Globally, education systems around the world are prioritising investments in learning spaces that support diverse teaching strategies and student-centred approaches (Fan & Popkewitz, 2020). These innovative learning spaces break away from traditional classroom designs——standard square spaces with desks and chairs arranged to face the front. Contemporary learning spaces, often featuring flexibility and agility, with connected layouts that provide varied learning settings and expanded pedagogical and teaching opportunities, not only equip students with content knowledge but also support the development of essential lifelong learning skills (Mahat & Loh, 2024).

It is widely recognised that a school's pedagogical vision should guide the design and construction of its learning environments. When a school has a well-defined pedagogical approach that is deeply understood by the school community, the learning spaces, including the use of technology and furniture, can be designed to align with this vision. Empowering teachers (Bøjer, 2021) to take control of their physical environment and actively work on aligning space with practice (Mahat & Imms, 2021)  'activates' the learning environment, leading to deeper student learning (Imms et al., 2017).

 Prototyping is one way to ensure that significant infrastructure investments do not lead to “wasted investment” (French et al., 2020, p. 2). By creating temporary, adaptable versions of a space (Osborne, 2021), educators and designers can experiment with layouts, tools, and technologies before committing to permanent designs. This trial-and-error process enables iterative improvements based on real-time feedback from students, teachers, and other stakeholders. Additionally, prototyping promotes flexibility, allowing for adjustments that accommodate diverse learning styles and evolving educational needs. It encourages innovation by providing a low-risk platform to test new ideas and fosters collaboration by involving users directly in the design process. Prototyping has been found to lead to cost efficiencies (Mahat & Bradbeer, 2024), reducing waste by identifying and addressing design flaws early.

Black Caviar College (a pseudonym) is an independent Anglican day and boarding school for boys in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia. Established in 1903, the College is undergoing infrastructure developments to create new and refurbished spaces. To support its master planning, the school has renovated several learning areas, collectively known as the Braxton Corridor, as a trial space for innovative pedagogical practices. These spaces include four classrooms with breakout rooms, a theatrette, advanced audio-visual tools, and diverse furniture such as cushioned seating, booth seats, and various table types, including round, rectangular and whiteboard tables.

The College’s strategic plan emphasises personalised learning as a key pedagogical approach. However, the ambiguous nature of personalised learning (Prain et al., 2013) has led to differing interpretations of its necessary practices and environments. This ambiguity has driven schools and teachers to collaboratively define and adapt personalised learning to meet their unique community needs.

Drawing on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1987), the overarching objective of the study was to explore teacher-led inquiry in using and evaluating pedagogical practices in the prototype learning spaces. According to the theory, the primary determinant of a person’s behaviour is their behavioural intent, consisting of their attitudes toward the behaviour, subjective norms, and the degree of perceived behavioural control (Ajzen, 1987). The study responds to two key research question: (1) How can learning spaces be used to activate personalised learning? and (2) What are the implications to teacher efficacy and student learning, engagement and agency?

The study utilised a mixed method approach involving video observations, teacher and student surveys, as well as artefacts produced from three co-design workshops. Triangulating the findings from various data sources, this paper describes an in-depth case study of the pedagogical and spatial practices of four teachers in the prototype learning spaces—two teaching Mathematics (Alex and Bailey), one teaching Politics (Charlie) and one teaching Geography (Dani), with 72 of their students. Co-design workshops Three face-to-face interactive workshops were held with the four teachers and two senior educators to co-design pedagogical practices that aligned with the school’s strategic and pedagogical vision of personalised learning. These workshops explored optimising physical spaces for teaching, resulting in action plans to trial interventions in the prototype spaces. The plans and teacher reflections were used as data sources. Video observations Classroom observations were undertaken via video recordings of lessons before and after the co-design workshops. One researcher analysed the video recordings employing an observation protocol tailored to examine teacher practices of didactic instruction, interactive instruction, facilitating, providing feedback, class discussion, and questioning, adapted from the Linking Pedagogy, Technology, and Space (LPTS) observational metric (Byers, 2016). Total time spent in each category was calculated as a percentage of the whole lesson. A second researcher reviewed the analyses to ensure agreement with the categories and time spent. Student Learning, Engagement, and Agency Survey The Student Learning, Engagement, and Agency Survey was conducted before and after the intervention lesson. The survey included 71 items adapted from the Space Design and Use Survey (Imms et al., 2017; Mahat & Imms, 2021), the Survey of Student Engagement in Classroom Learning (Cavanagh, 2015), and the Agency Self-perception Tool (Benson, 2022). Students responded using a 4-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree). The post-intervention survey featured a photo elicitation section, allowing students to photograph their favourite learning space and answer open-ended questions about how the space or furniture supported their learning. Teacher Efficacy Survey The Teacher Efficacy Survey was administered at three points: before workshops, after workshops, and post-intervention. It featured 20 items adapted from the Classroom and School Context Model of Teacher Efficacy (Friedman & Kass, 2002) and two additional questions on teaching in flexible learning spaces. Teachers used a 6-point Likert scale (Always to Never). The final survey also included a photo elicitation section and open-ended questions addressing space use, benefits, challenges, and support for teaching in prototype spaces.

The study revealed several key results. First, student learning, engagement, and agency improved post-intervention for two case studies (Alex and Bailey). Year 11 Politics students showed gains in learning and agency, while Year 8 Geography students experienced increased engagement. Second, all teachers reported increased confidence and knowledge about teaching in flexible and agile spaces. Third, video analysis indicated a shift in teaching practices, most noticeably with reduced time spent on didactic instruction and increased time facilitating learning. Finally, teachers valued the opportunity to experiment with new teaching practices in prototype spaces but noted challenges, including additional planning time and the need to adapt previous practices. The findings highlight important implications for pedagogy, space design, and professional learning. First, a shared pedagogical vision, such as personalised learning, must be embraced and understood by the entire school community. A shared pedagogical vision aligns learning space designs with the educational goals and teaching practices, ensuring that the physical space enhances teaching and learning experience. Second, the prototype spaces in the Braxton corridor offered a valuable testing ground for innovative teaching practices. It is essential to establish a methodology for integrating findings into future design conversations. This includes determining how insights from current space usage can shape the design of future learning spaces, such as the layout, size, and selection of furniture. Additionally, both teachers and students should be actively consulted in these design processes. Finally, professional learning opportunities were highly valued by participants and should be scaled up to involve more teachers and the broader school community. Support can include ongoing professional learning communities (PLCs) and teacher-led inquiry, allowing educators to focus on specific aspects of their practice. Taken together, these steps will help the school transition confidently into new learning environments while offering insights for other schools embarking on similar journeys.

Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20(1), 1–63. Benson, J. E. (2022). Building Knowledge, Making Meaning, and Applying Understanding of Learner Agency in a New Zealand Primary School [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. Curtin University. Bøjer, B. (2021). Creating a space for innovative learning: The importance of engaging the users in the design process. In W. Imms & T. Kvan (Eds). Teacher transition into innovative learning environments: A global perspective, (pp. 33-46). Springer. Byers, T. (2016). Development of an observation metric for linking pedagogy, technology and space. In H. Mitcheltree, B. Cleveland & W. Imms (Eds). What’s working 2016? Informing education theory, design and practice through learning environment evaluation (pp. 77 – 88). The University of Melbourne. Cavanagh, R. F. (2015). A unified model of student engagement in classroom learning and classroom learning environment: One measure and one underlying construct. Learning Environments Research, 18(3), 349-361. Fan, G. and Popkewitz, T. S. (2020), Handbook of education policy studies, Springer. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480219894408 Friedman, I. A., & Kass, E. (2002). Teacher self-efficacy: A classroom-organization conceptualization. Teaching and teacher education, 18(6), 675-686. Imms, W., Mahat, M., Byers, T. & Murphy, D. (2017). Type and Use of Innovative Learning Environments in Australasian Schools. ILETC Survey No. 1. University of Melbourne, LEaRN. http://hdl.handle.net/11343/219467 Mahat, M. & Bradbeer, C. (2024). Teacher-led inquiry in school learning environments: Setting the context. In M. Mahat & C. Bradbeer (Eds.). Teacher-led inquiry in School Learning Environments: Leading by Example (pp. 1-10). Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83797-216-620241001 Mahat, M. & Imms, W. (2021). Establishing a reliable measure of perceptions of teacher and student use of learning environments. The Australian Educational Researcher, 48, 145 – 164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-0020-00382-z Mahat, M. & Loh, C. E (2024). Teachers’ changing perspectives of their spatial competencies: A case study of professional learning in Singapore. Teaching and Teacher Education, 152(2024), 104797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104797 Osborne, M. (2021). Acts of magic: Prototyping in innovative learning environments. Set: Research Information for Teachers, 2, 14–19. https://doi.org/10.18296/set.0199 Prain, V., Cox, P., Deed, C., Dorman, J., Edwards, D., Farrelly, C., ... & Yager, Z. (2013). Personalised learning: Lessons to be learnt. British Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 654-676.