, but often, it is a collaborative endeavor which serves to mimic real-world
workplace scenarios (Seaman, 2020). The timeline for these projects usually lasts anywhere from
two to six weeks, sometimes longer. The project acts as a context for learning which usually
results in a deeper understanding of the topic (Bell, 2010).
31

The Buck Institute for Education (BIE) (2009) explained that PBL is an inquiry process
in response to a complex problem where through the tackling of the problem, students engage in
academic content and build on 21st century skills. Bullock (2013) explained that PBL is similar
to problem-based learning whereby both PBL and problem-based learning ask kids to tackle a
meaningful problem or question, while learning skills like problem-solving through collaborating
with peers (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007). However, PBL takes it one step further in that a PBL
experience will ask students to produce some sort of product or presentation for the purpose of
exhibiting how the student tackled the problem and what was learned by going through the
process. You would be right in saying that all project-based learning is problem-based due to the
fact that the project is meant to solve some authentic, real-world problem. However, the same
cannot be said for problem-based learning in that it may not result in a final product for
presentation (Bullock, 2013).
PBL, as a philosophy of teaching, was fueled by Dewey (1938) who taught that students
needed to be immersed in meaningful educational experiences (Gradias, 2017). Krajcik (2015)
listed PBL’s main components:
● Seeking solutions relevant to learners’ lives,
● Planning and performing investigations to answer their questions,
● Collaborating with other students, teachers, and members of society,
● Producing artifacts that respond to their questions,
● When appropriate, using technology tools. (p. 26)
Student-driven inquiry is at the heart of PBL, which aligns with cognitive theory and how
students ‘construct’ meaning (Jones et al., 1997). Constructivism is the idea that knowledge
grows by building on what has already been learned. Vygotsky believed that through
32

engagement in social settings, complex mental processes were utilized to construct knowledge
(Brunning et al., 2011). Vygotsky also believed that a child could learn more efficiently with the
help of a knowledgeable peer or adult, compared to when they were by themselves. He termed
this as the “zone of proximal development” (Bruning et al., 2011). Teachers who use PBL act
more like facilitators, rather than traditional teachers, and therefore are encouraged to guide
students through the construction of knowledge and skills.
Constructivist research tells us that classrooms that engage in PBL give students
opportunities to “(a) engage in contextualized problem solving, (b) make interdisciplinary
connections, (c) develop reasoning skills, and (d) accurately represent and communicate
concepts” (Wilhelm et al., 2008, p. 220). Through his work, John Dewey indirectly advocated for
this type of learning by teaching that a student’s knowledge is created through the engagement of
solving real-world problems (Kliebard, 2004).
Barron et al. (2008) explained that 21st century jobs would require skills like
communication, collaboration, the ability to develop research ideas, and to collect, analyze and
synthesize information (Barron & Hammond, 2008). PBL began to gain traction when
educational leaders realized that to be successful in the future, students would need an education
that emphasized these 21st century skills (Markham & Ravitz, 2003; Rivero, 2010).
How and Why Does PBL Work?
If you were to walk into a space where PBL was taking place, you might witness any
number of educational activities taking place. Rather than a teacher disseminating facts, you
might see a class discussion prompted by an authentic community problem or question. There
may be students working individually or in small groups as they research, plan, and analyze data
that will later be used to help solve a problem (Seaman, 2020). Teachers, usually referred to as
33

facilitators, would not be static figures fixed at the front of the classroom. You would see them
walking about the room, interjecting when needed, offering guidance where appropriate, and yes,
applying classroom management techniques to make sure everyone is using their time
effectively. Due to the student-centered nature of PBL, you might see students working on
completely different things, usually bound together through a shared theme, who are at
completely different points along their learning timeline.
Krajcik (2015) explained that an authentic driving question lies at the core of every PBL
unit. Marx et al. (1997) stressed the idea that the question needs to be as authentic as possible if
students are to be meaningfully motivated by it. The ideals of 21st century learning are highly
compatible with PBL in that it uses the inquiry cycle in an iterative process which serves to
develop 21st century skills, such as problem-solving, critical thinking, collaboration,
communication, and creativity (Bell, 2010; English & Kitsantas, 2013; Seaman, 2020). Often, a
PBL project will involve community members, including parents, local government, or
commercial businesses (Krajcik, 2015). This collaborative endeavor with outside partnerships
builds on their 21st century skills.
Dewey, as previously touched upon, thought that schools should reflect the daily lives of
students for them to truly engage with learning (Knoll, 1977). PBL often provides students with
the opportunity to address real issues in the community, to engage with professional technology
that otherwise might not have been accessible in the classroom, and to establish mentorships
with organizations who partner with schools, thus building lifelong skills that will give them a
leg up in their future (Buck Institute for Education, 2015). Most PBL experiences will include
the following:
● a launch activity to set the stage and to get students excited
34

● a task, or guiding question that will drive the learning
● a process or investigation which leads to the creation of an artifact
● resources, such as experts in the field, online and text material, a project template
student log, a scaffolded conference with their teachers who act as facilitators of
learning
● opportunities for ongoing reflection
● an exhibition of learning (Grant, 2011)
Interdisciplinary Opportunities
PBL provides a unique opportunity for interdisciplinary instruction. Numerous case
studies have indicated that the constructivist use of PBL extends learning across core subject
areas which through doing so, encourages lasting connections between Science, Language Arts,
and Math (Chu et al., 2011; Gradias, 2017; Ilseman & Hoffmann, 2016; Lesser et al., 2014;
Rittenburg et al., 2015; Schön et al., 2014). Kodkanon et al. (2018) stated that teachers who were
engaged in interdisciplinary pedagogy saw how their students were able to make disciplinary
cross-cutting connections which served to reinforce conceptual knowledge and skills.
For example, Marx (1997) and Palincsar (2013) explained how PBL projects often focus
on scientific phenomena whereby students will be engaged in the collection of real-world data in
the field. Through the process of further investigation using varying sources, students learn how
to think critically (Palincsar, 2013). Throughout the investigation process, students will
encounter the need to engage with evidence-based literature (Ilseman & Hoffmann, 2016; Lesser
et al., 2014; Rittenburg et al., 2015; Schön et al., 2014), thereby learning English and social
studies skills such as, synthesizing information, and constructing explanations, and devising
arguments from evidence (Ilseman & Hoffmann, 2016; Lesser et al., 2014; Rittenburg et al.,
35

2015; Schön et al., 2014). Krajcik (2015) also believed that the presentation elements of PBL
support the Common Core ELA practice of being able to obtain, synthesize, and report on
findings.
Further to the point of reinforcing cross-disciplinary skills, students will engage in
authentic scientific and mathematical practices, such modelling and using computational
thinking, as well as collecting, analyzing and synthesizing data (Lesser, 2014; Schön et al.,
2014), which is a skill important in both math and science. Marx et al. (1977) pointed out that
PBL has students present an artifact of learning during a formal exhibit. This act of
communicating findings or a constructed product further exemplifies the interdisciplinary, cross-
cutting skills that students build on during a PBL unit.
PBL Student Outcomes
Students engaged in PBL show improvements in peer relationships, academic
achievement, self-worth, collaboration, and time on task (Hammond, 2006). Various studies
show improved problem-solving and critical thinking skills among students who were engaged
with PBL (Nunez, 2018; Torp & Sage, 2002; Tretten & Zachariou, 1997). The same
improvement in skills seemed to positively affect low-ability students as well, in areas such as
taking initiative, teamwork, and conscientiousness (Horan et al., 1996). Special education
students were also shown to improve their social skills, such as empathy and being patient with
others (Belland et al., 2006).
Students are highly engaged in PBL environments because of the authentic, collaborative
nature of the experiences (Belland et al., 2006; Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Brush & Saye, 2008;
Larmer, 2013; Saavedra & Opfer, 2012; Yetkiner et al., 2008). However, there are those that
critique PBL by saying that there is less structure and not enough support provided by the
36

teacher. Hmelo-Silver et al. (2007) argued, however, that when done properly, PBL is highly
scaffolded. Another critique that goes against what was mentioned earlier about the benefits for
lower achieving students is that PBL is more appropriate for gifted and talented learners, not for
students who struggle (Bullock, 2013; Mergendoller et al., 2006). Diffily (2002) complained that
PBL leant itself well to higher achieving students who have more agency and ability to
independently investigate topics in depth.
Final Thoughts on PBL
Due to its collaborative 21st century approach, PBL is perfectly suited as a pedagogical
tool for an ILE. When the problem or question is authentic (Lund, 2015), students are motivated
to work and are, therefore, more invested in their learning (OECD, 2013). Solomon (2013) also
noted that students eventually learn how to design their own learning, thus giving them more
voice and choice in the process and product. Furthermore, teachers are not meant to be located at
the front of the classroom, disseminating knowledge, but instead, should act to facilitate the
learning as an advisor. These are all characteristics which coincide with how a teacher or
facilitator should properly use an ILE. Through a constructivist approach, collaboration, and
shared sense making and purpose, PBL is truly student-centered and, therefore, is well suited for
use in the ILE.
Collaboration Is Key in an ILE
Collaboration
Seminal work by Gray (1989) stated that collaboration is a process of solving a dynamic
problem that cannot be accomplished alone. Furthermore, it is driven by the desire to resolve a
shared conflict or problem. To Gray, each person who is involved in the collaboration will come
to the problem with a different set of knowledge and skills, thus each person plays a part in the
37

solving of the dilemma. Warren (1967) explained that collaboration requires constant
negotiation, information sharing, and respect for other people’s opinions. Throughout this on-
going negotiation, though, it is important to not lose one’s autonomy.
Autonomy
Collaboration is more involved and complex than simply cooperating or coordinating
with others. It involves giving up something for the greater good of the group (Gray, 1989; Imms
et al., 2018; Thomson & Perry, 2006). Thomson and Perry (2006) mentioned that ‘tension’ is
often experienced by people involved in collaboration as a result of trying to determine who is
responsible for what. The researchers stated that it is wise to balance self-interest against the
collective interest. If there is too much self-interest, then the group will likely butt heads when
trying to make decisions. On the other hand, if there is too much collective-interest, the group
may be left spinning their wheels, with group members feeling that their individual identities are
lost (Bradbeer, 2020). Thus, people should expect that they may need to relinquish some of their
autonomy to move the collaboration forward. One should also be looking for opportunities to
garner social capital by doing things like following through on promises and pulling one’s own
weight.
Social Capital
Thomson and Perry (2006) explained social capital as the norms of reciprocity, mutuality,
and trust that together contribute to the collaborative process. Social capital is a key factor which
can assist in decision making processes involved while collaborating (Bradbeer, 2020).
Participants can gain social capital by earning trust, acting honestly, and making sure not to take
advantage of others. The feeling of trust is significant in a collaborative exchange as it is closely
connected with risk (Thomson & Perry, 2006). Trust is built by taking small risks over a period
38

of time, along with the ability to be open and vulnerable with one’s colleagues. Moreover,
following through on promises, along with the skills and confidence to carry them out; honesty,
respect, trustworthiness, and one’s ability to listen, are all ways that people can build trust (Bryk
& Schneider, 2003; Covey, 2004).
Visibility
The deprivatization of teacher practice is often touted as a major motivation for the move
to an ILE. Deprivatization, as explained by Bradbeer (2020), is meant as the day-to-day visibility
into another teacher’s space and practice. Being constantly observed by other teachers does take
some getting used to. It is associated with risk and fear of failure, scrutiny, possible inability to
control one’s class, scrutiny, and curriculum knowledge (Blackmore et al., 2011; Hayes, 2006,
OECD, 2013). When deprivatized practice was normalized, teachers found that they were able to
leverage ‘just-in-time’ learning, and the fluid use of space due to informal exchanges between
teachers, which also led to an increase in teacher positivity (Alterator & Deed, 2013; Blannin,
2018).
Other positive reports found that deprivatization of practice led teachers to consider novel
ways to engage the curriculum due to more opportunities for informal collaboration throughout
the day. Moreover, teachers felt like they were learning from each other as they taught near one
another. Specifically, it was a great advantage to novice teachers who could observe more
experienced teachers in action (Campbell et al., 2013; Prain et al., 2014).
Proximity
Bradbeer (2020) explained that proximity in this context refers to increased interactions
among teachers and students who are in close proximity to one another within the ILE. Teachers
have reported being able to eventually pick up on non-verbal communication between
39

colleagues. There is also an increased understanding of the wider scope of what is going on at
any given time, for instance, what people are presently doing, and what they are going to do next
(Appel-Meulenbroek et al., 2011; Christensen & Mark, 2004).
Flexibility
Salmarsh et al. (2015) explained that in an ILE, there may be extra levels of structure,
such as timetabling and resource management. One may think of ILEs as being designed to be
more flexible, however, it should be known that teachers noted a loss of ability to independently
decide to extend classroom sessions because they did not want to impact other teachers who
needed to use the same space.
Relationality
Researchers have noticed a decrease in hierarchies when teachers moved into ILEs,
because of an increase in informal dialogue and more opportunities to nurture the team (Alterator
& Deed, 2013). When the space becomes shared, power becomes more distributed (Campbell et
al., 2013). As teachers and students begin to settle into the new environment, agency begins to
develop, which in turn leads to leadership opportunities.
As teachers and students gradually practice and share in decision-making, which is a
gradual shift away from top-down rule, a new hybridized form of distributed leadership emerges
catalyzed by the affordances of the new space and the innovative pedagogical practices that
accompany it (Prain et al., 2014). Gronn (2009) explained that this new amalgamation of a
centralised authority, paired with collegial, shared interests in responsibility and governance is a
hybridized form of leadership that can serve to challenge the status-quo of school administrative
structures.
40

Materiality
Resource management becomes more complex when you are dealing with a team of
teachers with a larger number of students. Without proper collaboration and sufficient
technology, it could lead to confusion and a potentially curtailed timetable. It becomes easy to
assume that materials will be there when you need them, only to find out that they are being used
by someone else. The structuring and ordering of materials then become a concern and should be
addressed (Bradbeer, 2020; Saltmarsh et al., 2015).
Final Thoughts on Collaboration
When ILEs function collaboratively, they become an ecosystem of afforded possibilities,
producing multiple perspectives from which one can take advantage. Collaboration, when
effectively executed, affords teachers an advantaged opportunity to meet the diverse needs of
their student body, thus achieving a vision of 21st century learning Jensen (2019), in a 21st
century space.
Team Teaching
For this dissertation, the researcher defines team teaching as teachers who collaborate and
work together in a shared ILE. At ISSA, as briefly mentioned in Chapter One, these teams are
referred to as professional learning communities (PLC). PLCs continually critique and evaluate
their practice in a reflective and collaborative way that promotes student learning (Stoll et al.,
2007). There are two main types of PLCs at ISSA, the first type is a group of teachers who teach
the same subject at the same grade level. For example, a group of Grade 6 science teachers who
have their own separate set of students that they teach. The other type of PLC at ISSA is an
interdisciplinary group of teachers who all teach the same group of children in an ILE. As
discussed in Chapter One, interdisciplinary PLCs that work in an ILE at ISSA are referred to as
41

Pathway PLCs, or Pathway teams. For example, a math teacher, science teacher, English teacher
social studies teacher, physical education teacher and special needs teacher who collaborate and
plan together to teach the same grade 6 group of students in a shared space.
The OECD (2013) plainly stated that team collaboration is an essential key to a
successful ILE. Good collaboration strengthens relationships among team members by
encouraging shared problem-solving and the sharing of practices and workloads. It also promotes
inclusion and engagement, which in turn reduces the chances of students becoming neglected
(OECD, 2013). When teams feel safe enough with each other to have uncomfortable
conversations, collaborative capacity is strengthened (Barth, 2002).
Team teaching is an instructional organization where at least two teachers are given
responsibility for the instruction of the same, often larger than usual, group of students (Shaplin
& Olds, 1964). Team teaching began as a response to the teacher shortage soon after World War
II (Brunetti et al., 1972). Bradbeer (2020) stated that it was also used as a strategy to address
student centeredness and an opportunity for kids to be enriched by their peers within the larger
group. Having a second teacher allowed for more opportunities for differentiation, and
modification of grouping based on personal interest. Teachers also saw it as a chance to grow
professionally by being able to learn from each other's strengths, which, in turn, would bring
higher job satisfaction (Anderson et al., 1969; Borg, 1967; Freeman, 1969; Friend et al., 1993;
Moon, 1983; Trump, 1959).
Bradbeer (2020) summarized five approaches to co-teaching. Each one describes a set of
teaching scenarios involving two co-teachers “involved in either (a) teaching, (b) supporting
their colleague to teach, (c) providing individual students with assistance, (d) observations and
data gathering, and (e) small group instruction” (p. 92) (Benninghof, 2012; Friend et al., 1993;
42

Villa et al., 2008). Table 1 summarizes the five typologies, indicating the teacher role and
organizational method: assisting/supporting, data gathering, coordinated, and rotating (Bradbeer,
2020).

Table 1
Five Co-teaching Typologies
Co-teaching variations Friend and Bursuck
(2009)
Villa et al. (2008) Beninghof (2012)
Assisting/supporting
One teacher in a
lead role, the other
one in a supportive
role
One teach/one assist:
Teacher A leads.
Teacher B travels
around the room
offering
individual
assistance.
Supportive: Teacher
A leads. Teacher B
travels around the
room offering
individual
assistance.
Adapting: Teacher A
leads. Teacher B
“wanders”
providing
adaptation as
needed.

Complementary:
Teacher A
enhances the
teaching of
Teacher B (e.g.,
through modelling
note-taking, or
paraphrasing).
Speak and aid:
Teacher A leads;
teacher B adds
visually or
verbally.
Lead and support:
Teacher A does
advanced planning
in isolation;
Teacher B
involved in
implementation
and assessment.
Data
gathering/observing
/noticing
One teach/one
observe: Teacher
A leads large
group instruction
while teacher B
observes and
gathers specific
academic,
behavioral or
social data on
students.
43

Co-teaching variations Friend and Bursuck
(2009)
Villa et al. (2008) Beninghof (2012)
Coordinated: Both
teachers working
with groups of
students.
Parallel: Both
teachers plan the
instruction. The
class is divided
into two
simultaneous
teaching.
Alternative: Teacher
A teaches most
students; Teacher
B works with a
smaller group for
enrichment,
assessment, pre-
teaching etc.
Parallel: Teacher A
and B work with
different groups
(even or uneven)
on the same or
different content.
Parallel: Class is
divided into two
heterogeneous
groups. Teachers
take half each.
Station: Teacher A
teaches majority;
Teacher B works
with small groups.
Skill groups: Students
divided into ability
groups and
provided levelled
instruction.
Learning style:
Teachers plan
lessons and divide
responsibility
according to
learning style
(Gardner, 1993).
Complementary
skills: Teacher A
focuses on
curriculum;
Teacher B on
complementary
skills.

Rotating Station: Students
rotate around
three or more
nonsequential
stations, working
with a teacher at
two “stations” and
independently at
the others.

Note. Adapted from Teaching Together, Working Together, and Being Together: Teacher
Collaboration in Innovative Learning Environments, by C.J. Bradbeer, 2020, [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Melbourne].
44

Trust
Team teaching requires compromise and trust, which does not come quickly or without
effort. Furthermore, it involves giving up some autonomy for the greater good of incorporating
shared practices and a collaborative culture. A true team collaboration requires a formal
commitment of planning towards a shared goal. This requires each team member to give up a bit
of themselves, and take some level of risk, which requires trusting one another (Mattessich et al.,
2001; Peterson, 1991). Wood and Gray (1991) suggested a collaborative endeavor should
encompass shared norms and procedures, coupled with a clear actionable goal. In the pursuit of a
common goal, these shared structures, explained Thomson and Perry (2006), must also make
room for individual autonomy, so as to maximize the personal strengths of the team members.
Team Teaching Outcomes
Team teaching has a positive effect on the practice of educators, which ultimately means
that it has a positive impact on the students they serve (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2015). It allows for
greater contact with students; for example, when one teacher is working with a larger group,
another could pull aside a smaller group for targeted instruction (OECD, 2013). Teachers who
work as a team often model key collaboration skills for students. Learners also have access to
various sources of expertise (Little & Hoel, 2011). Furthermore, greater access to teachers
improves classroom management, where students’ questions can be more efficiently addressed
(Jones et al., 2008). Teachers reported increased levels of engagement with colleagues through
planning of instructional units and navigating decisions around the use of space (Niemi, 2020). A
growing sense of community was evidenced by the sharing of class materials and other
instructional resources.
45

Seaman (2020) analyzed a study done by Ronfeldt et al. (2015) that involved 336 schools
and over 9,000 teachers. They were trying to learn how different types of collaboration would
influence teacher and student performance. The results showed that highly collaborative schools
had a positive effect on teacher and student practices. Researchers then tried to investigate the
mechanism(s) that were responsible for this outcome, and they found that when teachers and
students were open to learning from each other through the act of collaboration, they
consequently improved their individual performance. A collectivist mechanism, whereby the act
of collaboration becomes woven into the fabric and culture of the school effectively leads to
gains for both teachers and students who can take advantage of multiple perspectives and a
myriad of strengths from which to learn.
Teachers also found that handling conflicts with students and dealing with troublesome
parents were made easier when colleagues could lean on each other for advice and support. This
visible amity and collaboration among teachers serves as a valuable model for students. Highly
reported by teachers was the fact that due to the open spaces, teachers were able to see their
colleagues in action, and pick up on each other’s best practices (Niemi, 2020).
Challenges
Easterby-Smith and Olve (1984) explained that in the open-plan settings of the past, team
teaching did not go over very well, as the bad seemed to outweigh the good. A major factor for
the breakdown was the lack of proper training for teachers to learn how to effectively collaborate
with colleagues in the novel open space. Brunetti et al. (1972) stated that interpersonal
relationships among colleagues would be a determining factor in the success of a team. There are
well documented challenges involving co-teaching, including: the loss of autonomy and
decreased capacity to be responsive to the teachable moment for fear of impacting nearby
46

learning groups (York-Barr et al., 2007); the slow evolution of trust building among teacher
teams (Fullan, 2007); the consequences of disagreement between teachers (Friend & Cook,
2010); insecurity associated with deprivatization of practice (Kansas, 2014); increased time
devoted to co-planning and administration (Friend & Cook, 2010); and the paucity of quality
professional development needed to support the transition from siloed teaching model into one
that is collaborative (Buckley, 1999; Cuban, 2004b; Friend & Cook, 2010; Hattie, 2015).
Final Thoughts on Team Teaching
Classroom teachers often teach in isolation. They may plan with other teachers from time
to time in a PLC, for example, but the norm is that teachers have full autonomy over their class
and space (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Hord & Sommers, 2008). Collaboration is an antidote to
isolation. The idea is that when teachers work together, sharing information and skills, they can
communally be more effective than if they had worked alone (Seaman, 2020). Moreover, in a
collaborative model, teachers constantly learn current practices from each other, which then go
on to have positive benefits for the students with whom they work. In this way, they are
leveraging the social capital of their teammates, rather than their own individual human capital
(Leana, 2011).
According to Jensen (2019), when ILEs function collaboratively, they become an
ecosystem of afforded possibilities, producing multiple perspectives from which one can take
advantage. Collaboration, when effectively executed, affords teachers an advantaged opportunity
to meet the diverse needs of their student body, thus achieving a vision of 21st century learning.
Nair (2014) commented that the combined expertise of a team of teachers, along with the
affordance of the ILE space itself, helps to facilitate effective differentiation of learners,
according to their unique needs. Teachers must grapple with their transition from traditional,
47

individual autonomy to a new collective team-teaching approach, all the while maintaining their
resolve for student learning. It is not easy, but teachers will begin to see the benefits of
collaboration and the professional growth opportunities that result from ongoing team teaching
(Mackey et al., 2017).
Successfully Transitioning to an ILE
Change Is Difficult
For decades, educational studies investigating teachers’ use of learning spaces have
highlighted the difficulty they have when attempting to modify their practice to fit a
contemporary environment (Cleveland & Woodman, 2009; Cotterell, 1984; Deed & Lesko,
2015; Rivlin & Rothenberg, 1975; Woolner et al., 2007). Many researchers agreed that proper
support is needed for teachers who wish to effectively transition into new learning spaces
(Blackmore et al., 2011; Brogden, 2007; Cotterell, 1984; Deed & Lesko, 2015; Halpin, 2007).
Transitioning to a team-teaching model is not as seamless as one might think. Wood
(2017) alleged that it takes a concerted effort to be successful in such a paradigm shift, not to
mention the amount of time it takes to build trusting relationships among team members
(Campbell et al., 2013). The transition into ILEs today requires teachers to adjust to new
pedagogical approaches, learning environments, and educational technologies. This shift in
practice is just as challenging now as it was during the 1970s when teachers shifted into the
open-plan model (MoE, 2014). During the Young et al.’s (2021) recent participation action
research study, researchers noted that teachers had concerns about the transition into ILEs,
including: (a) What collaboration would look like, (b) spatial logistics, (c) giving up more
control to the students, and (d) making sure that students did not slip through the cracks (Young
et al., 2021). Fraser et al. (2009) explained that teachers were accustomed to their rituals of
48

practice which were intrinsic to their profession. Consequently, it was challenging for them to
transition into a collaborative team-teaching model which would be necessary to effectively
function in an ILE. Furthermore, Alterator and Deed (2013) believed that deprivatization of
practice would lead to a decrease in privacy which would effectively increase stress due to
feelings of over-exposure.
Alterator and Deed (2013) claimed that the adaptation of teachers is key for the
successful transition to an ILE model. Niemi (2020) reported that previous research discussed the
fact that adaptation had been a demanding task for teachers (Saltmarsh et al., 2015; Szczesiul &
Huizenga, 2014). Niemi (2020) also noted that the review of the literature showed that most
teachers continued to use the same traditional pedagogical practices, even after moving into an
ILE (Carvalho & Yeoman, 2018; Sigurðardóttir & Hjartarson, 2016; Woolner et al., 2012). In
their review of the literature, Blackmore et al. (2011) stated that there was little research related
specifically to how teachers and students transition to ILEs. There is a call for further research by
Fletcher et al. (2017) and Imms et al. (2018) who stated that although there was a lack of
quantitative data, there does exist a rich amount of qualitative data, which continues to grow
along with the adoption of ILEs. As stated in Chapter One, Imms and Kvar (2021) discussed how
there is now evidence to suggest that teachers are using the innovative spaces well, and there is a
growing list of practices and tools to support teachers in these environments, however, future
study is needed that can help to add to possible gaps. They also mentioned that the use of
innovative practices upon transitioning into an ILE takes time.
French et al. (2020) recently identified that there is a disconnect between the leadership
of the school and the culture itself. In other words, leaders are underestimating the importance of
their role in the process and preparation for the school’s transition into ILEs, which in turn
49

results in very few emergent changes in pedagogy to match the novel design of the space. With
the proper support, Imms et al. (2017) assured that the transition for teachers into an ILE can
eventually be successful. One of the goals for Imms and his colleagues is to do research to help
shed light on ways to quicken the transitional process.
The Transition Process
Data emerging from French et al.’s case studies revealed four main themes that affected a
school’s level of success when transitioning into an ILE. These are (a) culture: cultivating risk-
taking and reflection; (b) nudges: designing enabling constraints; (c) structure: embracing new
systems and procedures; and (d) expectations: establishing routines, norms, and ensuring
accountability (French et al., 2020).
Culture
Strong, trusting relationships between teachers and administrators were a prerequisite for
feeling confident enough to engage in risk-taking. In fact, relationship building was considered
such a determining factor that schools have carved out time to focus on the nurturing of
relationships (French et al., 2020).
Nudges
Enabling constraints are physical things or practices that discourage one from reverting
back to traditional pedagogy. A ‘nudge,’ therefore, is meant to encourage one practice by
discouraging another. For example, the removal of a teacher’s desk is an enabling constraint
because it forces the teacher to use the classroom differently, which would most likely lead to
more student-teacher interaction. In fact, the removal of the teacher desk was found to promote
teacher’s using the staff lounge more frequently during breaks, thus having a positive effect on
relationship building between staff members who might not necessarily see each other during the
50

school day. Another example is changing up the seating for the students. By providing a range of
seating designs (tall chair, bean bag, stool, etc.), teachers found that they were more frequently
differentiating lessons for students (French et al., 2020).
Other enabling constraints mentioned in the study were: (a) To eliminate the capacity to
teach as separate entities, remove as many enclosed spaces as possible; (b) encourage collective
ownership of shared spaces, which would enable unrestricted movement and collaboration
among the team; (c) normalize visibility of teachers and other groups which would enable self-
regulating behaviour; (d) do away with academic streaming of students which would encourage
teachers to differentiate; and (e) ensure that the scheduling reinforces how teachers can use the
space. Schedule manipulation can help to avoid teachers spreading out too much, thus avoiding
collaboration (French et al., 2020).
Structure
All participants of the case study noted that it was essential to redefine what the school
day looks like for both teachers and students. While still holding on to necessary routines, such
as taking attendance, the teachers began to establish new routines, new cultural expectations, and
a common language, while at the same time allowing for personal choice and student agency.
One of the schools in the study applied Thornburg’s (2013) archetypes to the classroom furniture
set-up. These learning spaces involved ‘campfires,’ ‘watering holes,’ ‘caves,’ and so on, which
became a part of their shared language. These new spaces began to be referred to in teacher’s
lesson plans and ongoing management of the classroom (French et al., 2020).
Shared Expectations
The aforementioned study noted that shared expectations for how the space should be
used began from the top-down. However, over time, these expectations organically changed to
51

match the lived reality of the people who occupied the space, which in turn, became embedded in
the culture. Another expectation was that of team-teaching. All schools within the study were
expected to teach as part of a team, which was reported as a crucial element for success (French
et al., 2020).
Tying It Together
French et al. (2020) explained that without considering new structures, a nudge will not
have a lasting impact. Educators feel ownership of the behaviours that ‘nudges’ enable when
there is a system that promotes high expectations and accountability. Encouraging reflection and
embracing risk as part of an ILE’s culture will reinforce the idea that change in pedagogy and
behaviour is, in fact, not static. Finally, relationships are the key to a successful transition. Solid
“teacher-teacher relationships and trust allow an ILE to be implemented with full fidelity”
(French et al., 2020, p. 187).
A significant psychological shift that teachers must go through is the seemingly simple
act of giving up the ownership of ‘their’ class, in favor of ‘our’ class. The ‘our’ refers to the rest
of the teaching team. No longer is the teacher the sole caregiver in the room. Part of this involves
teachers letting go of their classroom, a place that many teachers take great pride in providing a
safe and inviting place for their students (Niemi, 2020). Leaders must understand the concept of
change and how it manifests in an educational setting, and they must be ready to manage and
provide training if they want change to last (Durie, 2015).
One of the most recent contributions to the body of knowledge for what characterises
good teacher transition is Imms’ and Kvar’s (2021) compiled list of fourteen “Grand Themes.”
The list is categorized into three temporal sections, the “early stage,” the “occupation stage” and
finally the “inhabitation stage” (Imms & Kvar, 2021, p. 322). The themes are organized
52

temporally to provide support for educators as they go through the various stages of the
transition process. The fourteen themes are identified in figure 3 along the “x” axis, and the “y”
axis indicates time.
Figure 3
Grand Themes: Fourteen Characteristics of Teacher Transition into ILEs

Consolidation Implementation Early
53

The Role of Professional Development
The Problem
Guskey (2000) explained that professional development (PD) brings about positive
change and improves the knowledge and skills of educators in the name of improving student
learning. Similarly, Timperley (2011) defined professional learning and development (PLD) as
“an internal process in which individuals create professional knowledge through interaction with
this information in a way that challenges previous assumptions and creates new meaning” (p .5).
With that in mind, there was one common thread found throughout the research for this
dissertation—that there was a lack of widespread ongoing quality PD for teachers who want to
shift towards, or who currently work in an ILE (Bradbeer et al., 2017; Campbell, 2020; Campbell
et al., 2013; Imms et al., 2016; Imms et al., 2017; Mackey et al., 2017; Niemi, 2020; Snyder,
2019; Woolner et al., 2012).
To illustrate this point, the Innovative Learning Environment and Teacher Change
(ILECT) project, hosted by LEaRN, found that teachers who taught in the schools that took part
in the project were predominantly using teacher-centered pedagogical approaches with their
students (Borri, 2018). A disheartening find considering the push to provide innovative flexible
spaces to encourage collaboration, creativity, communication, critical thinking, and other 21st
century learning skills.
The Focus for PD
Mackey et al. (2017) reported that 52% of teachers who were surveyed engaged in
transition and co-teaching-related professional development. Only 56% of these individuals
stated that their experience in the PD was adequate. The respondents seemed to have one thing in
common, most of them agreed that the more useful PD they learned came from working in the
54

space itself. The respondents unanimously recommended the following PD themes as necessary
for successful transition into ILEs: Co-teaching practices; the use of flexible space;
communication/conversation skills; collaboration, negotiation, and problem-solving skills; the
stages of transition into ILEs; fixed and growth mindsets and how they relate to ILEs;
technology to help facilitate the use of the space (Mackey et al., 2017).
Campbell (2020) raises the question of how to develop teachers’ pedagogical confidence
for working and thriving in an inspiring learning space (ILS). The professional growth potential
of peer observation and team-teaching opportunities is significant; however, Campbell explains
that a dilemma exists in that there are a growing number of teachers who wish to observe a
highly functioning ILS in action, yet there are very few teachers who report being properly
trained to occupy and use the space effectively. Imms et al. (2016) expressed that there is a lack
of ‘environmental competence’ in the teaching profession, which hinders a teacher’s ability to
take advantage of spatial affordances. Their research went on to say that if teachers are going to
properly use the space, then emphasis needs to be placed on timely and appropriate PD. Snyder
(2019) agreed that more spatial awareness training for teachers is necessary. In a recent paper,
Imms and Kvar (2021) suggested that progress was in fact being made regarding teachers using
the space effectively. Jensen (2019) stated that educators should be encouraged to pay close
attention to recent research related to the transitioning of teachers into ILEs, and that a key focus
should be paid to developing a teacher’s understanding of spatial and collaborative literacy.
Professional growth of a teacher during the transition into an ILE is often highly
individualized (Imms, 2018). The challenge for educators who wish to successfully transition
into ILEs is to strive for a balance between an organic and personalized approach to PD, which
positions at its core the goal of improved student learning (Education Council, 2017). Teachers
55

who work in an ILE are organically being exposed to the current practices of their colleagues.
This authentic moment-to-moment professional learning, otherwise known as “in-situ” PD, is
widely understood as highly valuable (Bradbeer et al., 2017; Cameron & Robinson, 1986;
Campbell et al., 2013; Jensen, 2019). If schools want lasting change, they will need to make sure
that all stakeholders are a part of the change process to ensure that voices claiming to need
support are heard (Woolner et al., 2012).
Conclusion
This chapter highlighted several key areas of research that relate to teaching in the
context of an ILE, including spatial competence and the affordances of space, student-centered
pedagogy, personalized and project-based learning, collaborative team teaching, the transition
process, and the role of professional development. This concluding section of Chapter Two will
briefly restate some of the most poignant findings of the topics, as well as suggest areas for
further study.
Mahat et al (2018) stated that any teaching space may well be innovative, however, it
cannot be considered an ILE if innovative teaching practices are not practiced within the space.
In other words, a school might have a newly renovated flexible space, but if teachers aren’t using
innovative student-centered practices, it should not be considered an ILE. Likewise, simply
inhabiting the space does not mean that innovative teaching will take place (Blackmore et al.,
2011; Bradbeer, 2020; Cleveland, 2011; Gislason, 2010; Halpin, 2007; Lackney, 2008; Lippman,
2010a; Mulcahy et al., 2015; Woolner et al., 2012). When used properly the learning
environment can serve as a meaningful teaching instrument (Martin, 2002). Leighton and Byers
(2020) concluded that a teacher’s spatial competency had a direct positive impact on student
academic outcomes.
56

Further to the effective use of the physical space, student-centered pedagogies enable and
empower student-centered learning (Blackmore et al., 2011; Istance, 2015). Personalized
learning, for example, promotes a sense of learners’ unique interests and capabilities (Prain et al.,
2014). Campbell et al. (2007) stated that personalizing learning entails cooperative learning,
experiential learning, mentorships, using ICT, and incorporating the students’ personal and social
experience. A useful tool for personalizing learning for students is using project-based learning.
Student-driven inquiry is at the heart of PBL, which aligns with cognitive theory and how
students ‘construct’ meaning (Jones et al., 1997). PBL also provides an opportunity for
interdisciplinary instruction. Students engaged in PBL show improvements in peer relationships,
academic achievement, self-worth, collaboration, and time on task (Hammond, 2006). Various
studies show improved problem-solving and critical thinking skills among students who were
engaged with PBL (Nunez, 2018; Torp & Sage, 2002; Tretten & Zachariou, 1997). Due to the
collaborative 21st century approach, PBL is well suited as a pedagogical tool for an ILE.
Similarly, collaboration among teachers is a determining factor for the success of any ILE.
Collaboration is more involved and complex than simply cooperating or coordinating
with others. It involves giving up something for the greater good of the group (Gray, 1989;
Thomson & Perry, 2006; Imms et al., 2018). Collaboration involves autonomy, social capital,
visibility, proximity, flexibility, relationality, and materiality (Bradbeer, 2020). When ILEs
function collaboratively, they produce multiple afforded possibilities from which one can take
advantage. The OECD (2013) plainly stated that team collaboration is an essential key to a
successful ILE.
Team teaching has a positive effect on the practice of educators, which ultimately means
that it has a positive impact on the students they serve (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2015).
57

Collaboration, when done properly, affords teachers an advantaged opportunity to meet the
diverse needs of their student body, thus achieving a vision of 21st century learning. Nair (2014)
stated that the combined expertise of a team of teachers, coupled with the affordance of the ILE
space itself, helps to facilitate effective differentiation of learners, according to their unique
needs.
Making the transition to a team-teaching model isn’t as easy as one might think. During
Young et al.’s (2021) recent participation action research study, researchers noted that teachers
had concerns about the transition into ILEs, including: (a) what collaboration would look like,
(b) spatial logistics, (c) giving up more control to the students, and (d) making sure that students
did not slip through the cracks (Young et al., 2021). Other researchers, such as Imms and Kvar
(2021), have data to support the idea that teachers are in fact transitioning successfully from
siloed classrooms into ILEs.
Supporting educators with targeted professional development to help them transition into
ILEs is of paramount importance. Mackey et al. (2017) recommended the following PD themes:
Co-teaching practices; the use of flexible space; communication/conversation skills;
collaboration, negotiation, and problem-solving skills; the stages of transition into ILEs; fixed
and growth mindsets and how they relate to ILEs; and technology to help facilitate the use of the
space. Interestingly, most respondents of a survey conducted by Mackey et al. (2017) indicated
that the best PD came from working in the space itself. This authentic moment-to-moment
professional learning, otherwise known as “in-situ” PD, is widely understood as highly valuable
(Bradbeer et al., 2017; Cameron & Robinson, 1986; Campbell et al., 2013; Jensen, 2019).
It is clear that researchers and educators have made significant strides in recent years
pertaining to the acquisition of knowledge and skills related to ILEs. However, there is still work
58

to be done. Though Imms and Kvar (2021) suggest that progress has been made, they do
recognize that future study of ILEs is needed to help fill possible gaps in the body of research
that currently exists. Areas for further study include, but are not limited to, collaboration and
team-teaching skills necessary for interdisciplinary teaching in an ILE; using interdisciplinary
PBL as a tool to personalize learning; spatial competence in an ILE; student academic and
social-emotional outcomes; and, the influence of an ILE on teacher pedagogical practices.

59

Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter will discuss the research design to provide transparency (Mattsson &
Kemmis, 2007) with regard to the methods used to carry out this project. The researcher will first
re-state the purpose of the study and address the methodology. What follows will be a summary
of the involved participants, how the data will be collected and analyzed, and the instruments
involved in the process. Finally, the researcher's positionality and ethical considerations will be
discussed.
The purpose of this qualitative study is to research the phenomenon of teacher practice
and how it is influenced by working in an ILE at ISSA. For several years now, some teachers at
ISSA have been working in ILE cohorts, called Pathway teams, sometimes referred to as
Pathway PLCs, to learn and develop practices that allow them to effectively deliver a student-
centered, interdisciplinary project-based learning experience. Over and above using current
practices that are suited for such an environment, as Pathway teachers work in the space, they
begin to develop new practices, systems, and routines that need to be studied. Information
learned through this study will be added to the literature to help present and future ILE teachers.
The specific research questions for this study are as follows:
1. How does teaching in an ILE at ISSA influence teacher practice?
2. What are the perceived benefits and challenges of working in an ILE at ISSA?
Lochmiller and Lester (2017) explained that qualitative researchers are interested in
studying and making sense of the world around them. This study’s methodological approach will
be qualitative in nature, as it will not seek to generalize findings over a large population. Rather,
it will inquire about how teachers are experiencing an event that is taking place at ISSA. Agee
60

(2009) would confirm that this search to explain “how” an event is taking place, would fall under
the qualitative category.
The researcher has chosen a qualitative approach because he believes it will best help
him understand the research problem and questions (Creswell, 2014). Specifically, the researcher
will use semi-structured questions during the focus group discussions, which will be detailed
later in this chapter. The researcher plans to follow Creswell’s (2014) guidance which includes
setting boundaries for the study and how to properly conduct semi-structured conversations, as
well as establishing protocols for data recording. Furthermore, the researcher will use a modified
version of Brinkerhoff’s (2003) “success case method” (SCM). The adapted version will seek to
find out
1. What practices worked?
2. What results are being achieved?
3. What is the value of the results?
4. How can we get more teachers to use ILE innovative practices once they transition
into ILEs themselves.
Brinkerhoff (2003) used a bucket metaphor to illustrate the idea of filling the bucket with
information. When one bucket is full, you can move onto the next bucket. The researcher has
chosen to use five buckets (categories) which he will use as a tool to organize the focus group
interview questions (see Figure 4).

61

Figure 4
Success Case Method Bucket Categories

Note. Adapted from The Success Case Method: Find Out Quickly What's Working and What's
Not, by R. Brinkerhoff, 2003, Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Conceptual Framework
The following diagram (see Figure 5) has been adapted from Cleveland (2011) to show
the influential relationship that an ILE has on teacher practice, and ultimately on student
learning. This framework, like Cleveland’s (2011), could serve as a model for how to go about
designing new learning environments. Additionally, it provides a structure that highlights the key
62

professional development themes that would be useful for teachers who are transitioning into an
ILE.
The nested framework should be read from the outside-in and then reversed from the
inside-out. For example, the philosophy of education influences the vision for innovative
learning environment, which in turn influences the type of professional development that one
would need to successfully transition into, and effectively use, an ILE. Continuing inward, the
professional development would influence the teacher practice, and those teacher practices
would then influence the design of learning experiences, which finally influences student-
centered learning.
As the space gets used by teachers and students, the reverse will happen from the inside-
out. For example, as teachers get to know their students, they will adapt the learning experiences
to fit the needs of the students. These learning experiences, having been designed by a
collaborative team of teachers, will in turn influence individual teacher practice. When teachers
come to learn the nuances of teacher practice in an ILE, it will then influence the type of PD they
wish to engage in, which will further influence their vision for the ILE, eventually influencing
their philosophy of education.

63

Figure 5
Conceptual Framework

Note. Adapted from Engaging Spaces: Innovative Learning Environments, Pedagogies and
Student Engagement in the Middle Years of School, by B. W. Cleveland, 2011, [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Melbourne].

Site Description
ISSA is an affluent non-profit international school, located in Southeast Asia. The faculty
represents roughly 33 nationalities. The school is divided into different age divisions from pre-
kindergarten through Grade 12. Roughly five years ago, ISSA began a new initiative called the
64

Pathway project. ISSA wanted to learn more about ILEs and how they could help attain the
school’s 21st century learning vision for their students. On a voluntary basis, teams of teachers
from different divisions joined a Pathway cohort. In the middle school, each cohort consists of
seven core teachers responsible for roughly 110 students. The ILE, however, housed only six of
those teachers since the PE teacher and elective teachers taught outside of the space. The ILE can
house all 110 students, however, for most of the school day, there is usually at least one group of
roughly 22 students who are outside of the space, participating in physical education.
The school spent a significant amount of money transforming and combining several
traditional classrooms into larger Pathway ILEs (see Figure 6). The new configuration of
learning spaces allows for more flexibility and offers areas for all kinds of learners and
personalities. Each Pathway ILE has a slightly different configuration, but they essentially have
the same elements. For example, in Pathway 6A there are two small breakout rooms for small
group or individual work, flexible furniture, and a shaded outdoor space where students can work
under teacher supervision. There is also the ability to move the wall between the two learning
studios to create a space suitable for all 6A students to gather. Some examples of what might
happen in the more flexible spaces include small group activities like book partnerships and
literature circles, math explorations, independent work, collaborative work such as a group
presentation, guest speakers making whole group presentations to the students, student meetings,
or learning exhibitions. There is also a purposeful space to engage in science laboratory work,
which also doubles as another space that can be used by students and teachers as they see fit.

65

Figure 6
6A Pathway Floor Plan

Note. Adapted from Pathway Floor Plan: 6A [PowerPoint Slides], by ISSA, 2021.

66

Sampling Method and Participants
The sampling method for this research was purposeful. In purposeful sampling, the
researcher selects specific individuals based on specific criteria (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
Additionally, it was a convenience sample, in that the researcher chose the participants who are
geographically near to him, which allowed him to use time more effectively (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
The researcher invited all Pathway teachers from the entire school to participate in this
study. Participants qualified using the following criteria:
1. They had to be a teacher who worked in an ILE space.
2. They needed to have completed at least 1 year of teaching in an ILE prior to the
study.
3. The 1-year restriction could not include the 2020-2021 academic school year due to
the governmental COVID-19 restrictions placed on the school.
As explained in Chapter One, the COVID-19 regulations severely impacted how teachers
could use the ILE with students, and so, it would not make sense to include teachers who have
only experienced the ILE while the restrictions were in place, as the data would not be valid. The
researcher was able to garner representation from the elementary, middle, and high school
Pathway cohorts.
Focus Group
Focus groups are similar to single interview protocols in that they use semi-structured
questions that are openly asked to all participants, or individually, as needed (Lochmiller &
Lester, 2017; Oskins, 2018). During the three focus groups, the researcher followed a semi-
structured protocol so that he could collect specific information, but also leave the discussion
67

open to allow for other forms of data that he might not have considered. Lochmiller & Lester
(2017) stated that semi-structured interviews allow for more flexibility in a dialogue. As
suggested by Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), using a semi-structured approach would allow for a
more conversational experience.
The researcher also employed a version of Brinkerhoff’s (2003) “Success Case Method”
of storytelling backed by evidence during the focus groups. As previously mentioned earlier in
this chapter, the adapted version of Brinkerhoff’s “Success Case Method” (see Figure 5) sought
to target (a) what practices worked? (b) what results are being achieved? (c) what is the value of
the results? and (d) how can we get more teachers to use ILE innovative practices once they
transition into ILEs themselves.
There are a couple of reasons why the researcher chose to do focus groups rather than
individual interviews. The first is that he believed that there is value in bringing members of the
same team together to see how their experiences are similar and/or different from each other. In
the end, due to scheduling issues, the researcher decided on keeping the focus groups as
homogeneous as possible, in that they consisted of teams of teachers who already work together
in an ILE, and therefore, share similar schedules. The second reason for choosing to do focus
groups is that this greatly reduced the amount of time the researcher needed to set aside, as he
was still responsible for his own full-time position as one of the middle school science teachers.
See Table 2 for a list of planned interview questions.
The researcher recorded the focus groups using a Voice Record application that is
available on iPhones, while at the same time taking hand-written notes. This was to improve the
quality of the focus groups by allowing the researcher to maintain eye contact, view body
68

language, and to encourage a more conversational flow. Speechmatics.com, an online
transcribing service was used to transcribe the voice recordings.

Table 2
Interview Questions for Pathway Teachers
Question Comments
II. Setting the stage
I’d like to start by asking you some background questions about how you’ve arrived here at
ISSA.
1. First, tell me about your background in education.
a. How did you become interested in the field of
education?
b. What has been your educational journey that led
you to ISSA?
c. What roles or positions have you held?
d. How long have you been working in a Flexible
Learning Environment (FLE)?
RQ: N/A

Conceptual framework: N/A

Type: Background
2. Some would say there are both benefits and
drawbacks of working in an FLE, compared to a
siloed classroom. In your opinion,
a. What are some of the benefits, if any, of
working in an FLE?
b. What are some of the challenges, if any, of
working in an FLE?
RQ: What are the benefits and
challenges of working in an ILE?

Conceptual framework:
Collaboration

Type:
a. Opinion and devil’s ad.
b. Opinion
III. Heart of the interview
As you know, I’m trying to get a sense of how working in an FLE has influenced teacher
practice, if at all. I’d like to begin asking you questions about the FLE where you do most, if
not all, of your teaching.
69

Question Comments
3. I will now ask you some questions related to
collaboration.
a. How has working in an ILE influenced your
ability to collaborate with other teachers, if at
all?
b. How has working in an ILE influenced your
ability to collaborate with students, if at all?
c. What examples can you share?
d. What advice about collaboration do you have, if
any, for teachers who work, or will work, in an
ILE?
RQ: How has the flexible learning
environment influenced teacher
practice?

Conceptual framework:
Personalized instruction

Type:
a. Opinion and knowledge
b. Opinion and knowledge
c. Experience
d. Opinion and experience
4. We will now shift to personalized learning.
a. How has working in an ILE influenced your
ability to personalize learning for your students,
if at all?
b. What examples can you share?
c. What advice about personalizing learning do
you have, if any, for teachers who work, or will
work, in an ILE?

RQ: How has the flexible learning
environment influenced teacher
practice?

Conceptual framework:
Personalized instruction

Type:
a. Opinion and knowledge
b. Experience
c. Opinion and experience
We will now talk about interdisciplinary project-based
learning (IPBL)
a. How has working in an ILE influenced your
ability to use IPBL with your students, if at all?
b. What examples can you share?
c. What advice about IPBL do you have, if any, for
teachers who work, or will work, in an ILE?

RQ: How has the flexible learning
environment influenced teacher
practice?

Conceptual framework: Integrated
PBL

Type:
a. Opinion & Knowledge
b. Experience
c. Opinion & Experience
We will now discuss professional development
(PD)within an ILE
a. How has working in an ILE influenced your PD,
if at all?
b. What examples can you share?
c. What advice about PD do you have, if any, for
teachers who work, or will work, in an ILE?
RQ: How has the flexible learning
environment influenced teacher
practice?

Conceptual framework: Professional
development

70

Question Comments
Type:
a. Opinion and knowledge
b. Experience
c. Opinion and experience
Final question
Do you have any other advice that you would like to
share regarding working in an ILE that hasn’t been
discussed yet?
RQ: Neither … final advice

Conceptual framework: Final advice

Type: Opinion

Timeline
See Table 3 for a detailed list of timeline activities.

71

Table 3
Research Timeline and Activities
Month/year Research activities
September 2021 Complete qualifying exam.
Apply for IRB approval.
October 2021 Send out interview requests for participants.
Meet personally with interview participants to answer any questions they
might have.
Schedule the interviews.
Start conducting focus groups.
November 2021 Complete focus groups.
Write thank-you notes for participants and deliver a thank-you gift.
Member check
Finalize focus group schedules.
Begin analysis of interviews.
December 2021 Continue analysis of interviews.
Begin coding interviews.
January 2022 Finish coding interviews.
Member check
February 2022 Begin pulling out themes from data.
March 2022 Draft Chapter Four and Five of dissertation.
April 2022 Complete editing Chapter Four and Five.
May 2022 Submit dissertation.
July–August 2022 Defense of dissertation
Finalize everything and submit final dissertation.
Celebrate.

Interview Analysis
Transcribing the recorded interviews was the first step in the researcher’s analysis
procedure. Coding began by first reading through the entire transcript (Harding, 2013). Codes, as
72

suggested by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), are to be treated like pieces of a puzzle which can later
be grouped into categories. These categories, which will be discussed below, can be assigned
meaning with regard to their relationship with the rest of the data.
After a review of the entire transcript was complete, the researcher sorted through the
transcript using a priori coding (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) with the purpose of organizing the
data into the category buckets mentioned earlier in Figure 5. Once the data had been organized
into these categories, the researcher further coded for a modified version of Brinkerhoff’s (2003)
SCM questions: (a) what practices worked? (b) what results are being achieved? (c) what is the
value of the results? and (d) how can we get more teachers to use ILE innovative practices once
they transition into ILEs themselves.
Categorizing the data in this way was intended to clearly link the data back to the
research questions. Eventually, the researcher looked for larger themes that emerge from the data
which could then be tied back to a formalized body of literature (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
Conflicting and outlier data was kept track of in the written notes and is further explored in the
“results” section.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
The researcher was concerned with one major bias—he was one of the teachers who
taught in an ILE at ISSA. He was hired for his expertise in this area, and firmly believes that
students learn best in these environments. As explained by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), this
might have been perceived a certain way by the participants and could possibly interfere with the
production of focus group questions, or how the interview was conducted, and how the data was
analyzed. The researchers' colleagues knew that he is a supporter of the ILE model, and they may
have thought that he wanted to hear positive responses to his inquiries. They may have felt like
73

they could not say anything negative about ILEs. Agee (2009) would agree that the researcher
needed to be reflective about his questioning. The researcher, therefore, needed to make sure that
he followed his interview protocol, which emphasized to his participants the need for true and
honest responses and to reassure them that they would not be judged in any way. Making sure
the participants’ identities are protected was paramount in this regard.
Member checking (Maxwell, 2013) for soliciting feedback is checking with participants,
post interview, to see if what was captured is truly what was intended. This seemingly simple
task cannot be overlooked as it helps not only to make the data more valid, but it would also
serve to clarify the researcher’s biases. Maxwell (2013) suggested that a researcher shouldn’t
pretend their biases don’t exist, rather the researcher should accept that they are there, and work
to recognize and understand how they might pop up during the research process.
Another method to eliminate bias and increase trustworthiness is peer review (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Before moving forward with the focus groups, for example, the researcher shared
the interview group questions with peers who were not part of the focus group. Lastly, the
researcher believed that he could accomplish maximum variation by including different types of
teachers within the ILE focus groups. For example, there were not only English teachers being
interviewed. Science, math, social studies and learning support teachers were invited to
participate.
Positionality and Role of the Researcher
In an attempt to neutralize any power imbalances regarding the researcher’s age (44), sex
(male), and race (White), the researcher believed that conducting focus groups rather than one-
on-one interviews might help mitigate any power imbalance issues. Besides being much more
time efficient, the researcher thought that having more people in the room might serve to make
74

all parties feel like they are on even terrain. The researcher believed the benefits of doing a focus
group would outweigh any costs. One cost that came to mind was that some members of the
group might have held back because they did not want to be judged by other participants. The
researcher applied Robinson and Leonard’s (2019) idea about calming participant’s fears by
addressing any issues, as well as his expectations, during the introductory interview protocol.
Robinson and Leonard (2019) also suggested pretesting and reviewing by an expert. The
researcher believed he could apply the pretesting and reviewing method to his focus group
questions by asking colleagues and mentors who are not involved in the study, to review and edit
the focus group questions. This took extra time; however, the researcher saw the value in it. The
researcher especially wanted to uncover any hidden biases he might have had, as well as add
questions that might not otherwise have been thought of by himself. Here, the researcher used
the expertise of his third chair, Wesley Imms, who is extremely knowledgeable in the field of
ILE research. He helped the researcher in the ideating and editing of some of the questions with
the goal of reducing bias.
One must remember to listen more and talking less. The researcher felt he needed to
suppress his instinct to talk during the interviews. Seidman (2013) also suggested to explore
rather than probe, as probing may convey a sense of power over another person. A saying the
researcher tried to remember was to, “follow up, but don’t interrupt.” The researcher kept in
mind that the focus group was not necessarily like a conversation, rather, it is a semi-structured
interview. Being semi-structured, the researcher included elements of conversation, but needed
to make sure that he did not interrupt the participants when they were speaking.
75

Ethical Considerations
Ethics in research is fundamentally about protecting the rights, interests, and privacy of
participants in a study (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Glesne (2011)
discussed in depth the importance of research participants’ right to privacy. Throughout the
research process, the researcher tried to respect the privacy of his participants. The researcher
avoided discussing emergent research findings with his colleagues. In addition, the researcher
was extremely careful when discussing any information that might be used to reveal the identity
of a research participant. This was of particular importance when it came to discussing the
qualitative findings. The researcher ensured that he revealed enough demographic information to
demonstrate how the participant was helping the researcher arrive at a representative sample of
interview participants, while also not revealing too much information that would allow his
colleagues to infer the identity of the participants.
The researcher actively sought the informed consent of his research participants.
Informed consent is important because it tells participants that their participation in the study is
voluntary, and can be stopped at any time (Glesne, 2011). The researcher was completely
transparent with his participants about the purpose and goals of the study. The researcher
constantly reminded participants of the voluntary nature of their participation and their right to
terminate their participation at any time.
Although the researcher did not plan to ask questions of a deeply personal, sensitive, or
controversial nature, it was impossible to rule out that the questions may surface negative or
painful emotions and feelings in the participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher
emphasized participants’ ability to cease participation at any time, for any reason, or to speak up
76

if they felt uncomfortable. The researcher also refrained from pressuring potential participants to
participate in the focus group (Rubin & Rubin, 2011).
Finally, the researcher offered a thank-you gift for participants who agree to be part of the
study. This was made known to participants prior to the study, and so this did raise an ethical
consideration. After careful thought, the amount spent on the gift did not exceed $20 Singapore
Dollars per person. The gift will be a Starbucks card.

77

Chapter Four: Findings
The main purpose of this study was to learn how working in an Innovative Learning
Environment (ILE) at ISSA has influenced teacher practice. Additionally, the researcher also
wanted to investigate the perceived benefits and challenges of working in an ILE. ISSA will be
integrating more ILEs into their upcoming campus re-build, and so the researcher also asked the
participants to impart any final advice they had for current and future ILE educators and
administrators. This chapter will present the findings of the aforementioned items in a sequence
that mirrors the conceptual framework outlined in Chapter Three.
When the researcher refers to the main research question, “How has working in an ILE
influenced teacher practice,” the word “practice” refers to the following four items:
• collaboration
• personalized learning (PL)
• interdisciplinary project-based learning (IPBL)
• professional development (PD)
In other words, the researcher investigated how the space has influenced the educator’s
ability to collaborate with students and other teachers, furthermore, how the space has influenced
the teachers’ ability to personalize learning for their students, as well as to provide an IPBL
experience for their students, and finally, how the space influenced their professional
development.
Participants
The International School in Southeast Asia (ISSA) has several ILEs located throughout
its pre-K through grade 12 campus. This study’s subjects were chosen for their experience
working in an ILE at ISSA. There was representation from the Elementary, Middle, and High
78

School. In total, there were 15 participants who were divided into five separate focus groups.
Four out of the five focus groups consisted of teachers who worked together in a shared ILE, and
the fifth focus group combined ILE coaches and a math specialists’ who supported ILE
educators, but did not work together in an ILE space themselves. In total, there were 12 teachers
and three educator coaches, all who have had multiple years of experience working in education.
Of the teachers involved, there were two elementary school generalists, one middle school
science specialist, two middle school math specialists, one high school math specialist, two
middle school social studies specialists, and four middle school English Languages Arts
specialists. The three middle school educator coaches had previously worked as teachers as well,
and part of their current role is to help work with teachers who spend their days educating
students in ILEs. Each participant had at least 1 full year experience working in an ILE.
Results: Research Question 1
Research Question 1 was as follows: “How does teaching in an ILE at ISSA influence
teacher practice?” As mentioned earlier, the term “practice” is broken down to four items, which
include (a) collaboration, (b) personalized learning (PL), (c) interdisciplinary project-based
learning (IPBL), and (d) professional development (PD). The researcher will lay out the themes
that emerged from these four categories of teacher practice.
Collaboration
For this study, “collaboration,” can refer to teacher/teacher collaboration, teacher/student
collaboration, and student/student collaboration. The following are the themes that emerged from
the focus groups regarding how the space has influenced the teachers’ ability to collaborate with
their colleagues, and their students, as well as the collaboration between the students themselves.
79

Theme 1: Informal Collaboration
While reviewing the data, it quickly became evident that a theme within “collaboration”
was emerging. In every focus group, teachers drew a distinction between formal and informal
collaboration. When teachers discussed “formal” collaboration, they were referring to planned
collaboration, such as team meetings that have an agenda, or interdisciplinary unit planning with
a set start and finish time, where teachers would gather to design project-based learning
experiences or units of study. These collaborative interactions are always pre-determined, and
most likely a part of a weekly routine.
“Informal” collaboration, on the other hand, refers to organic, in-the-moment
collaboration, which according to many teachers in the study, happens frequently throughout the
day without the need of an agenda, nor an agreed upon timeline. A teacher stated that,
“Proximity allows for seamless collaboration.” Another teacher remarked, “It happens way more
when compared to when I was teaching by myself. In that case, I could go all day without
interacting with another teacher.” This sentiment was echoed by the other participants in this
particular focus group, along with the remaining four focus groups. Another interviewee noted,
“My partner teacher and I do have a lot of those moments of informal collaboration … we will
make eye contact and sort of assess the situation instantly. Sometimes it is a silent
communication, or a quick little meeting.”
All focus groups stated that informal collaboration is not limited to only teachers. The
opportunity for frequent informal collaboration between teacher and student is an advantage of
the ILE. One teacher proclaimed, “Before, pulling kids aside for targeted instruction was a lot
harder. You needed to plan much further in advance because you might be pulling a child out
from another class. Now, in the shared space, it is much easier and more organic in that you can
80

have a quick meet with the other teachers involved, and then pull the students based on
immediate needs, without disrupting the class.
It is worth noting that teams whose ILE contained a purposeful teacher space all agreed
that “Having a purposeful teacher space brings teachers together often informally, which ends up
turning into informal collaboration.” One of the five ILEs did not have a purposeful teacher
space in their first year of their ILE experience. A teacher space was added for the following
year, and the team noticed a significant increase in the frequency of their informal collaboration.
Another participant noted,
The teacher space is a safe space where teachers joke and have fun. It actually facilitates
collaboration. We originally designed it to be a teach[ing] space and a teach[er] space,
but through the years it has evolved and it’s not a kid area anymore, which we found to
be really important and kind of like that sacred teacher office space … just by the nature
of being together, we are so much more collaborative.
Theme 2: Flexibility Facilitates Collaboration
By “flexibility,” the researcher is referring to the flexible nature of the ILE regarding
easily rearrangeable furniture, moveable walls, and the time flexibility of the daily schedule. For
example, one focus group noted that “The space facilitates your ability to flex time as well in that
you can more easily collaborate with colleagues in order to negotiate time limits on certain
activities and lessons to better meet the needs of the students.”
Several focus groups noted that having furniture and walls that are easy to rearrange
promotes collaborative variations that benefit the student and teacher. For instance, one teacher
explained, “I think that FLEs provide an opportunity for teachers and students to work together
in whole groups, in small groups, one on one, and there’s flexible seating around that makes that
81

possible.” Furthermore, “it allows for people who don’t feel like being collaborative, and need a
quiet space, to work more independently.” This teacher was referring to how their ILE could be
broken up into smaller spaces for students who needed some quiet time to get some non-
collaborative work done. Another focus group participant mentioned, “I can close some walls if I
want a quiet space for a small group instruction or whole group instruction. I can open the walls
up if I’m doing a big exhibition or I can have places where kids are working independently while
two or three teachers are pulling focus groups.”
Participants who work in an ILE that have few or no moveable walls noted that the
inability to restructure spaces due to the lack of moveable walls had a negative effect on a
group’s ability to effectively collaborate. For instance, a teacher remarked, “If the space is not
flexible, truly flexible, and it’s just a wide-open room, that is actually not a flexible space, which
hinders your ability to collaborate. Noise becomes an issue because you must be spread out and
you have to amplify your voice.” The topic of “noise” in an ILE will be presented later in this
chapter, as well as further discussed in Chapter Five.
Theme 3: Trust and Relationships
During the focus group interviews, it was stated on more than one occasion that a positive
relationship between teachers who work together in an ILE is of paramount importance. One
teacher stated, “It is imperative to spend time relationship building.” Similarly, another
participant noted that teams must “spend time developing relationships and trust.” These
sentiments were repeated in each of the five focus groups.
Educators who work as an ILE team are constantly having to navigate the sharing of the
space itself, as well as making decisions on how to proceed with a shared interdisciplinary
curriculum. Decisions cannot always be made with everyone present, and so this is where trust
82

and relationships are tested. For instance, one teacher said, “Once you build trust, you must agree
that it is ok that the group can make decisions without everyone being present. If you always
wait for everyone to be present, you won’t ever get anything done. Trust that decisions were
made with the best intentions in mind.”
Building trust plays an especially important role when team-teaching in an ILE, in that
most teachers who aren’t working in an ILE tend to spend much of their time teaching in
isolation. Rarely do classroom teachers have opportunities to co-teach with colleagues within
their own department, let alone outside of their department. One participant noted that, “It can be
quite nerve wracking to teach in front of your colleagues.” Team-teaching takes some getting
used to, and as another teacher put it, “If the time isn’t taken to build relationships and trust, one
may never feel at ease teaching as part of a team.” Advice on how to build trust and foster
positive relationships will be presented later in this chapter, as well as discussed in Chapter Five.
Personalized Learning
Prain et al. (2014) explained that learners judge an experience as being personalized
when teachers show concern for, and knowledge of, students as unique individuals. This
definition holds true and is made broader by including the idea of voice and choice. One of the
participants stated, “Personalized learning is where a learner can individualize the tools and
spaces and resources to meet what they’re trying to do in a given moment.” The following are
the themes that emerged from the focus groups about how the space has influenced the teacher’s
ability to personalize learning for their students.
Theme 1: Students Have More Access to Teachers
It was noted several times during the focus groups that students in an ILE are afforded
more opportunities to interact with teachers, simply due to the team-teaching approach within the
83

ILE. This seems to back up research done by the OECD (2013) who asserted that team teaching
allows for greater contact with students. For example, when one teacher is working with a larger
group, another could pull aside a smaller group for targeted instruction. One teacher mentioned,
“You also have access to more teachers who have more diverse interests, so students can be
connected to mentors more easily,” which seems to support Little and Hoel’s (2011) research
who stated that learners also have access to various sources of expertise (Little & Hoel, 2011).
Similarly, another participant observed that, “Students have the benefit of interacting with
multiple teachers during any given time within the space. It creates more opportunity for
intervention and formative feedback from various perspectives.”
It was mentioned on more than one occasion that teachers are also afforded an
opportunity to learn more about their students within an ILE framework. One teacher explained
that they have an “Opportunity to see students in other environments and with other teachers.” In
other words, when a teacher is siloed within their own subject-specific traditional classroom, the
teacher doesn’t usually have many opportunities to see their students interact in other contexts,
nor do they see how the students behave with other teachers. This was clearly a benefit afforded
to teachers who worked in an ILE.
Theme 2: Student Voice and Choice
Student voice and choice in the context of this study refers to a student’s ability to have a
say in how, where, and when they learn. An example of choosing “how” a student learns could
refer to being afforded the choice of following a line of inquiry that is of interest to the student.
One teacher explained, “They use inquiry, so they’re following their own curiosity.” This is not
to say, however, that students learn whatever it is they want, rather, they have more freedom to
dig deeper into topics and concepts that the class is currently studying.
84

“Where” a student learns is another choice that a student has control over in an ILE. For
instance, rather than staying in the large, collaborative space within the ILE, a student may
choose to go to a quieter area with less people. Or perhaps they may remain in the large space,
but would rather be sitting on a comfortable couch, rather than the traditional student seating one
would find in a classroom. A participant noted that students have “Voice and choice in seating
arrangements and furniture choice.” A second participant elaborated, ILEs afford the “students’
opportunities to use the space in different ways depending on how they want to demonstrate their
learning.” Further, “students can access the type of space/furniture that suits their needs.”
Regarding “when” a student learns, the researcher does not mean to suggest that students
can tell their teachers that they would rather not do the work right now, and that they will do it
when they get around to it. On the contrary, teachers in an ILE at ISSA often utilize a chunk of
time called, “flex time.” Flex time is a block of time where students have voice and choice over
what they will do and when they will do it, within reason, of course. One teacher explained, “The
space facilitates your ability to flex time as well in that you can more easily collaborate with
colleagues in order to negotiate time limits on certain activities and lessons to better meet the
needs of the students.”
Teachers who teach in a traditional classroom could very well implement elements of
student voice and choice as it relates to what, where, and when they will learn something.
However, ILE teachers, who were once traditional classroom teachers, repeatedly say that the
flexible nature of an ILE, referring to an array of furniture, reconfigurable time and space, and
multiple teachers being present, affords the students more opportunity to have agency over their
learning experience.
85

Theme 3: Personalized Grouping
All five focus groups remarked that the ILE facilitated their ability to group students
based on their needs. For instance, one participant commented, “as we’re going through the
inquiry process, students are all at different parts of the process. So, you can have students
working on different pieces at different places with different teachers.” Therefore, students will
work in various locations that best suits their need, with the teacher who is best suited to help
them. Another teacher explained that “The space allows you to organize children into needs-
based groups. Having more teachers on hand allows you to work more efficiently with the
students.”
Participants who worked in ILEs that had the ability to easily reconfigure their space
remarked how the moveable walls facilitated their ability to effectively meet the needs of the
moment. A teacher articulated, “I can close some walls if I want a quiet space for a small group
instruction or whole group instruction. I can open the walls up if I’m doing a big exhibition or I
can have places where kids are working independently while two or three teachers are pulling
focus groups.” In effect, “the space makes flexible grouping of students easier.” Another
participant affirmed that there are “so many more possibilities with flexible grouping and space
configurations that can be utilized to fit the necessary activity.”
All five focus groups agreed that the flexible furniture and reconfigurable spaces facilitates
needs-based grouping.
Conversely, sometimes what a student needs is to be alone. In a flexible space, large
spaces can reconfigure to suit the needs of the moment. One teacher stated, “it allows for people
who don’t feel like being collaborative and need a quiet space to work more independently.” All
86

the focus groups agreed that having smaller, quieter spaces, in an ILE is extremely important.
This idea will be elaborated later in this chapter and in Chapter Five.
Interdisciplinary Project-Based Learning (IPBL)
As stated in Chapter Three, project-based learning (PBL) provides a unique opportunity
for interdisciplinary instruction. PBL extends learning across core subject areas, which through
doing so, encourages lasting connections between multiple subjects (Chu et al., 2011; Gradias,
2017; Ilseman & Hoffmann, 2016; Lesser et al., 2014; Rittenburg et al., 2015; Schön et al.,
2014). All ILE teachers at ISSA at one time or another use some form of interdisciplinary
projects to help drive the curriculum. A small-scale version of interdisciplinary project-based
learning (IPBL) might have a Math and English teacher collaborating on a unit or set of lessons,
while a larger scale IPBL unit might involve not only the Math and English teacher, but the
Science, Social Studies, and even Physical Education teacher as well. As one teacher put it,
“Every unit doesn’t have to be a huge interdisciplinary unit.”
The following are the themes that emerged from the focus groups with regard to how the
space has influenced the teacher’s ability to use IPBL with their students.
Theme 1: Needs-Based Grouping Regarding the Interdisciplinary Project
At ISSA, an IPBL unit is usually divided into four phases, which are (a) inquiry phase,
(b) investigate phase, (c) create/solutions phase, and (d) exhibit/reflection phase. It is not
uncommon for students to be given the freedom to navigate the four project phases at their own
pace, within reason. Participants in the focus group on several occasions remarked that the space
facilitated the grouping of “people based on needs, and where they are in the project timeline.”
Another teacher explained, “as we’re going through the inquiry process, students are all at
87

different parts of the process. So, you can have students working on different pieces at different
places with different teachers.”
The large, flexible space thus accommodates various groupings in different locations so
that teachers can target the needs of the student based on where they are in their line of inquiry.
Further, “The space allows you to group children into needs-based groups. Having more teachers
on hand also allows you to work more efficiently with the students. Another participant claimed,
“When doing inquiry projects, teachers are able to divide the space into zones. Each zone would
have a teacher who might be more adept to help students in that particular inquiry project.
Having more teachers there means you can pull from more expertise in the room.” Similarly,
another participant commented, “You can also be flexible with how teacher use the space.
Meaning, teachers who have a specialty in something can remain in the same FLE but move to
specialty corners to where students navigate based on their specialty needs.”
As mentioned earlier in Chapter Four, participants noted that due to the nature of the
space, and the team-teaching approach, there are more teachers on hand in an ILE who can
interact with the students. The sentiment that “you also have access to more teachers who have
more diverse interests” was repeated several times in multiple focus groups. This key feature of
the ILE, having more access to teachers with a wider array of talents and skills, helps to facilitate
needs-based grouping within the context of an interdisciplinary project.
Theme 2: Teachers Become Generalists
On more than one occasion during the focus group interviews, it was mentioned that
constantly being around other teachers who have different skill sets seems to make teachers more
aware of the curriculum and teaching methods of other specialist teachers. For example, an
English teacher who often team-teaches with a Social Studies teacher will report learning the
88

standards of the Social Studies curriculum, and the Social Studies teacher will, likewise, do the
same. One teacher remarked, “teachers across subjects know the standards for not just their own
subjects but the other subjects, making them more generalist.”
One participant commented that becoming a generalist will simply happen, given enough
time, and “If you’re doing it right, this will happen naturally.” Teachers becoming more
generalist in their teaching, however, should not simply be a passive coincidence of working as
part of a team in an ILE. Rather, several participants suggested that this should be a goal that is
actively sought after. One teacher noted, “You should strive to become more of a generalist.” A
good piece of advice for becoming more of a generalist, which will be elaborated on later in this
chapter, is that you need to “begin to look at the curriculum holistically, rather than through just
your subject specific lens. You must let go of that ‘this is my curriculum.’”
Professional Development
Current research suggests that there is a lack of extensive ongoing quality Professional
Development (PD) for teachers who want to shift toward, or who currently work in an ILE
(Bradbeer et al., 2017; Campbell, 2020; Campbell et al., 2013; Imms et al., 2016; Imms et al.,
2017; Mackey et al., 2017; Niemi, 2020; Snyder, 2019; Woolner et al., 2012). The researcher,
therefore, aimed to learn about how ILE teachers at ISSA felt about how working in an ILE has
influenced their professional development, as well as the type of PD they found useful. In doing
so, one theme emerged, which will be presented below. Specific PD suggestions will be
presented later in this chapter, and further discussed in Chapter Five.
Theme 1: Formal Versus Informal Professional Development
When asked about how working in an ILE has influenced their professional development,
a clear distinction between “formal” and “informal” PD emerged in each of the five focus
89

groups. In the context of this study, “formal” PD refers to pre-planned professional development
that occurred either on campus at ISSA, online, or at an off-site physical location. “Informal”
PD, on the other hand, refers to organic, in-the-moment professional development, which
according to all of the focus groups in the study, occurs regularly throughout the day. As one
interviewee put it, through simply “seeing other teachers in action … there are multiple
opportunities to grow.”
Several teachers in each of the focus groups commented on how “proximity to other
teachers gifts you with continual high-quality professional development.” Participants noted that
this proximity allows you to “slowly pick up tricks of the trade from highly experienced teachers.
I’ve had more PD in the 2 years of team teaching than I had in 10 years of being a siloed,
independent classroom teacher.” Another teacher added, “You can’t help but pick things up
along the way.” One participant explained how being in the presence of other teachers is like
having a permanent coach by their side: “I mean, I always learned a lot from you guys … when
we work together, I’ll be like, ‘Oh, I haven’t thought about that before.’ And I think it’s a natural
coaching experience.”
When compared to “formal” PD, one teacher mentioned, “I mean a lot of times we’ve
had a lot of formal PD, especially in years past, and a lot of times it can turn into just a time
suck.” Participants in each of the five focus groups agreed that the “Constant informal
professional learning” taking place in the ILE was “a preferred method of professional
development.” All members of each focus group agreed with the notion that, “The informal
opportunities to just co-teach and to observe are so valuable. I mean growing together and being
able to teach together is something that’s not possible outside of this environment.” Several
teachers stated that being a part of a teaching team in an ILE has improved their teaching skills.
90

One of the participants explained, “I think I’m a better teacher because I’m able to see and hear
more from my colleagues. Even if it’s the off time when I’m trying to plan, having that
wandering eye and seeing what they’re doing, I think is to everyone’s benefit.”
Although informal PD seemed to be preferred by focus group members, there was
agreement that formal PD was also necessary. This makes sense, of course, seeing that there is
expertise that could naturally fall outside of the experience of the ILE team of teachers. Seeing as
one can learn a lot from high-quality, purposeful PD, the researcher did ask for advice on what
formal PD would be most beneficial for ILE educators. The answers that participants provided
will be discussed later in this chapter, and as well as in Chapter Five.
Summary of RQ1: How Does Teaching in an ILE Influence Teacher Practice?
The term, “practice,” referred to the following four items, which were (a) collaboration,
(b) personalized learning (PL), (c) interdisciplinary project-based learning (IPBL), and (d)
professional development (PD). The themes that emerged from “collaboration” were (a) informal
collaboration, (b) flexibility facilitates collaboration, and (c) trust and relationships. In essence,
when working in an ILE, there seems to be much more opportunity for teachers to engage in
informal collaboration with their colleagues, as well as their students. The flexibility of the space
also seems to facilitate collaboration in that teachers and students can make the space work for
them, rather than them having to deal with a static environment. Finally, collaboration is fostered
through strong relationships and trust among colleagues and students. Positive relationships are a
key factor in collaboration, and it seems the space plays a key role helping to foster those
relationships.
The themes that emerged from “personalized learning” were (a) students have more
access to teachers, (b) student voice and choice, and (c) personalized grouping. Here, it seems
91

that students who work in ILEs have much more access to teachers, given the collaborative
nature of the space, where teachers often team-teach, this seems to be a likely outcome. With a
wide variety of seating options and different working stations, not to mention the use of project-
based learning where students are encouraged to show agency, students have many opportunities
to exercise voice and choice in an ILE.
The themes that emerged from “interdisciplinary project-based learning” were (a) needs-
based grouping regarding the interdisciplinary project and (b) teachers become generalists. Most
ILEs at ISSA are flexible in that they can be adapted to fit the needs of the moment. This holds
true when it comes to adapting the space to fit the needs of the interdisciplinary project. These
projects are divided into four phases where in one moment, all students may need to come
together in one large space, and in another moment, may need to have a smaller, quieter space in
which to work. Having a space that can adapt to these needs is an essential characteristic.
The theme that emerged for professional development was formal versus informal
professional development. Here, we learned that teaching in an ILE offers an abundant amount
of informal professional development. Working among colleagues regularly allows one to pick
up on best practices which can then be applied to one’s own practice.
Results: Research Question 2
Research Question 2 was as follows: “What are the perceived benefits and challenges of
working in an ILE at ISSA?” The perceived benefits and challenges of working in an ILE will
refer to the benefits and challenges for both teachers and students. What follows are the themes
that emerged from Research Question 2.
92

Perceived Benefits
Theme 1: Strong Sense of Community
Multiple subjects in four out of five focus groups mentioned that working in an ILE
seems to foster a sense of community, and collective ownership. One teacher noted that there is a
sense of “shared ownership over the space. The space is no longer yours.” This participant was
referring to the fact that teachers who worked in an individualized siloed classroom need not
consider other teachers in their space, nor do they have to contend with a larger number of
students that one might find in an ILE. This is not to say that a siloed classroom teacher cannot
build a sense of community within their classroom, rather, it simply refers to the consideration of
more teachers and students that make up an ILE community.
In the ISSA Middle School, grade levels are divided into three sections called, “Sides.”
Each side has roughly 110 students and a team of roughly nine teachers. Some Sides follow an
ILE model where most of the students are in the same ILE at any given time, while other Sides
follow a more traditional siloed structure. A teacher explained,
I think there's a sense of the community [in an ILE] because we're 110 students, which is
good, but I do wonder in like siloed cohorts of classes in some cases, maybe there isn't
that much sense of community, I don't know if that's fair or not, it might depend.
This educator was referring to the fact that at ISSA, cohorts of students and teachers who
spend their days in an ILE have more opportunities to interact with one another, whereas cohorts
of students who do not belong to an ILE go through the day in a siloed classroom structure.
These students do not have a chance to interact with each other nearly as much as those who are
a part of an ILE.
93

One teacher remarked, “Students have the benefit of interacting with multiple teachers
during any given time within the space.” When students spend their day in the presence of all
their teachers, this same teacher noted, “The process of getting to know each other is
accelerated.” Another teacher commented that there is more “opportunity to see students in other
environments and with other teachers.” The idea is that this gives you a better understanding of
your students, thus helping to build a stronger sense of community.
Other participants claimed that the more voice and choice you give students over their
everyday decisions, the more the students feel respected, thus increasing their sense of
community and collective ownership. One teacher explained,
There are many opportunities in an ILE that offer voice and choice for the students. For
example, choice in the type of furniture they use; choice in how they engage with an
interdisciplinary project, and choice in where, what, and when they learn when students
are given the opportunity to participate in ‘Flex Time’.
Flex Time refers to a block in the schedule where teachers may offer certain skill
building exercises for which students can sign up. Flex Time can also be a chance for students to
make suggestions to teachers as to what they wish to do with their time. All this to say that when
students are given more opportunity to show agency, they feel that the teachers trust them and, in
the end, that leads to a positive sense of community.
Theme 2: Opportunity for Ongoing Informal Professional Growth
All five focus groups agreed that the opportunity for ongoing professional growth was a
huge benefit for ILE educators. As noted earlier in the Research Question 1, PD section of
Chapter Four, informal PD refers to organic, in-the-moment professional development. ILEs
afford educators the opportunity to learn from one another daily. One teacher noted, “Siloed
94

classroom teachers who do not consistently work as part of a team simply do not have this
opportunity.” Another interviewee stated, “The informal opportunities to just co-teach and to
observe those are so valuable. I mean growing together and being able to teach together is
something that’s not possible outside of this environment.”
Many ILEs are open enough, or have glassed walls, so that it does not take much effort to
observe other teachers teaching. A participant explained, “Direct sightlines to teachers around
the space allows for instant informal PD to be taking place. All focus group participants agreed
that they saw this as an “opportunity to grow,” and they “think it improves teaching.” A second
teacher elaborated by saying,
I think I’m a better teacher because I’m able to see and hear more from my colleagues. …
Wandering in and seeing what they’re doing, I think is to everyone’s benefit.” It is like
natural coaching. It isn’t forced. … It’s organic.
Another teacher explained, “it’s almost like an informal PD that you’re having when you
see other people be good at their craft, and you take ideas from them and apply them to your own
practice.”
It makes sense that proximity to other teachers, regarding informal PD, would be
advantageous. Some participants in each of the focus groups mentioned that “proximity to other
teachers gifts you with continual high-quality professional development.” Interviewees explained
proximity to other teachers allows you to “slowly pick up tricks of the trade from highly
experienced teachers. I’ve had more PD in the 2 years of team teaching than I had in 10 years of
being a siloed, independent classroom teacher.” Furthermore, “You can’t help but pick things up
along the way.” One teacher noted how being in the space with other teachers is akin to having a
coach by their side: “I mean, I always learned a lot from you guys … when we work together,
95

I’ll be like, ‘Oh, I haven’t thought about that before.’ And I think it’s a natural coaching
experience.”
Theme 3: Flexible Time and Space Facilitates Learning
A key feature of most of the ILEs at ISSA is the ability to flex space and time. Flexible
space simply refers to the ability to move walls and furniture to fit the needs of the moment.
Flexible time, however, refers to the ability of an ILE to go off-schedule. In other words, an ILE
community does not always need to follow the same schedule as the rest of the teachers and
students who are not in an ILE. For students and teachers who do not work in an ILE, this
scheduled daily, and weekly routine is strictly adhered to. This traditional schedule probably
looked something like when you went to school. For example, every other day you had Math for
80 minutes, along with English and Social Studies. One teacher explained,
I think it just like models like real life a little bit more, school is so—can be so artificial.
Like you go to this one box, and you learn this thing and you go to this other box, and
you learn this thing, you go to this other box and you learn this thing and like most jobs
and most things in real life, that's not how it is.
ILE students at ISSA usually do follow a routine such as the one mentioned above,
however, teachers in an ILE are encouraged to play with chunks of time so that it reflects the
needs of the students. To flex time, teachers in the ILE must collaborate closely. One teacher
said, “The space facilitates your ability to flex time as well in that you can more easily
collaborate with colleagues in order to negotiate time limits on certain activities and lessons to
better meet the needs of the students.” Teachers commented that the flexing of time and space
would be nearly impossible outside of an ILE. A participant explained,
96

Before, pulling kids aside for targeted instruction was a lot harder. You needed to plan
much further in advance because you might be pulling a child out from another class.
Now, in the shared space, it is much easier and more organic in that you can have a quick
meet with the other teachers involved, and then pull students based on immediate needs,
without disrupting the class.
Flexing time allows teachers and students to make the schedule work for them, rather than them
having to work around the schedule. As one teacher put it, “The flexible nature of the space
allows you to make the space work for you.”
Participants in all five focus groups agreed that ILEs need to be as flexible as possible.
One teacher said, “you should be able to set up or arrange or rearrange the space to meet the
needs of the activities.” The flexible nature of an ILE has other advantages. An interviewee
noted that there are “So many more possibilities with flexible grouping and space configurations
that can be utilized to fit the necessary activity.” Another teacher said, “I think that FLEs provide
an opportunity for teachers and students to work together in whole groups, in small groups, one
on one, and there’s flexible seating around that makes that possible.” A third teacher added,
I can close some walls if I want a quiet space for a small group instruction or whole
group instruction. I can open the walls up if I’m doing a big exhibition or I can have
place where kids are working independently while two or three teachers are pulling focus
groups.
Finally, a flexible space that incorporates flexible time gives the students more access to
teachers when they need it. In a traditional classroom, needs-based grouping can happen, but
most of the time it happens at a set time, and there is only one teacher to help the students. In an
ILE at ISSA, one teacher explained, “The space allows you to group children into needs-based
97

groups. Having more teachers on hand also allows you to work more efficiently with the
students.” Another teacher noted, “You also have access to more teachers who have more diverse
interests, so students can be connected to mentors more easily.” Therefore, since time and space
are flexible within an ILE, students can interact with teachers more readily because the schedule
doesn’t always dictate when students get to see certain teachers.
Perceived Challenges
Theme 1: Noise
Too much noise was the number one challenge for all focus groups. Each focus group
had a different level of frustration with noise which corresponded to the type of ILE they worked
in. ILEs at ISSA do not all look the same, in fact, this was by design so that the school could
gather data on which type of space worked best. For example, some ILEs have semi-soundproof
walls that open and close which can turn a large space into several small spaces. Other ILEs are
more open concept, without the ability to open and close walls. These spaces tend to have large
pieces of moveable furniture that can act as sound barriers.
Participants who worked in an ILE that was more of an open-concept space, all agreed
that there is “Too much noise with large open spaces.” The teachers who worked in these open
spaces all agreed that the large furniture that is supposed to act as a sound barrier does not cut it.
A teacher explained, “You absolutely need sound-proof walls … because kids are easily
distracted. Noise can become a problem.” Other teachers mentioned, “I’m thinking about those
kids that need quiet spaces where they’re not stimulated by the sound and the visuals and being
able to look through the doors.” Here, the teacher was referring to the fact that many of the doors
and exterior walls are made of glass, which adds an extra layer of distraction.
98

For teachers whose ILEs do have moveable, semi-soundproof walls, noise is still a
complaint. Even when the walls are closed, they aren’t perfectly soundproof. One teacher said,
“You have to tone down your teaching because you are always worried that you will disturb
other lessons going on in the space.” Another teacher commented, “Yea, and I’m by nature …
pretty loud when I’m teaching and so I’m always self-conscious about like am I being too loud?”
Similarly, a different teacher explained having to constantly watch their volume made it
difficult to personalize learning in that it stifled their ability to teach in the moment and go off
script. They said,
If you need to personalize and like you said, go off on a tangent, and the kids are
interested in something, and you want to show that through a video being mindful of
what is the other class doing? How loud can I have it?
Additionally, a sentiment echoed by several focus groups was that “you will have kids
that cannot be in those loud noisy spaces all day that need somewhere to anchor themselves, and
how can we provide that what that student needs because it’s their full day experience?”
Theme 2: Flexible Walls Are a Must
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, not all ILEs at ISSA are created equal. This was
intentional because the school wanted to see which layout would work best so that they could
apply what they learned for their new campus build. Some ILEs at ISSA are open concept
without the ability to change up the layout of the space. Other ILEs, however, do have the added
benefit of morphing into smaller, quieter spaces when needed due to the addition of moveable
walls. After reading the previous section on “noise” in an ILE, it is no wonder that not having
moveable walls is a major challenge to working in an ILE. Having moveable walls allows
teachers to contain lessons that they know are going to get a little bit loud. One teacher noted, “If
99

the space is not flexible, truly flexible and it’s just a wide-open room, that’s actually not a
flexible space. … Noise becomes an issue because you have to be spread out and you have to
amplify your voice.”
Noise control, however, isn’t the only reason why ILE teachers think having flexible
walls are necessary. One participant poignantly said, “COVID-19 was a good reminder of why
we need flexible walls that move.” This teacher was explaining that due to the COVID-19
restrictions placed on the school by the government, large open spaces needed to be sectioned
off. There could not be too many students in one given area, and so this made life difficult for
teachers who worked in open-concept ILEs. Teachers who worked in ILEs that had moveable
walls had a much easier time containing the students so that it met the government regulations.
This was a good reminder that external forces beyond our control, such as a pandemic, may one
day require schools to close the walls again. Having that option would be beneficial. A teacher
remarked, “I think that’s been a big challenge with COVID. … I think it has been an enormous
hindrance to moving our communities forward.”
Over and above noise control, and unforeseeable world-wide pandemics, there is another
reason why teachers find it challenging to work in an ILE without flexible walls. Without these
moveable walls, you severely restrict your ability to make the space work for you. One
participant explained, “it allows for people who don’t feel like being collaborative and need a
quiet space to work more independently.” In other words, sometimes students need those
smaller, quieter spaces to work. Without those moveable walls, it is hard to accommodate for this
need. Another teacher said,
Yeah, you should be able to set up or arrange or rearrange the space to meet the needs of
the activities. I can close some walls if I want a quiet space for a small group instruction
100

or whole group instruction. I can open the walls up if I’m doing a big exhibition or I can
have places where kids are working independently while two or three teachers are pulling
focus groups.
A third teacher reiterated that there are “So many more possibilities with flexible grouping and
space configurations that can be utilized to fit the necessary activity.”
Theme 3: Collaboration Overload
Many teachers who work in ILEs at ISSA spend most of their time engaging with at least
one other team member. Not only do teachers in an ILE closely work together while teaching,
but they often choose to spend their recess and lunch time together. One teacher explained,
We have our formal IDU meetings or team meetings where there's protocols and we have
like a specific goal in mind that we're trying to accomplish. So, there's like that kind of
collaboration and then there's also the informal collaboration like you said, sitting around
the lunch table, before school, maybe we just naturally gather because we're all in the
same space.
This teacher was conveying the reality of ILE teachers and how they are in a constant state of
either formal or informal collaboration. Some teachers in the focus groups expressed that always
being together can sometimes get to be too much because “You’re always on.” Another teacher
said, “Sometimes you just want to be alone.”
Over collaboration can also happen because teachers in an ILE are constantly negotiating
which standards belong in the interdisciplinary projects. One participant noted, “Subject-specific
teachers who come to an interdisciplinary project-based learning meeting need to balance
protecting their subject-specific standards with the creation of an interdisciplinary project.” This
constant tug of war is not something with which traditional siloed classroom teachers need to
101

contend. Furthermore, planning interdisciplinary projects takes way more time than a traditional
single-subject project or unit. One participant commented, “I would say … it takes longer than I
thought it would to like plan and put it together. You know we have our weekly IDU meetings
and it just—it takes a long time to get a project up and going.”
Summary of RQ2: What Are the Perceived Benefits and Challenges of Working in an ILE?
The themes that emerged from the perceived benefits were (a) strong sense of
community, (b) opportunity for ongoing informal professional growth, and (c) flexible time and
space facilitates learning. All focus groups agreed that working in an ILE seems to build a strong
feeling of community. Interviewees attribute this to the amount of time the entire community
spends together. Having more access to teachers, along with constant collaboration helps to build
this strong sense of community. Another benefit of working in an ILE is the opportunity to learn
from colleagues. This ongoing informal professional development is something that all focus
groups agreed was a definite benefit. Finally, having a space that works for you, rather than you
having to contend with a static space, gives teachers and students more opportunity to design
learning opportunities that fit the needs of the moment. Furthermore, if an ILE also makes their
timetable flexible, this further provides more opportunities to adjust to the needs of the moment,
rather than having to strictly adhere to a schedule that may or may not be suitable to the needs of
the students.
The themes that emerged from the perceived challenges were (a) noise, (b) flexible walls
are a must, and (c) collaboration overload. All focus groups agreed that noise was the number
one challenge when working in an ILE. Spaces that had moveable walls that were semi-
soundproof still complained of noise. Teachers did not like the fact that they had to tone down
their teaching for fear of disturbing a nearby group of students. ILE teachers who worked in
102

spaces that did not have moveable walls were adamant that this type of space was undesirable.
They agreed that having moveable, semi-soundproof walls were much more useful. They stated
that “flexible walls were a must” not only for the soundproofing capabilities, but also to help
with transforming the space to fit the needs of the students and the activity. Finally, collaboration
overload was something that all focus groups experienced. Though they agreed that there were
many perks to working as part of a team, they also stressed the importance of finding time for
oneself in order to avoid collaboration overload. In the next section, we will discuss some advice
that ILE teachers have, some of which will address collaboration overload and how to avoid it.
Suggestions for Current and Future ILE Educators
Though it was not part of the two research questions for this study, the researcher did
solicit some final advice from the participants. This was a chance for the interviewees to impart
any wisdom they wished to share regarding working in an ILE at ISSA. As mentioned early on in
this dissertation, ISSA is undergoing a major campus rebuild where the new campus will house
numerous ILEs throughout the K–12 school. This means that many more educators will find
themselves working in these spaces, and so seeking some final advice was an opportunity this
researcher could not pass up.
The researcher compiled all the advice, and after coding the information, the following
six themes emerged:
• space requirements
• onboarding new teachers
• do not expect perfection right away
• a flexible space requires flexible teachers
• building trust and relationships
103

• professional development
What follows is an elaboration of the aforementioned advice themes.
Suggestion 1: Space Requirements
All focus groups agreed that without flexible walls, the space is not by definition,
flexible. One teacher explained, “Having one giant room where the furniture is the only thing
that is flexible is not indeed a flexible environment. You need to have the ability to move walls
around.” Furthermore, the walls need to be as soundproof as possible. A teacher noted, “Make
the spaces more soundproof by providing better quality sound proofing, and moveable walls.”
The participants all agreed that the ILE should have several smaller breakout spaces that
can be used for small group activities. These spaces are necessary for students who need a more
secluded environment, away from the larger space which tends to be a bit noisier and distracting.
Likewise, teachers need their own breakout space. Focus group participants called this a teacher
collaboration space. One teacher said, “A dedicated collaboration space is needed. It also
becomes a place to re-energize and unwind. Without it, you feel like you are always on, and that
is draining.”
Suggestion 2: Onboarding New Teachers
Joining a well-established team of teachers can be quite intimidating, and the way in
which a new team member is onboarded can make a big difference. One teacher explained,
“Onboarding new teachers is an important part of a team’s success. You really must put an effort
into making sure they feel comfortable with the new teaching approach, as well as making them
feel a part of the team.” Another interviewee advised that “When a new member joins a team, be
mindful of how hard it must be for them.” Several teachers noted that sharing kind words will go
a long way in helping people feel welcomed. One teacher told a story where;
104

Early on when a new teacher joined our team, and she was invited to give a talk in front
of parents, and after she made the speech, I went up to her and congratulated her for
doing such a good job. I wanted her to know that I recognized how amazing and
confident she was at speaking in front of a group of parents. I think it made her feel
accepted.
All focus groups agreed that it is vital to spend time building a relationship with an
onboarding member of the team, but they also mentioned that it is just as crucial to provide them
professional development regarding how things run in the ILE. A teacher noted, “When new
teachers come onboard, it is crucial that they be given the same PD opportunities that the rest of
the team has been given so that we aren’t moving backwards.” One teacher suggested that “New
teachers should be given training on how the space works.” Another teacher suggested that this
could be accomplished by “Making a good quality video of the space and what we do there
might be useful for onboarding new teachers. That way they don’t come in blind.”
Suggestion 3: Don’t Expect Perfection Right Away
Participants agreed that the shift from being a siloed classroom teacher to an ILE teacher
was a big adjustment. Their number one priority was that students had a positive experience
while in their care. Many teachers want to get it right the first time, however, this is not a
realistic goal. An interviewee explained that you need to be OK with the idea that you will
probably feel like you are “building the plane while flying it.” Another teacher said that you
must, “Embrace the failure.” Yet another noted, “You need to rely on your team and have
confidence in the fact that the students will learn regardless of the small setbacks along the way.”
Similarly, another stated, “It’s going to be messy and that’s okay. It’s not going to be perfect the
first time you do it.”
105

Suggestion 4: A Flexible Space Requires Flexible Teachers
Working as part of a team requires team members to be flexible. As one participant put it,
“a flexible learning environment requires flexible people.” Another teacher explained, “You
must compromise. You won’t always get your way.” This advice is especially important when it
comes to the planning of interdisciplinary projects. One teacher noted, “Subject-specific teachers
who come to an interdisciplinary project-based learning meeting need to balance protecting their
subject-specific standards with the creation of an interdisciplinary project. You may not cover all
your standards within a particular project, and that is OK.” One final piece of advice came from
a teacher who had been working in an ILE at ISSA for several years, they said,
In terms of flexibility, it’s made me a lot less tied to perhaps lessons or ways that I think
it should be done and kind of having to put ego aside to say, okay, I’m working every
single day with a whole other person who has a whole other set of ideas.
Suggestion 5: Building Trust and Relationships
Building trust and relationships was a theme that repeated throughout the focus groups.
Everyone agreed that this was a key factor is determining whether an ILE team would function
properly. One participant commented, “It is imperative to spend time relationship building.”
Spending time together outside of school seemed to be a suggestion that came up repeatedly
throughout the focus groups. A teacher noted that you must “spend time outside of school to
build community.” Other suggestions were to have lunch together, as well as laying out “clear
expectations … and to be clear to new teachers what they’re getting into.” One teacher stressed
the importance of “developing working protocols so that there are clear expectations about how,
for example, decisions will be made, or meetings will be run.” Another teacher explained that
“Once you build trust, you must agree that it is ok that the group can make decisions without
106

everyone being present. If you always wait for everyone to be present, you won’t ever get
anything done. Trust that decisions were made with the best intentions in mind.”
Suggestion 6: Professional Development
The focus groups all agreed that seeing other ILE teams in action was one of the best
professional development (PD) activities that they had done. One teacher said, “Go and see other
teams in action. It is a highly valuable PD experience. Leave your school if you can and see how
other schools do it, not just your own.” Another participant noted, “It is crucial to observe other
teams in action. Go and visit other teams inside and outside of your school.” Another suggestion
several focus groups talked about was to have off-site planning days, where the whole time is
spent just planning for a project.” One interviewee explained, “one of the most important things
for our team has been being able to be off campus for a full day of planning with no
administration agenda put on us. No official PD, it’s just time for us to grow as a team and to
plan.”
Focus groups also agreed that there are certain formal PD trainings that came in handy
for their work as an ILE educator. The first being project-based learning PD. They suggested
attending The Buck Institute for Education (BIE) training sessions. Several focus groups also
mentioned Adaptive Schools training, which focuses on team dynamics and working
collaboratively. Finally, some members also suggested that conceptual-based learning PD had
proven valuable in their work as ILE educators.
Summary of Suggestions for ILE Educators
Six main themes regarding advice for ILE educators came out of the qualitative focus
group data. Making sure the space itself had certain features was the first theme. Suggestions
were to assure that an ILE had flexible, soundproof walls. Furthermore, the space should contain
107

small, quiet breakout spaces for students, along with a teacher collaboration area where
educators could prepare, unwind, and of course, collaborate.
Taking proper care to onboard new teachers was the second theme. Participants
suggested spending time with them to develop relationships. Furthermore, it was noted that new
team members needed to be provided with the same PD experiences that current team members
had gone through, so that teams would not have to start at square one each time a new team
member joined. Finally, it was suggested that the school should create a video showing how the
space is used, which could then be shared with onboarding members who might not have ever
seen an ILE before.
The third theme explained that one should not expect perfection right away because
switching from being a siloed classroom teacher to being an ILE teacher takes time. Participants
suggested “embracing the failure.” Another teacher’s suggestion was “to rely on your team and
have confidence in the fact that the students will learn regardless of the small setbacks along the
way.”
Building trust and relationships was the fifth theme that emerged. One suggestion to build
relationships was to spend time together outside of school. A suggestion for building trust was to
make sure that clear expectations and protocols are developed and agreed upon so that team
members know what is expected of each other. Trust is built by taking small risks over a period
of time, along with the ability to be open and vulnerable with one’s colleagues. Moreover,
following through on promises, along with the skills and confidence to carry them out; honesty,
respect, trustworthiness, and one’s ability to listen, are all ways that people can build trust (Bryk
& Schneider, 2003; Covey, 2004). Finally, once trust is established, team members need to agree
that not all decisions need to have the stamp of approval from every single teammate. Waiting
108

for consensus from everyone slows things down, and teammates need to trust each other when it
comes to decisions that are made for the good of the group.
Partaking in certain PD opportunities was the sixth and final theme that emerged. There
are certain PD opportunities that ILE teachers should engage in. The most frequent suggestion
was that teams should check out other ILE teams in action. If possible, ILE teams should visit
other ILE teams outside of their own school to get a more well-rounded perspective. Spending
off-site planning time was another suggestion made by several focus groups. Getting out of the
school really helped to focus their energy on the task of planning learning experiences for their
students. Regarding more formal PD, focus groups suggested project-based learning PD through
the Buck Institute for Education (BIE). For collaborative team training, several focus groups
suggested Adaptive schools training. Finally, several participants noted that conceptual-based
inquiry PD had been time well spent.

109

Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of this study was to learn about the practices of teachers who currently work
in an innovative learning environment (ILE) at the International School in Southeast Asia
(ISSA), so that it might help inform teachers who currently work in, or may find themselves
working in, an ILE in the future. More specifically, the researcher aimed to learn how the space
influenced collaboration, along with how the space influenced the teacher’s ability to personalize
learning for their students and how the space influenced the teacher’s ability to use
interdisciplinary project-based learning, and finally, how the space has influenced their
professional development. The research questions for this study were:
1. How does teaching in an ILE at ISSA influence teacher practice?
2. What are the perceived benefits and challenges of working in an ILE at ISSA?
The qualitative data for this research study was gathered from five focus groups
consisting of teachers and coaches spread throughout the K–12 international school. Participants
were educators who had taught in an ILE for at least 1 year. In total there were 15 participants.
Each of the five focus groups followed a semi-structured interview protocol, with each
conversation later transcribed, coded, and organized into emerging themes. Credibility and
trustworthiness were addressed by using member checks, whereby the researcher followed up
with participants to clarify uncertainty in the transcripts. Furthermore, there was an effort made
to make sure that there were no power imbalances among the members of the focus groups.
Researcher bias was addressed by having an outside organization type up the transcripts. These
transcripts were later coded using a combination of inductive and a priori coding. Ethics were
addressed by removing the identities of the participants by eliminating names in the transcripts.
Participants were also informed that they could back out of the study at any time.
110

Imms et al. (2017) reported that positive correlations have been shown between the
effective use of ILEs and student learning. Work by the OECD (2017) has shown similar
findings, but there is still much to be learned in the realm of innovative spaces and teacher
practice, hence the purpose of this study. More specifically, based on its global review of
innovative developments of teaching and learning, the OECD has suggested several key
elements of learning in innovative environments, one of them being the opportunity for students
to learn in an interdisciplinary manner, which also connects to personal interest (Campbell, 2020;
OECD, 2013). This speaks to the kind of work that is currently being done at ISSA. Teachers
who teach in ILEs at the school teach as part of an interdisciplinary professional learning
community (PLC) team who work collaboratively to provide a personalized, student-centered
education. This study, therefore, aimed to not only add to the broader context of innovative
education by learning how ILEs influence teacher practice, but could also serve ISSA by sharing
contextual data about the benefits and challenges of working in their ILEs.
This chapter will summarize and discuss the study’s findings, along with the implications
for practice, and recommendations for further research.
Summary and Discussion of Findings
The findings that emerged from the qualitative data collected for Research Question 1
were organized into four main categories of teacher practice. The term “practice” was broken
down in four ways. These were (a) collaboration, (b) personalized learning (PL), (c)
interdisciplinary project-based learning (IPBL), and (d) professional development (PD). In other
words, the researcher investigated how the space has influenced the educator’s ability to
collaborate with students and other teachers. Furthermore, how the space has influenced their
ability to personalize learning for their students, as well as to provide an IPBL experience for
111

their students, and finally, how the space influenced their professional development. Research
Question 2 sought to gain understanding around the benefits and challenges of working in an ILE
at ISSA, and so the findings are organized as such. Lastly, the researcher compiled a list of
advice for teachers who currently work in an ILE, or who may find themselves eventually
working in an ILE. Though this list is generally directed at teachers, the advice could also apply
to coaches and administrators who work in and around ILEs at ISSA.
Findings Regarding How the Space Has Influenced Teacher Practice
The themes that emerged from “collaboration” were (a) informal collaboration, (b)
flexibility facilitates collaboration, (c) trust and relationships. ILE educators expressed that there
is much more opportunity for teachers to engage in informal collaboration with their colleagues,
as well as their students. The flexibility of the space seems to facilitate informal collaboration in
that teachers and students can make the space work for them, rather than them having to deal
with a static environment where the space may not as easily facilitate collaboration. This seems
to echo Bosch (2018), Nair et al. (2009), and Thornburg’s (2013) conclusion that ILEs should be
designed in such a way that they provide the opportunity to have small and large spaces with
furniture that will facilitate collaboration.
The OECD (2013) stated that team collaboration is an essential key to a successful ILE.
Collaboration is fostered through strong relationships and trust among colleagues and students.
Collaboration is an antidote to isolation and when teachers work together, they can communally
be more effective than if they had worked in isolation (Seaman, 2020). In a collaborative setting,
teachers learn best practices from each other which, in turn, has positive benefits for their
students. Positive relationships are a key factor in collaboration, and it seems the flexibility of
the space plays an important role in helping to foster those relationships. Proximity to colleagues
112

helps in developing those collaborative relationships and having the ability to restructure
furniture and spaces helps to facilitate in-the-moment collaboration.
Being able to effectively collaborate with teammates requires compromise and trust. This
does not come quickly, or without effort. Participants in this study would agree with Mattessich
et al. (2001) and Peterson (1991) who stated that trust involves giving up some autonomy for the
greater good of incorporating shared practices and a collaborative culture. Participants also
explained that to build trust, you need to spend time getting to know the people on your team.
Furthermore, you cannot come to the planning table expecting to get everything you want, rather,
you must reassess your priorities to allow for other voices to be heard if you care about
developing trust and relationships.
The themes that emerged from “personalized learning” were (a) students have more
access to teachers, (b) student voice and choice, and (c) personalized grouping. Similarly, to
what Little and Hoel (2011) discussed, it seems that students who spend their school days in an
ILE have more access to teachers. This was, indeed, the case at ISSA. Rather than a teacher
seeing a set of students only once every other day, ILE teachers at ISSA interact with the same
students throughout the day on a daily basis. This increase in interactions allows teachers to get
to know their students more quickly, and through various contexts.
When a teacher knows their students more deeply, this can enhance their ability to
personalize learning for their students. Prain et al. (2014) explained that learning becomes
personalized when teachers show concern for, and knowledge of, students as unique individuals.
One can see how this can manifest in an ILE where teachers more frequently spend time with
their students.
113

Another way that personalized learning presents itself in an ILE is through student
agency. A wide variety of seating options and different working stations, not to mention the use
of project-based learning where students are encouraged to show agency, allows students to have
many opportunities to exercise voice and choice. Students, therefore, can have a hand in the
personalization of their own learning.
The themes that emerged from “interdisciplinary project-based learning” (IPBL) were (a)
needs-based grouping regarding the interdisciplinary project and (b) teachers become generalists.
Most ILEs at ISSA are flexible in that they can be adapted to fit the needs of the moment using
flexible walls, flexible furniture, and flexible use of time. This holds true when it comes to
adapting the space to fit the needs of the interdisciplinary project. These projects are divided into
four phases where in one moment, all students may need to come together in one large space,
and in another moment, they may need to have a smaller, quieter space in which to work. Having
a space that can adapt to these needs helps to facilitate the organization of students, which is a
necessary component to keeping students organized during an interdisciplinary project. For
example, Seaman (2020) explained that if you were to walk into a space where PBL was taking
place, you might see any number of educational activities taking place. Rather than a teacher
disseminating facts, you might see a class discussion prompted by an authentic community
problem or question. There may be students working individually or in small groups, as they
research, plan and analyze data that will later be used to help solve a problem. Furthermore, you
might see students working on completely different things, usually bound together through a
shared theme, who are at completely different points along their learning timeline. Again, the
data from this research study support the idea that the design of an ILE can help facilitate the
organization of the students who may be in different phases of their project.
114

The theme that emerged for professional development (PD) was formal versus informal
PD. Here, we learned that teaching in an ILE offers an abundant amount of informal professional
development. Researchers sometimes refer to this moment-to-moment, highly effective form of
PD as “in-situ” professional development (Bradbeer et al., 2017; Cameron & Robinson, 1986;
Campbell et al., 2013; Jensen, 2019). Prain et al. (2014) reported that ILE teachers felt like they
were learning from each other as they taught in close proximity to one another.
Being surrounded by colleagues each day effectively acts as teacher training, where
teachers learn from the best practices of their colleagues. This is especially helpful when novice
teachers share a space with veteran teachers (Prain et al., 2014; Campbell et al., 2013).
Furthermore, teachers who begin as subject-specific specialists often find themselves becoming
more of a generalist teacher the more time they spend with colleagues who have other subject
expertise. Similar to what Bradbeer (2020) discussed, teachers in this study reported spending so
much time teaching with one another, that they could eventually pick up on non-verbal
communication between each other.
Perceived Benefits of Working in an ILE
The first benefit identified was that working in an ILE can foster an enhanced sense of
community, and collective ownership. Niemi (2020) also reported a growing sense of community
in part due to increased levels of engagement with colleagues through planning of instructional
units and navigating decisions around the use of space. Teachers in this study attributed an
increase in their sense of community to several different reasons, one being that the space no
longer belongs to just you, which in turn prompts collaboration. Another reason was that teachers
feel more like a family who shares responsibility for their students.
115

Teachers who work in individualized siloed classrooms need not consider other teachers
in their space, nor do they have to contend with a larger number of students that one might find
in an ILE. This is not to say that a siloed classroom teacher cannot build a sense of community
within their classroom, rather, it simply refers to the consideration of more teachers and students
that make up an ILE community. In addition to a shared sense of the space, teachers and students
interact with each other more regularly in an ILE than they would if they followed a traditional
model. In the traditional model, students see their teachers roughly once every other day. In an
ILE at ISSA, teachers and students interact much more frequently due to the interdisciplinary
nature of the model.
The second theme that emerged was the opportunity for ongoing professional growth.
ILEs afford educators the opportunity to learn from one another throughout the entire school day.
When teachers are part of an interdisciplinary team, they often teach together, and over time,
colleagues learn from one another. It was noted that even when teachers do not teach together,
the ILE is designed in such a way that teachers have direct sightlines to most of the activities that
are taking place throughout the space. Bradbeer (2020) explained this day-to-day visibility into
another teacher’s space and practice is called deprivatization. Over time, through observation,
teachers pick up on best practices and can apply them to their own practice.
The third benefit of an ILE is the ability to flex space and time. Fisher (2016) stated that
flexibility can also be categorized into four main themes: Time flexibility, space flexibility, use
flexibility, and movement flexibility. Here, we will discuss space and time flexibility. Flexible
space refers to the ability to move walls and furniture to fit the needs of the moment. You can
make the space work for you, thereby not being limited by a somewhat static traditional
classroom. In an ILE, there are many more configurations due to the moveable furniture and
116

walls. The configuration of the space is often part of the plan for the day but can be easily
modified should the need arise.
Flexible time, on the other hand, refers to the ability of ILE teachers to block out chunks
of time that make sense for them. They do not necessarily need to follow the same schedule as
the rest of the teachers and students who are not in an ILE. This has its advantages in that it
allows the teachers to better personalize the learning for students as they move through their
interdisciplinary unit.
A flexible space that uses flexible time can increase the likelihood that any given student
will have access to the teacher who can most appropriately help them. For example, a student
who may need extra time with their math teacher would not have to wait for the next 80-minute
block of Math to get face time with their teacher. The team-teaching approach in an ILE could
mean that the Math teacher is available at any given time for their students. “Flex Time” in an
ILE at ISSA allows more opportunities for students to seek out the teachers they need. In a
traditional classroom, needs-based grouping can happen, but most of the time it happens at a set
time, and there is only one teacher to help the students. Therefore, since time and space are
flexible within an ILE, students can interact with teachers more readily because the schedule
doesn’t always dictate when students get to see certain teachers.
Perceived Challenges of Working in an ILE
Like in the open-plan layout of the 1960’s and 1970’s (Costa, 2004; Dovey & Fisher,
2014; Horwitz, 1979), noise continues to be a major challenge. To deal with noise, most ILEs at
ISSA have semi-soundproof, moveable walls. Still, even with the semi-soundproof walls, some
teachers say that they must tone down their teaching so that they do not disturb other activities
that may be going on somewhere else in the space. Teachers stressed during the focus groups
117

that strategically placed furniture, meant to drown out some of the noise, was not an effective
way to provide quiet places for students to work. The biggest concern was for students who
sometimes may need a quiet space in which to work might not have that option.
This leads into the second challenge, which is the lack of moveable walls. Young et al.
(2019) discussed how the mobility of a space can offer many affordances to the teacher. As
mentioned earlier, most ILEs at ISSA do have flexible walls, however, some do not. The lack of
moveable walls diminishes the capacity of teachers to provide quieter spaces for their students,
and it reduces the adaptability of the room to fit the needs of the moment. For example, if a
teacher knows that they will be having a lesson that calls for a lot of student interaction, they
might want to create a contained space in which to hold the lesson. This is not possible in an ILE
that does not have moveable walls. Another reason why it is important for ILEs to have
moveable walls became apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the outbreak, the
government mandated that students be kept in separate spaces to control the spread of the virus.
ILEs that did have moveable walls were able to easily adapt to this requirement. ILEs that did
not have moveable walls had to contend with spreading out students as far apart from each other
as they could possibly be, which was not an ideal situation.
The third challenge that ILE teachers face is collaboration overload. Warren (1967)
explained that collaboration requires constant negotiation and information sharing. Teachers in
ILEs at ISSA are in a constant state of collaboration. Teachers not only plan lessons and teach
together throughout the day, but they often also spend recess and lunch together as well. Getting
a little “me time” isn’t easy, and so it is imperative that teachers build in time during their day to
recharge their collaborative batteries.
118

Suggestions for Current and Future ILE Educators
Though it was not part of the two official research questions for this study, the researcher
did solicit some final advice from the participants. Six suggestions, or pieces of advice, emerged
from the compiled data:
• space requirements
• onboarding new teachers
• do not expect perfection right away
• a flexible space requires flexible teachers
• building trust and relationships
• professional development
The first suggestion was a space requirement where all ILEs should be designed with
flexible walls. Moreover, the moveable walls should be as soundproof as possible. Another
suggested space requirement was to ensure smaller, quieter breakout spaces where students who
needed a quieter space could work. Likewise, teachers need their own breakout space, and so it
was suggested that there should also be a teacher collaboration zone, with the ability to hold
private meetings, or to simply have a quiet space in which to work when the teacher is not
actively teaching. These teacher spaces not only serve as a place to collaborate with other
teachers, or have a private phone call with parents, but they also provide a space in which
teachers can unwind and relax to recharge the batteries.
The second suggestion pertained to onboarding new teachers into the ILE team. Joining a
well-established team of teachers can be quite intimidating, and the way in which a new team
member is onboarded can make a big difference. A concerted effort needs to be made to make
119

the onboarding team member feel welcome. It was suggested that spending some time together
outside of school would be beneficial in developing the relationship.
Another part of the onboarding process is to make sure that the new team member is
provided with the same professional development opportunities, as well as training on how the
space is used. Easterby-Smith and Olve (1984) explained that a major factor for the breakdown
of open-plan teams was the lack of proper training for teachers to learn how to effectively
collaborate with colleagues in the novel open space. Participants of this dissertation study
suggested that ILE teams could make a video of the teachers in action within the space which
could be studied by new team members. This would be especially helpful for teachers who have
never had any ILE experience. Furthermore, teachers joining ILEs at ISSA should get training in
project-based learning through the Buck Institute for Education (BIE). Another suggested PD
experience was adaptive schools training, where teachers learn how to function as part of a
collaborative team. Giving proper PD support to new teachers is something many researchers
agreed is necessary if they wish to effectively transition into new learning spaces (Blackmore et
al., 2011; Brogden, 2007; Cotterell, 1984; Deed & Lesko, 2015; Halpin, 2007).
The third piece of advice was to take solace in the fact that you will not get everything
right the first time you become an ILE teacher. Participants agreed that the shift from being a
siloed classroom teacher, to becoming ILE teacher, is a big adjustment. Years of educational
research have highlighted the difficulty that teachers have when attempting to modify their
practice to fit a contemporary environment (Cleveland & Woodman, 2009; Cotterell, 1984; Deed
& Lesko, 2015; Rivlin & Rothenberg, 1975; Woolner et al., 2007). The ILE teachers in this
study want educators to know that you are not alone if you feel like you are building the airplane
120

while flying it. In moments like these, you must lean on your colleagues and trust that with time
and practice, you will get better at being an ILE educator.
The fourth suggestion relates to a teacher’s disposition. Several teachers in the study
mentioned that a flexible space requires a flexible teacher. This advice is especially important
when it comes to the planning of interdisciplinary projects. Many teachers who work in ILEs at
ISSA are subject specialists, such as Math, Science, Social Studies, or English teachers. This
means that each will come to the planning table wanting to ensure that their subject is
represented in an interdisciplinary unit. Unfortunately, interdisciplinary units do not always
represent all subjects equally. Some projects are very science heavy, while other projects are
very social studies heavy. Teachers need to be flexible in how they negotiate for their standards.
Furthermore, when you have several teachers working together, each with their own set of values
and priorities, you need to exercise a little bit of flexibility with the understanding that you
cannot always have it your way.
The fifth suggestion was to spend ample time building trust and relationships. Campbell
et al. (2013) stated that the building of relationships takes a significant amount of time. Everyone
in the study agreed that this was a key factor is determining whether an ILE team would function
properly. Brunetti et al. (1972) stated that interpersonal relationships among colleagues would be
a determining factor in the success of a team. Spending time together outside of school was
suggested repeatedly. Laying out clear expectations was said to be a part of developing trust and
relationships. This might look like having clear meeting protocols, or team roles, where everyone
knows what is expected of them. Spending time getting to know each of the teammates’ needs is
also a crucial step in developing trust.
121

The sixth and final piece of advice was to seek out specific professional development.
The number one professional development suggestion was to go and see other ILE teams in
action. This can be achieved through visiting teams within the school, or in visiting teams in
other schools. Another suggestion was to have off-site planning days, where the whole time is
spent just planning for a project. Going somewhere offsite for a full day of planning was a valued
experience mentioned by several focus groups.
Participants also agreed that there are certain formal PD trainings that are a must for an
ILE educator at ISSA. The first being project-based learning PD. They suggested attending the
Buck Institute for Education (BIE) training sessions. Several focus groups also mentioned
Adaptive schools training, which focuses on team dynamics and working collaboratively. Some
members also suggested that conceptual-based learning PD had proven valuable in their work as
ILE educators. Though it was not mentioned as a suggestion from the focus group participants,
Imms et al. (2016) suggested that there is a lack of environmental competence in the teaching
profession, which can hinder a teachers’ ability to take advantage of spatial affordances,
therefore, teachers working in ILEs should seek out such spatial affordance training.
Implications for Practice
The goal of this study was to understand how teaching in an ILE at ISSA has influenced
teacher practice so that the school can better support teachers who currently work in, or will
eventually work in, an ILE at ISSA. The implications for practice that have emerged from this
study will aim to educate around best practices, provide suggestions to the faculty and
administration regarding professional development for ILE teachers, as well as provide
suggestions regarding what features ILEs at ISSA’s should have in the new campus rebuild.
Seeing as the new construction will incorporate more ILEs throughout the K–12 school, it would
122

be wise for the school leaders to consider the data derived from the educators involved in this
study, as they are the ones who have piloted the ILE Pathway project at ISSA over the past 5
years.
The researcher has identified seven implications for practice, including (a) ILEs help to
facilitate faculty and students’ capacity for collaboration, (b) ILEs help to foster an enhanced
sense of community and shared ownership, (c) a significant amount of time and effort should go
into building relationships among ILE team members and the administrators that support them,
(d) proper time and care should go into welcoming and training new ILE team members, (e) the
power of both informal and formal professional development should not be underestimated, (f)
mitigating the noise factor, and (g) dealing with collaboration overload. What follows will be an
elaboration on each of these seven implications for practice.
A physical environment, such as an ILE, can be regarded as a second teacher that can
motivate students and teachers, augment learning, and reduce discipline problems (Bradbeer et
al., 2019). An ILE, therefore, can influence the quantity and quality of collaboration that goes on
within it. ISSA has adopted a series of learning aspirations that help make up their strategic
direction, one of those learning aspirations is “collaboration.” It is clear, therefore, that the
organization holds the 21
st
century skill of collaboration in high regard. Moving forward, how
can we use the knowledge gained from this study and others like it, regarding how the ILE
enhances our ability to collaborate, to our advantage? What processes or professional
development can ISSA enact in order to take full advantage of this enhanced form of
collaboration within their ILEs? In thinking through this scenario, we should consider how all
this would lead to improved student learning.
123

In a similar vein, we learned from this study that ILEs help to foster an enhanced sense of
community and shared ownership over the learning space. The question that presents itself is
how does ISSA and other schools like it, reap the benefits of a clear sense of place and
ownership where there is a lack of clarity of who owns what space? French et al. (2020)
suggested that one approach may be to leverage the importance of relationships and
collaboration among educators who inhabit the space to enable a shift in perception of
ownership. The goal being to get teachers from a mindset of “my classroom” to a mindset of
“our community.”
The foundation of a strong ILE community are the relationships of the individuals who
inhabit the space. French et al. (2020) argued that teaching in an ILE is not the same as teaching
in a traditional classroom, and therefore, it requires that relationships need to be strong before
transitioning into a shared, team-teaching environment. Without strong relationships, teachers
will be less likely to take risks as they attempt to transition from being a siloed classroom teacher
to an ILE team teacher (French et al., 2020). Relationship building, in fact, was considered so
crucial that many schools who have successfully transitioned their teachers into ILEs have
dedicated time specifically for educators to build these relationships (French et al., 2020). It
would be wise, therefore, for ISSA to place considerable resources into developing opportunities
for teachers to build positive relationships among ILE team members and the administrators who
support them.
Gaining or losing a team member can be devastating, or a welcome breath of fresh air. It
is inevitable that teams will eventually lose and, therefore, gain a new team member from time to
time. How a new team member is onboarded can have a huge impact on how the team functions
moving forward. It is, therefore, imperative for teachers and administrators to have a plan for
124

successfully onboarding new teachers. One part of this plan needs to focus on the relationship
building opportunities previously discussed. A new teacher coming into an already established
team will not have had time to develop trust and may, therefore, feel uncomfortable teaching in
this new highly visible space. The other part is providing the appropriate professional
development for the new teacher to feel adequately prepared to join a collaborative team of
teachers, especially if the teacher in question is coming from a traditional model of classroom
teaching.
Teachers in this study, including ones that were recently onboarded to a new team, shared
that it would have been extremely beneficial for new teammates to be offered the same PD
experiences that the other team members had when they themselves transitioned into the ILE.
For example, if PBL is something that is used in the space, and existing teachers took a PBL
training course, then it would make sense for the onboarding member to undergo the same
training. In doing so, teams will avoid feeling like they need to start from square one when a new
teacher joins the team.
The power of both informal and formal PD should not be underestimated. One of the key
learnings that emerged from this study was that ILEs at ISSA are a hotbed of informal
collaboration which, in turn, results in a gain of informal PD. Working in proximity to other
teachers is the logical cause of the reported uptick in informal collaboration and informal PD,
and so it would be worth thinking about how ISSA can harness this positive outcome. The school
might want to consider examining the big picture learnings that happen as a result of constantly
teaching around other professionals. Once the major professional development themes have
emerged from this self-study, teachers and administrators can organize PD experiences for all
teachers, especially those who will find themselves working in an ILE in the future. The idea is
125

that you learn from the informal collaboration and informal PD experiences acquired through
working in proximity to other teachers, and then turn those learnings into formal PD experiences.
One such formal PD experience that ISSA should consider developing is training teachers
about space affordance. Affordance theory is a term coined by psychologist James Gibson
(Young et al., 2021). The concept of affordances refers to action possibilities that result from the
relationship between the environment and the person contained within it. Gibson claimed that
affordances exist whether they are actualized or not by the user (Young et al., 2021). The ability
to recognize and actualize spatial affordances, in an ILE for example, can be influenced by
cultures, social settings, and prior experiences. Over time, teachers who use the space tend to
recognize affordances that they had not previously considered. One such example is the potential
use of writable surfaces in an ILE. The space itself, affords the teacher the ability to use the
writable surfaces as a way engaging students in visible thinking. If the teacher uses the writable
surfaces to engage students in some way, then the teacher has successfully actualized the
affordance that the space provides. Naturally, some affordances are more easily recognized than
others, but with time, experiences, and training, teachers can learn to use the space to its full
potential and can thus actualize the affordances of the space. It is worth noting that research
shows that teachers and architects perceive higher numbers of affordances for learning in ILEs
when compared to traditional classrooms (Young et al., 2021). This would suggest, therefore,
that ILEs may offer more options for learning activities. Yet, simply occupying the space will
not in itself bring about significant changes to teacher practice. Young et al. (2021) reported that
it is not the space, but rather the teachers’ intentions and educational aims that play the most
significant part in actualizing spatial affordance. Therefore, supporting teachers in their ability to
recognize and use the space effectively should be a top priority for ILE teachers.
126

This study uncovered the challenge that ILEs at ISSA have with noise distractions.
Teachers who worked in an ILE that did not have the option to rearrange spaces through the
manipulation of semi-soundproof walls were adamant that this must be a feature in the ILE
spaces built in the new campus construction. Teachers who did have the use semi-soundproof
moveable walls in their ILEs still complained that noise was a challenge, and so it would be
worth considering other ways to mitigate this problem using sound absorbing ceiling, wall, and
floor materials, as well as using the placement of furniture to further dampen the noise level. It is
also worth considering learning about how to take advantage of the culture of the space, as well
as procedures that can be implemented to address noise concerns. In other words, how can the
people who occupy the space, both teacher and student, work together to come up with ways to
address the problem of noise pollution within the space? By combining sound absorbing
materials, with a concerted effort made by the population who occupy the space, noise pollution
may become less of a challenge in the future.
Finally, we have established that working in an ILE offers advantages to teachers in
many ways, such as the advantages of ongoing informal collaboration, but if ISSA wants to
avoid teacher burnout, they must consider the effects of collaboration overload. The school may
want to compile a list of strategies that current ILE teachers use to avoid collaboration burnout.
Following this initial step, ISSA should consider holding a brainstorming session to ideate
further suggestions so that the recommendations can be later shared with the rest of the school.
Examples for how to avoid collaboration overload may take on a material form, such as making
sure that ILEs are built with purposeful relaxation areas where teachers can be alone. Or, the
suggestions may be more behavioral, like setting aside a block during the day when one
127

purposefully leaves the space to get a coffee at the cafeteria. Either way, ISSA would benefit
from brainstorming such ideas to mitigate the effects of collaboration overload.
Recommendations for Future Research
In considering future research around ILEs at ISSA, it might first make sense to revisit
the idea of how teaching in an ILE has influenced teacher practice. Rather than use a focus group
method, however, it might prove fruitful to conduct individual interviews to seek out new
perspectives that did not bubble to the surface during the initial focus groups. Conducting
interviews would also allow the researcher to dig more deeply into the individual experiences of
the ILE teachers. This, coupled with in-person observation of teaching practices, could bring to
light new insights.
Another investigation that is worthy of study is to acquire data from the student
perspective. One could investigate how students perceive their collaboration skills since moving
into an ILE. One could also switch out the word “collaboration” for “communication,” “critical
thinking,” or “engagement.” One of the themes that emerged from this dissertation study was
that working in an ILE helps to facilitate a strong sense of community. It would, therefore, make
sense to see if students also feel that they have an enhanced sense of community in an ILE as
compared to when they were in a more traditional setting.
These studies would likely be qualitative in nature, and so it would be interesting to
consider a quantitative study as well. The most meaningful quantitative research would involve
student learning outcomes. In other words, how does “x” effect the grades of the student. One
might want to compare student standardized MAP test scores of students who are in ILEs versus
students who are not in ILEs. Granted, controlling for an experiment like this would likely be
very difficult. One might still be able to acquire relevant information once a chosen variable has
128

been isolated. An example of this might be, “What is the effect on student MAP test scores when
students use interdisciplinary project-based learning as a vehicle for learning content?” Again, it
would be difficult to control for all the possible variables, but it would be an interesting
endeavour.
Seeing as there are considerable differences in how one teaches in an ILE versus how one
teaches in a traditional siloed classroom, it would be worthy to investigate the perceived
outcomes of those differences. Take, for example, teacher satisfaction. It is well known that
many teachers are hesitant to make the switch from a traditional classroom model to an ILE, and
so it might be worth trying to qualify, or quantify, the level of teacher satisfaction between those
two modes of teaching. Since, as we learned from this dissertation study, there is an increase is
sense of community among ILE teachers, it might be safe to hypothesize that ILE teachers have
a more positive sense of satisfaction regarding their job.
Conclusion
This research aimed to explore the influence that space has on teacher practice. While
this study only focused on one school in Southeast Asia, the findings will hopefully add to the
overall growing research around ILEs, as well as to provide specific contextual knowledge that
can be used to help support ILE educators at ISSA. The study isolated four areas of teacher
practice. These were (a) collaboration, (b) personalized learning, (c) interdisciplinary project-
based learning, and (d) professional development. In doing so, key themes emerged and
highlighted the importance that ILEs play in the facilitation of informal collaboration and
professional development, not to mention how ILEs play a role in developing a strong sense of
community and student agency around the use of the flexible environment and student-cantered
practices.
129

The path to transitioning a traditional classroom-structured school is an arduous one.
While side-by-side teaming is increasingly common in other professions, it has yet to catch on as
easily with teachers. Effective team teaching will not be possible in educational settings until
school administrators examine current assumptions and practices and offer new possibilities for
teachers to work together to tackle complicated problems. Team teaching, which de-privatizes
teacher practice, takes considerable expertise, along with risk-taking on the part of teachers and
administrators. Schools not only need to invest considerable capital in renovating spaces and
training teachers, but they must also spend a considerable amount of time and energy in
reshaping the school culture for all stakeholders so that the philosophical shift is embraced by the
community, rather than rejected. An honest institution, however, must ask the hard question: Is
the juice really worth the squeeze? In other words, does the investment of capital, time, energy,
blood, sweat, and tears lead to improved student learning and overall student and staff
happiness?
As discussed in Chapter One, there is growing research to support the claim that
innovative pedagogies lead to better student learning outcomes (Biggs, 1987; Fullan &
Langworthy, 2013; Imms et al., 2017; Kember et al., 2004). Considering their commitment to
innovative spaces and teaching practices, ISSA should feel confident in the established research
regarding the positive connection between student learning outcomes and their use of innovative
practices such as personalized learning and project-based learning. ISSA should stick with this
ILE initiative not because it is a trend that is catching on, but because the data shows that it
benefits students and educators alike.
It seems clear from this study that the physical space can influence teacher practice in
many ways. It brought to the light the need for strong relationships among ILE team members,
130

strengthened by the forming of trust as teachers deprivatize their practice in highly visible,
shared spaces. If there is one thing that is clear, it is that ISSA is fiercely devoted to making the
student experience as positive and fulfilling as can possibly be. As ISSA continues down the path
of adopting innovative spaces and teacher practices, it must continue to gather, analyze, and
share both qualitative and quantitative data taken from all stakeholders in their community so
that they can continue to learn and improve their practice. It is the hope of this researcher that
ISSA can use the information learned from this dissertation as a data point among many that can
help to improve the learning experience for all stakeholders in its community.

131

References
4PS & Partnerships for Schools. (2008). An introduction to building schools for the future.
https://www.partnershipsforschools.org.uk/documents/BSF_Guidance_Documents/BSF
%20Introductory%20Guide%202008.pdf
Agee, J. (2009). Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(4), 431–447.
Allen, H. A. (1975). The open classroom: Elements for successful implementation in American
schools. Peabody journal of Education, 52(2), 97–104.
Alterator, S., & Deed, C. (2013). Teacher adaptation to open learning spaces. Issues in
Educational Research, 23(3), 315–330.
Anderson, R. H., Hagstrom, E. A., & Robinson, W. M. (1960). Team teaching in an elementary
school. The School Review, 68(1), 71–84.
Appel‐Meulenbroek, R., Groenen, P., & Janssen, I. (2011). An end‐user's perspective on activity‐
based office concepts. Journal of Corporate Real Estate.
Australian National Audit Office. (2010). Building the education revolution-primary schools for
the 21st century. https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/building-education-
revolution-primary-schools-21st-century
Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of
research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning. Book excerpt. George Lucas
Educational Foundation.
Barth, R. S. (2002). The culture builder. Educational leadership, 59(8), 6–11.
Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The clearing
house, 83(2), 39–43
132

Belland, B. R., Ertmer, P. A., & Simons, K. D. (2006). Perceptions of the value of problem-
based learning among students with special needs and their teachers. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(2), 3.
Benade, L. (2015). The transformative educative prospects of flexible learning environments.
Benade, L. (2017a). Being a teacher in the 21st century (pp. 25–73). Springer.
Benade, L. (2017b). Is the classroom obsolete in the twenty-first century? Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 49(8), 796–807.
Benade, L. (2017c). The evolution of policy: A critical examination of school property under the
national-led government. Waikato Journal of Education, 22(1).
Bennett, S. (2007). First questions for designing higher education learning spaces. The Journal of
academic librarianship, 33(1), 14–26.
Bennett, N., & Hyland, T. (1979). Open plan—open education? British Educational Research
Journal, 5(2), 159–166.
Beninghof, A. M. (2020). Co-teaching that works: Structures and strategies for maximizing
student learning. John Wiley & Sons.
Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Research Monograph.
Australian Council for Educational Research Ltd.
Bissell, J. (1995). Patterns for effective high school environments [Unpublished thesis,
University of Wisconsin].
Bisset, J. (2014). The move to modern learning environments in New Zealand secondary schools:
Step forward or smokescreen? [Unpublished thesis]. Research Bank.
https://www.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/2700
133

Blackmore, J., Bateman, D., Cloonan, A., Dixon, M., Loughlin, J., O’Mara, J., & Senior, K.
(2011). Innovative learning environments research study. Victoria: Department of
Education and Early Childhood Development, 1–61.
Blann in, J. (2018). Open - plan learning environments and teachers’ digital technology use. In
W. Imms & M. Mahat (Eds.), Transitions 18: Symposium proceedings (pp. 59–64).
University of Melbourne.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991).
Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning.
Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398.
Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self‐regulation in the classroom: A perspective on
assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology, 54(2), 199–231.
Borg, W. R. (1967). Teacher effectiveness in team teaching. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 35(3), 65–70.
Borri, S. (2018). The classroom has broken. Indire.
Bosch, R. (2018). Designing for a better world starts at school. Rosan Bosch Studio.
Bradbeer, C. J. (2020). Teaching together, working together, and being together: Teacher
collaboration in innovative learning environments [Doctoral dissertation, University of
Melbourne].
Bradbeer, C., Mahat, M., Byers, T., Cleveland, B., Kvar, T., & Imms, W. (2017). The ‘state of
play’concerning New Zealand’s transition to innovative learning environments:
Preliminary results from phase one of the ILETC project. In LEaRN. New Zealand
Educational Administration & Leadership Society.
134

Bradbeer, C., Mahat, M., Byers, T., & Imms, W. (2019). A systematic review of the effects of
innovative learning environments on teacher mind frames. University of Melbourne.
https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/items/3e21dc35-5195-5cbf-8b5a-edc60e0db00d
Brinkerhoff, R. (2003). The success case method: Find out quickly what's working and what's
not. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Brogden, M. (2007). Plowden and primary school buildings: A story of innovation without
change. In Forum: For promoting 3-19 comprehensive education (Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 55–
66). Symposium Journals.
Brooks, D. C. (2011). Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student
learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 719–726.
Brunetti, F. A., Cohen, E. G., Meyer, J. W., & Molnar, S. R. (1972). Studies of team teaching in
the open-space school. Interchange, 3(2–3), 85–101.
Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., Norby, M. M., & Ronning, R. R. (2011). Problem solving and
critical thinking. In Cognitive psychology and instruction (5th ed., pp. 160–191). Pearson
Education Inc.
Brush, T., & Saye, J. (2008). The effects of multimedia-supported problem-based inquiry on
student engagement, empathy, and assumptions about history. Interdisciplinary Journal
of Problem-Based Learning, 2(1), 4.
Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical
synthesis. Review of educational research, 65(3), 245–281.
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform.
Educational leadership, 60(6), 40–45.
135

Bullock, D. K. (2013). Real world engagement: A case study of a teacher's implementation of
project based learning in social studies [Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State
University].
Buck Institute for Education. (2009). What is PBL? http://www.bie.org/about/what_is_pbl/
Buck Institute for Education. (2015). Project based learning. http://www.bie.org/
Buckley, F. J. (1999). Team teaching: What, why, and how? Sage.
Bybee, R. W. (2014). NGSS and the next generation of science teachers. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 25(2), 211–221.
Byers, T., Mahat, M., Liu, K., & Knock, A. (2018). Systematic review of the effects of learning
environments on student learning outcomes. University of Melbourne.
https://rest.neptune-prod.its.unimelb.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/aace6be7-5cb2-
5332-8add-5318ed49d221/content
Byers, T., Imms, W., & Hartnell-Young, E. (2014). Making the case for space: The effect of
learning spaces on teaching and learning. Curriculum and Teaching, 29(1), 5–19.
Cameron, P. (1986). Ten years of open plan. Journal Issue, (1).
Campbell, L. (2020). Teaching in an inspiring learning space: An investigation of the extent to
which one school’s innovative learning environment has impacted on teachers’ pedagogy
and practice. Research Papers in Education, 35(2), 185–204.
Campbell, R. J., Robinson, W., Neelands, J., Hewston, R., & Mazzoli, L. (2007). Personalised
learning: Ambiguities in theory and practice. British Journal of Educational Studies,
55(2), 135–154.
136

Campbell, M., Saltmarsh, S., Chapman, A., & Drew, C. (2013). Issues of teacher professional
learning within ‘non-traditional’ classroom environments. Improving Schools, 16(3),
209–222.
Cardellino, P., & Woolner, P. (2020). Designing for transformation–a case study of open
learning spaces and educational change. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 28(3), 383–402.
Carvalho, L., & Yeoman, P. (2018). Framing learning entanglement in innovative learning
spaces: Connecting theory, design and practice. British Educational Research Journal,
44(6), 1120–1137.
Chism, N. V. N. (2006). Challenging traditional assumptions and rethinking learning spaces.
Learning spaces, 2–1.
Christensen, U., & Mark, G. (2004). Different facets of mobility in collaboration: An empirical
study of an event production company. University of California.
http://www.ulrikchristensen.dk/publications/christensen_jcscw.pdf
Chu, S. K. W., Tse, S. K., Loh, E. K. Y., & Chow, K. (2011). Collaborative inquiry project-
based learning: Effects on reading ability and interests. Library & Information Science
Research, 33(3), 236–243.
Cleveland, B. W. (2011). Engaging spaces: Innovative learning environments, pedagogies and
student engagement in the middle years of school [Doctoral dissertation, University of
Melbourne].
Cleveland, B., Soccio, P., Mountain, R., & Imms, W. (2018). Learning environment design and
use. Towards effective learning environments in catholic schools (TELE): An evidence-
based approach (2015-2017). Catholic Education Melbourne. https://minerva-
access.unimelb.edu.au/items/6c0b8ff1-45e3-585d-968e-faf4dd15fce9
137

Costa, M. (2004). Teacher adaptations to an open-area teaching and learning environment.
Teaching for Social Justice, 95.
Council, E. (2017). Our code, our standards. Education Council.
Covey, S. R. (2004). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Powerful lessons in personal
change. Simon and Schuster.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage Publications, Inc.
Cuban, L. (2004a). The open classroom: Were schools without walls just another fad? Education
Next, 4(2), 68–71.
Cuban, L. (2004b). Whatever happened to the open plan classroom? Education Next, 69–71.
http://educationnext.org/theopenclassroom
Czarapata, P. B., & Friskney, D. (2014). Faculty perceptions of learning spaces. Purdue
University. https://www.purdue.edu/idata/documents/White_Papers/Report-LS_FGs-
2016-09-29-Final.pdf
Deed, C., & Lesko, T. (2015). ‘Unwalling’the classroom: Teacher reaction and adaptation.
Learning Environments Research, 18(2), 217–231.
Department for Children, Schools & Families, United Kingdom (DCSF) (2008). Personalised
learning: A practical guide. DCSF Publications. http://www.essex.gov.uk/Business-
Partners/Partners/Schools/One-to-one-
tuition/Documents/Personalised%20Learning%20a%20practical%20guide.pdf
Dewey, J. (1923). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.
Macmillan.
138

Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.
The Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1986, September). Experience and education. In The educational forum (Vol. 50, No.
3, pp. 241–252). Taylor & Francis Group.
Dovey, K., & Fisher, K. (2014). Designing for adaptation: The school as socio-spatial
assemblage. The Journal of Architecture, 19(1), 43–63.
Diffily, D. (2002). Project-based learning: Meeting social studies standards and the needs of
gifted learners. Gifted Child Today, 25(3), 40–59.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work. Solution Tree
Press.
Durie, M. (2015). Educational leadership for tomorrow. Leadership for Communities of
Learning: Five Think Pieces, 29–32.
Easterby-Smith, M., & Olve, N. G. (1984). Team teaching: Making management education more
student-centred? Management Education and Development, 15(3), 221–236.
English, M. C., & Kitsantas, A. (2013). Supporting student self-regulated learning in problem-
and project-based learning. Interdisciplinary journal of problem-based learning, 7(2), 6.
Fisher, K. (Ed.). (2016). The translational design of schools: An evidence-based approach to
aligning pedagogy and learning environments. Springer.
Fletcher, J., Mackey, J., & Fickel, L. (2017). A New Zealand case study: What is happening to
lead changes to effective co-teaching in flexible learning spaces? Journal of Educational
Leadership, Policy and Practice, 32(1), 70.
Franklin, G. (2015). Designing primary schools: Architect-educator dialogues. School Design
Together, 55–76.
139

Fraser, D., Henderson, C., Price, G., Aitken, V., Cheesman, S., Bevege, F., & Tyson, S. (2009).
Examining and disrupting rituals of practice in the primary classroom. Education 3–13,
37(2), 105–119.
Freeman, J. (1969). Team teaching in Britain. Ward Lock Educational.
French, R., Imms, W., & Mahat, M. (2020). Case studies on the transition from traditional
classrooms to innovative learning environments: Emerging strategies for success.
Improving Schools, 23(2), 175–189.
Friend, M. M., & Cook, L. (2010). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals.
Longman.
Friend, M., Reising, M., & Cook, L. (1993). Co-teaching: An overview of the past, a glimpse at
the present, and considerations for the future. Preventing School Failure: Alternative
Education for Children and Youth, 37(4), 6–10.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. Routledge.
Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2013). Towards a new end: New pedagogies for deep learning.
Gaver, W. W. (1991, March). Technology affordances. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 79–84).
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perceptions. Collaborative Impact.
http://www.newpedagogies.nl/images/towards_a_new_end.pdf
Gidney, R. D., & Millar, W. P. J. (2012). How schools worked: Public education in English
Canada, 1900-1940 (Vol. 224). McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP.
Gilbert, J. (2005). Catching the knowledge wave?: The knowledge society and the future of
public education in New Zealand. Education Policy Directions in Aotearoa/New Zealand,
53–70.
140

Gislason, N. (2010). Architectural design and the learning environment: A framework for school
design research. Learning Environments Research, 13(2), 127–145.
Glesne, C. (2011). Glesne, becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
Goodwin, C. (2017). Co-operative action. Cambridge University Press.
Gradias, J. (2017). The ripple effect: Exploring how a joint science specialist/TOSA can change
classroom teachers' instructional practices through project-based learning [Doctoral
dissertation, Fielding Graduate University].
Graham, P. (2008). Susan Isaacs and the malting house school. Journal of Child Psychotherapy,
34(1), 5–22.
Grant, M. M. (2011). Learning, beliefs, and products: Students' perspectives with project-based
learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 5(2), 6.
Grapko, M. F. (1972). A comparison of open space and traditional classroom structures
according to independence measures in children, teachers' awareness of children's
personality variables, and children's academic progress. National Library of Australia.
https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/5253845
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. Jossey - Bass.
Gronn, P. (2009). Leadership configurations. Leadership, 5(3), 381–394.
Gump, P. V. (1987). School and classroom environments. Handbook of environmental
psychology, 1, 691–732.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Corwin Press.
Hammond, L. D. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. John
Wiley & Sons.
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. SAGE Publications, Inc.
141

Hargreaves, D. (2005). Personalising learning 4: Curriculum and advice and guidance.
Specialist Schools Trust. https://webcontent.ssatuk.co.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2014/08/14142830/PL4-Curriculum-and-Advice-Guidance.pdf
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2015). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every
school. Teachers College Press.
Hattie, J. (2015). What works best in education: The politics of collaborative expertise. British
Columbia Teachers' Federation.
Hayes, D. (2006). Telling stories: Sustaining improvement in schools operating under adverse
conditions. Improving Schools, 9(3), 203–213.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in
problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and. Educational
Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.
Horan, C., Lavaroni, C., & Beldon, P. (1996). Observation of the tinker tech program students
for critical thinking and social participation behaviors. Buck Institute for Education, 18.
Horwitz, R. A. (1979). Psychological effects of the “open classroom”. Review of Educational
Research, 49(1), 71–85.
Ilseman, K., & Hoffmann, K. (2016). Salamander saver. The Science Teacher, 83(1), 37.
Imms, W. (2018). Innovative learning spaces: Catalysts/agents for change, or ‘Just another fad’?
In School space and its occupation (pp. 107–118). Brill Sense.
Imms, W. (2018, June). ILETC project update. Paper presented at the Transitions18—
Continuing the Conversation Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
http://www.iletc.com.au/transitions18-melbourne-presentations/
142

Imms, W., Cleveland, B., & Fisher, K. (2016). Pursuing that elusive evidence about what works
in learning environment design. In Evaluating learning environments (pp. 1–17). Brill
Sense.
Imms, W., & Kvar, T. (2021). Teacher transition into innovative learning environments: A
global perspective (p. 334). Springer Nature.
Imms, W., Mahat, M., Bradbeer, C., & Cattlin, J. (2018). Teachers’ transition into innovative
learning environments–An international synthesis of current knowledge. Transitions18,
7.
Imms, W., Mahat, M., Byers, T., & Murphy, D. (2017). Type and use of innovative learning
environments in Australasian schools [Online submission]. ILETC Survey 1.
Ingold, T. (2008). Bindings against boundaries: Entanglements of life in an open world.
Environment and Planning A, 40(8), 1796–1810.
ISSA (2021). Pathway floor plan: 6A [PowerPoint Slides]. Google Drive.
Istance, D. (2015). Schooling redesigned: Towards innovative learning systems. OECD.
Jensen, R. J. (2019). The innovative learning environment in New Zealand: Supporting teacher
transition (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Waikato).
Jones, B. F., Rasmussen, C. M., & Moffitt, M. C. (1997). Real-life problem solving: A
collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning. American Psychological
Association.
Jones, M., Michael, C., Mandala, J., & Colachico, D. (2008). Collaborative teaching: Creating a
partnership between general and special education. International Journal of Learning,
15(7).
143

Kember, D., Biggs, J., & Leung, D. Y. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches
to learning through the development of a revised version of the learning process
questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 261–279.
Kliebard, H. M. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum (pp. 893–1958). Psychology
Press.
Knoll, M. (1997). The project method: Its vocational education origin and international
development. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education.
Krajcik, J. (2015). Projected-based science. The Science Teacher, 82(1), 25.
Lackney, J. A. (2008). Teacher environmental competence in elementary school environments.
Children Youth and Environments, 18(2), 133–159.
Larmer, J. (2013). Project based learning vs. problem based learning vs. XBL.
http://bie.org/blog/project_based_learning_vs._problem_based_learning_vs._xbl
Leana, C. (2011). The missing link in school reform. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 31–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2011.07.027
Leighton, V., & Byers, T. (2020). All innovative learning environments have one factor in
common: A spatially active teacher. Australian Educational Leader, 42(1), 30–33.
Lesser, L. C., Dunne, M., & Faszewski, E. E. (2014). Invading the curriculum: Incorporating
service learning in the local community to enhance student engagement. Science Scope,
37(7), 36.
Lippman, P. C. (2010a). Can the physical environment have an impact on the learning
environment? OECD. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/5km4g21wpwr1-
en.pdf?expires=1663427383&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=0C6E1E72A3A9456A
DB1B4E82F31B5E59
144

Lippman, P. C. (2010b). Evidence-based design of elementary and secondary schools: A
responsive approach to creating learning environments. John Wiley & Sons.
Little, A., & Hoel, A. (2011). Interdisciplinary team teaching: An effective method to transform
student attitudes. Journal of Effective Teaching, 11(1), 36–44.
Lochmiller, C.R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Lund, B. (2015). The notion of emotion in educational settings when learning to become
innovative and creative. In Dealing with emotions (pp. 1–20). Brill Sense.
Mackey, J., O’Reilly, N., Fletcher, J., & Jansen, C. (2017). What do teachers and leaders have to
say about co-teaching in flexible learning spaces? Journal of Educational Leadership,
Policy and Practice, 32(1), 97.
Mahat, M., Bradbeer, C., Byers, T., & Imms, W. (2018). Innovative learning environments and
teacher change: Defining key concepts. University of Melbourne.
https://sites.research.unimelb.edu.au/learn-network/home/projects/iletc
Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based
science. The Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 341–358.
Maling, B. (1990). Looking back before stepping forward: Lessons from the open education
reform movement of the 1970's. Journal of Experiential Education, 13(2), 18–24.
Markham, T., Larmer, J., & Ravitz, J. L. (2003). Project based learning handbook: A guide to
standards-focused project based learning for middle and high school teachers. Buck
Institute for Education.
Marshall, H. H. (1981). Open classrooms: Has the term outlived its usefulness? Review of
Educational Research, 51(2), 181–192.
145

Martin, S. H. (2002). The classroom environment and its effects on the practice of teachers.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1-2), 139–156.
Mattessich, P. W., Murray-Close, M., & Monsey, B. R. (2001). Collaboration: What makes it
work: A review of research literature on factors influencing successful collaboration
(2nd ed.). Fieldstone Alliance.
Mattsson, M., & Kemmis, S. (2007). Praxis‐related research: serving two masters? Pedagogy,
Culture & Society, 15(2), 185–214.
McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000, May). Affordances: Clarifying and evolving a concept.
Proceedings of the Graphics Interface 2000 Conference, May 15-17, 2000, Montréal,
Québec, Canada.
Mergendoller, J. R., Maxwell, N. L., & Bellisimo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness of problem-based
instruction: A comparative study of instructional methods and student characteristics.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(2), 5.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, W. R. (2010, September). Independent learning: A literature review and a new project. In
British Educational Research Association Annual Conference (Vol. 35).
Ministry of Education. (2014). MLE: Auckland normal intermediate case study.
https://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Primary-
Secondary/Property/Design/Flexible-learning-
spaces/AucklandNormalIntermediateCasestudy-July2014.pdf
146

Moje, E. B. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature
on disciplinary literacy. Review of research in education (vol. 31, pp. 1–44). Difference,
Diversity, and Distinctiveness in Education and Learning.
Monahan, T. (2002). Flexible space & built pedagogy: Emerging IT embodiments. University of
North Carolina.
Monahan, T. (2005). Globalization, technological change, and public education. Routledge.
Montessori, M. (1966). The secret of childhood, trans. and Ed. by Barbara Barclay Carter.
Moon, B. (Ed.). (1983). Comprehensive schools: Challenge and change. Humanities Press.
Nair. P. (2014). School 2.0- designing tomorrow's schools. Fielding International.
www.fieldingnair.com
Nair, P., Fielding, R., & Lackney, J. A. (2009). The language of school design (Rev. ed.).
DesignShare.
Nunez, M. (2018). Implementing project-based learning in urban high school classrooms:
Understanding teachers' mindsets and benefits to English learners [Doctoral dissertation,
St. John’s University].
https://scholar.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1205&context=theses_dissertation
s
Nair, P. (2019). Blueprint for tomorrow: Redesigning schools for student-centered learning.
Harvard Education Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Appendix A—Conceptual shifts in the next generation science
standards. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States.
Niemi, K. (2020). ‘The best guess for the future?’Teachers’ adaptation to open and flexible
learning environments in Finland. Education Inquiry, 1–19.
147

Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. Basic books.
OECD. (2013). Innovative learning environments, educational research and innovation. OECD
Publishing.
OECD. (2015). Schooling redesigned: Towards innovative learning system. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2017). The OECD handbook for innovative learning environments. OECD Publishing.
Ontario. Ministry of Education. Research and Evaluation Branch, & Cooke, G. (1973). Problems
of teacher-student organisation in openrooms. York County Board of Education.
Oskins, S. A. (2018). Factors related to the training, recruitment, and retention of quality
bilingual teachers in dual language immersion programs in international schools
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California).
Palincsar, A. S. (2013). The next generation science standards and the common core state
standards: Proposing a happy marriage. Science and Children, 51(1), 10.
Paludan, J. P. (2006). Personalised learning 2025. Schooling for Tomorrow: Personalising
Education, 83–100.
Parnell, R., & Procter, L (2011). Flexibility and placemaking for autonomy in learning.
Educational & Child Psychology, 28 (1), 77–88.
Pasalar, C. (2001). The meaning and perception of school buildings. Building Research
Information Knowledgebase. https://www.brikbase.org/content/meaning-and-perception-
school-buildings-0
Piaget, J., & Cook, M. T. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. Routledge.
Piaget, J. (1963). The origins of intelligence in children. Routledge.
Pink, D., & Mind, A. W. N. (2006). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future.
Riverhead Books.
148

Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated
learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 385–407.
Prain, V., Cox, P., Deed, C., Edwards, D., Farrelly, C., Keeffe, M., Lovejoy, V., Mow, L.,
Sellings, P., & Waldrip, B. (2014). Adapting to teaching and learning in open-plan
schools. Birkhäuser Boston.
Rittenburg, R., Miller, B. G., Rust, C., Esler, J., Kreider, R., Boylan, R., & Squires, A. (2015).
The community connection. The Science Teacher, 82(1), 47.
Rivero, V. (2010). 21st century learning in 2010: A global imperative. Multimedia &
internet@schools, 17 (5), 11–14.
Rivlin, L. G., & Weinstein, C. S. (1984). Educational issues, school settings, and environmental
psychology. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4(4), 347–364.
Rivlin, L. G., & Rothenberg, M. (1976). The use of space in open classrooms. Environmental
Psychology: People and their physical settings, Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S. O., McQueen, K., & Grissom, J. A. (2015). Teacher collaboration in
instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal,
52(3), 475–514.
Rousseau, J. J. (1962). The Emile of Jean Jacques Rousseau (W. Boyd, Ed. & Trans.). Teachers
College Press.
Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century
teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(2), 8–13.
149

Saltmarsh, S., Chapman, A., Campbell, M., & Drew, C. (2015). Putting “structure within the
space”: Spatially un/responsive pedagogic practices in open-plan learning environments.
Educational Review, 67(3), 315–327.
Sawyer, K. (2019). The creative classroom: Innovative teaching for 21st-century learners.
Teachers College Press.
Schon, J. A., Eitel, K. B., Bingaman, D., Miller, B. G., & Rittenburg, R. A. (2014). Big project,
small leaders. Science and Children, 51(9), 48.
Seaman, J. T. (2020). The relationship between 21 st century educational goals, teaching and
learning activities, and the affordances of the physical environment: A qualitative multi-
case study of two high schools [Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University].
https://d.lib.msu.edu/etd/48843/datastream/OBJ/View/
Seidman, I. (2013). Technique isn’t everything, but it is a lot. In Interviewing as qualitative
research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (4th ed.) (pp. 81-
96). Teachers College Press.
Shield, B., Greenland, E., & Dockrell, J. (2010). Noise in open plan classrooms in primary
schools: A review. Noise and Health, 12(49), 225.
Sigurðardóttir, A. K., & Hjartarson, T. (2016). The idea and reality of an innovative school:
From inventive design to established practice in a new school building. Improving
schools, 19(1), 62–79.
Snyder, G. R. (2019). A mixed method study of high school teachers’ perceptions of the
relationship between 21st century pedagogy and school design (Doctoral dissertation,
Delaware Valley University).
150

Solomon, G. (2003). Project-based learning: A primer. Technology and Learning-Dayton-, 23(6),
20–20.
Stoll, L., & Louis, K. S. (2007). Professional learning communities. McGraw-Hill Education.
Tanner, C. K., & Lackney, J. A. (2006). Educational facilities planning: Leadership,
architecture, and management. Allyn & Bacon.
Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public
Administration Review, 66, 20–32.
Thornburg, D. (2013). From the campfire to the holodeck: Creating engaging and powerful 21st
century learning environments. John Wiley & Sons.
Timperley, H. (2011). Realizing the power of professional learning. McGraw-Hill Education.
Torp, L., & Sage, S. (2002). Problem as possibilities, problem based learning for K-16.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Tretten, R., & Zachariou, P. (1997). Learning about project-based learning: Assessment of
project-based learning in Tinkertech schools. The Autodesk Foundation, 37.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills, enhanced edition: Learning for life in our
times. John Wiley & Sons.
Trump, J. L. (1959). Images of the future: A new approach to the secondary school. National
Association of Secondary School Principals.
University of Kansas. (2014). Keys to successful co-teaching.
http://www.specialconnections.ku.edu/?q=collaboration/cooperative_teaching
Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Nevin, A. (2008). A guide to co-teaching: Practical tips for
facilitating student learning (Vol. 2). Corwin Press.
151

Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard university press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the environment. The Vygotsky Reader, 338–354.
Wilhelm, J., Sherrod, S., & Walters, K. (2008). Project-based learning environments:
Challenging preservice teachers to act in the moment. The Journal of Educational
Research, 101(4), 220–233.
Wood, A. (2017). A school’s lived architecture: The politics and ethics of flexible learning
spaces (Doctoral dissertation, Manchester Metropolitan University).
Wood, D. J., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. The Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 139–162.
Woodman, K. (2016). Re-placing flexibility: Flexibility in learning spaces and learning. In The
translational design of schools (pp. 51–79). Brill Sense.
Woolner, P., McCarter, S., Wall, K., & Higgins, S. (2012). Changed learning through changed
space: When can a participatory approach to the learning environment challenge
preconceptions and alter practice? Improving Schools, 15(1), 45–60.
Wotherspoon, T. (2014). The sociology of education in Canada: Critical perspectives (4th ed.).
Oxford University Press.
Whyte, B. (2017). Collaborative teaching in flexible learning spaces: Capabilities of beginning
teachers. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 32(1), 84.
Yetkiner, Z., Anderoglu, H., & Capraro, R. (2008). Research summary: Project-based learning
in middle mathematics. NMSA. http://www.nmsa.org
152

York-Barr, J., Ghere, G., & Sommerness, J. (2007). Collaborative teaching to increase ELL
student learning: A three-year urban elementary case study. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 12(3), 301–335.
Young, F., Cleveland, B., & Imms, W. (2019). The affordances of innovative learning
environments for deep learning: Educators’ and architects’ perceptions. The Australian
Educational Researcher, 1–28.
Young, T. D., & Cleveland, B. (2021). Actualising the affordances of innovative learning environments
through co-creating practice change with teachers. Australian Educational Researcher.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00447-7

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation is an attempt to learn about the experiences of educators who currently work in innovative learning communities (ILEs) throughout the International School in Southeast Asia (ISSA). By learning about how teaching in such spaces has influenced their practice, we can better understand how to support our students and teachers who are currently working in, or who soon might find themselves working in an ILE. There is growing research to support the claim that innovative spaces and programs lead to better student learning outcomes (Biggs, 1987; Fullan & Langworthy, 2013; Imms et al., 2017; Kember et al., 2004), however, there is still a need for more evidence-based conversations to be had in order to garner support for developing new innovative learning spaces (Imms et al., 2016; Lippman, 2010a, 2010b; OECD, 2015). This qualitative study interviewed five focus groups of teachers and coaches who have worked in ILEs in the elementary, middle and high school. The themes that emerged from this study were (a) informal versus formal collaboration, (b) personalized learning, (c) interdisciplinary project-based learning, and (d) informal versus formal professional development. The study also asked participants to share the benefits and challenges of working in such spaces. The themes that emerged for the benefits were (a) strong sense of community, (b) opportunity for enhanced professional growth, and (c) flexible time and space facilitates learning. The themes that emerged for the challenges of working in an ILE were (a) excess noise, (b) the flexibility of the space is heavily dependent on whether you have flexible walls, and (c) collaboration overload. By examining the themes that emerged from this study, ISSA as an institution can gain a better understanding of how to support our students and teachers who find themselves working in an ILE.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Collaboration among interdisciplinary teaching teams: a gap analysis

PDF

Integrating project-based learning and work-based learning into a coherent program: is the sum worth more than its parts?

PDF

Implementation of the PLC coaching model at American Community School

PDF

The enactment of equitable mathematics teaching practices: an adapted gap analysis

PDF

Centering diverse funds of knowledge toward reciprocally beneficial practices

PDF

The factors supporting or inhibiting Teachers of Color to accept and stay in an international school in Southeast Asia

PDF

In-service teacher training in Pakistan’s elite private primary schools – lessons for Pakistan’s public schools

PDF

The impact of COVID-19 on instructional practices

PDF

Culturally responsive teaching in science: an action research study aimed at supporting a resident teacher in developing inquiry-based culturally responsive science lessons

PDF

An exploration of innovation in higher education

PDF

Principals’ leadership influence on teachers’ capacity to enact 21st-century skills curriculum

PDF

Teacher compassion fatigue in predominantly BIPOC classrooms - a qualitative study

PDF

Managing leadership transitions in an international school context

PDF

Technology integration and self-efficacy of in-service secondary teachers in an international school

PDF

Making them gifted: how elementary makers’ spaces reveal giftedness

PDF

Influence of globalization, school leadership, and students’ participation in science competitions on 21st-century skill development, instructional practices, and female students’ interest in sci...

PDF

A methodology for transforming the student experience in higher education: a promising practice study

PDF

Harnessing Genius Hour school-wide: examining teachers' perceptions of the implementation of personalized inquiry across an international middle school

PDF

Critical hope for culturally responsive education: an improvement study

PDF

Facilitation of authentic teaching and learning in a problem-based learning (PBL) environment

Asset Metadata

Creator Riley, Brendan (author)

Core Title How does working in an ILE at ISSA influence teacher practice?

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2022-12

Publication Date 09/22/2022

Defense Date 08/29/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag collaboration,FLC,flexible learning community,ILC,innovative learning community,interdisciplinary project-based learning,OAI-PMH Harvest,PBL,personalized learning,project-based learning,student-centered learning,teacher practice,team teaching,voice and choice

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Larry (committee chair), Imms, Wesley (committee member), Robles, Darline (committee member)

Creator Email brendanriley76@gmail.com,rileyb@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112023912

Unique identifier UC112023912

Legacy Identifier etd-RileyBrend-11241

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Riley, Brendan

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20220925-usctheses-batch-984 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu