Innovative Learning Environments (ILEs) are increasingly recognised for their potential to foster collaboration, learner agency, and flexible pedagogical approaches (Charteris & Smardon, 2018; Nelson &  Charteris, 2024). Yet despite considerable investment in new or redesigned school architecture, a persistent challenge remain: aligning teacher practice with a school’s vision for socio spatial flexibility, team-based learning and co-teaching (Blackmore, & O’Mara, 2022). This paper explores the role that recruitment processes play in bridging the design-intention gap by examining how principals select and induct teachers who can uphold collaborative, student-centered practices within the open and flexible spatial configurations of ILE.

This  research highlights the multifaceted nature of recruitment in ILE settings and profiles three signature practices. Firstly, participants emphasised the importance of “showcasing” the school philosophy to prospective applicants, often through open-house events or informal sessions (e.g., wine-and-cheese evenings, pre-application classroom visits). This offers an early opportunity for self-screening: applicants can gauge whether their dispositions or teaching philosophies resonate with the school’s vision, while principals can observe informal interactions that may reveal genuine levels of interest and relational skill.

Secondly, the recruitment process shifts attention away from traditional teacher credentials toward dispositions conducive to team-based environments and willingness to commit to communities of learning (Wenger, 1998). Principals described seeking candidates exhibiting attributes such as resilience (“grit”), relational acumen, and a willingness to adapt or unlearn entrenched single-teacher. References were sometimes viewed with skepticism, as some leaders preferred first-hand observations of a candidate’s openness to collaborative practice. In some instances, group interviews offered additional insights into how applicants manage real-time problem-solving, communicate with peers, and envision co-teaching large cohorts.

Thirdly, a strategic approach leverages Stetsenko’s  (2020) notion of world making which acknowledges we extrapolate to mean that teaching in the socio spaces of schools is realised, invented, and co-created moment by moment by all staff, “as social actors and agents of communal practices and collective history”, and effective teaching is a product of a matrix of practices that are co-authored through “joint struggles and strivings” (p. 54). The co-creation of teaching teams emerged as a key idea, premised on mapping teachers’ strengths and fostering complementary partnerships. This team co-creation perspective extends beyond subject-matter expertise, prioritising the recruitment of practitioners who can negotiate shared spaces, co-plan lessons, and collectively address diverse learners’ needs on an ongoing basis with colleagues. Notably, principals described that hiring for synergy can mitigate conflicts in open-plan settings, where daily co-coordination and shared accountability are paramount.

Finally, while recruitment is pivotal, many leaders noted that post-hire induction and onboarding are equally crucial. Teachers with limited experience in ILEs often require structured opportunities to co-construct norms, explore pedagogical innovations, and build relational trust. Moreover, intentional, extended induction was seen to reduce the misalignment of teacher appointments with school culture (Gislason, 2018).

This research underscores existing research that human architecture (i.e., a school’s collective teacher capacities and dispositions) can be just as influential as physical architecture in enabling or constraining learner-centered approaches (Charteris et al., 2022; Woolner et al., 2012). In drawing attention to multiple signature practices of ILE recruitment, the findings have immediate relevance for school leaders, Department and Ministry of Education personnel, and teacher teams. In foregrounding teacher recruitment as an essential lever in schooling reform, the study invites a broader conversation about how educational systems can adapt hiring practices to the evolving demands of ILE and more broadly schools where innovation is valued, and optimal teacher recruitment practices are considered important. By prioritising relational competence, the co-produced nature of praxis, and alignment with collaborative co-teaching models, schools can avoid the pitfall of having cutting-edge spaces languish under legacy practices.

This qualitative case study (Yin, 2017) investigated how Aotearoa New Zealand school leaders recruit and onboard educators within newly built or refurbished Innovative Learning Environments (ILE). Following institutional ethical approval, participants were purposively selected based on their leadership roles in schools that had recently completed ILE building projects. The intent was to access rich, contextual accounts of recruitment processes, including the rationale for selecting particular educator competencies and the subsequent induction strategies. Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with 32 school leaders, each lasting approximately 60 minutes. These conversations were conducted via online video conferencing to accommodate geographic dispersion and were audio recorded with participants’ informed consent. A standardised interview schedule guided the discussions, encompassing questions on recruitment philosophy, pedagogical alignment, teacher collaboration, and socio spatial considerations for staff induction. The school leaders were encouraged to share specific examples of their processes in recruiting and orienting teachers for ILE contexts. Transcriptions of the interviews were compiled and systematically analysed using NVivo software, an approach consistent with respatialisation studies where emergent themes link recruitment practices. The two members of the research team independently coded a sample of transcripts, comparing and reconciling discrepancies through iterative discussion (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The thematic analysis drew initial codes from the interview schedule and categories that arose directly from the participants’ quotations. The analysis was also informed by Stetsenko’s (2020) concept of relational agency and Wenger’s (1998) communities of practice. The final thematic structure was refined iteratively by examining patterns of convergence and divergence across the data set which was refined to 11 school leaders, allowing for a nuanced depiction of the interplay between recruitment strategies, and the social and spatial characteristics of ILE. The resulting themes provide a framework for understanding how school leaders align recruitment processes and educator competencies to ensure that the most suitable candidates can be selected to work in open, collaborative, and flexible learning spaces. University Human Research Ethics Committee approval was obtained prior to data collection. Participants were assigned pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality, and identifiable school details were removed. The purposive sampling strategy, while allowing for rich contextual data, means that the findings are contextually located. Future research could incorporate teacher perspectives and longitudinal data to further validate the effectiveness of specific recruitment and induction practices in ILE settings.

Recruitment in ILEs can be a potent mechanism for bridging the gap between visionary design and enacted pedagogy. By extending beyond conventional hiring processes, such as single-panel interviews or generic reference checks, the presentation highlights a socio-spatial approach to signature practices for the recruitment of teaching in ILE. The research illustrates how teacher is not only shaped by a local school vision but also by the need for spatially attuned practitioners and the complexity of worldmaking (Stetsenko, 2020, 2023). This article foregrounds a dynamic interplay between recruiter practice, the dynamics of teacher relationality, and the architecture and culture of ILE spaces, situating teacher recruitment as a key factor in successful ongoing adaptation and sustainability of ILE. Through the strategic assembly of teaching teams, leaders aimed to ensure that spatial affordances, large, open spaces and co-teaching routines, would be leveraged effectively rather than becoming overwhelming or divisive. Moreover, robust induction programs proved integral, providing new staff with the relational and pedagogical scaffolding necessary to flourish. While not a panacea, targeted recruitment and onboarding efforts can mitigate misalignment, reducing the risks associated with teacher turnover or entrenched, single-classroom norms. Ultimately, this study suggests that success recruitment is co-implicated and co-realised as a situated practice that is produced through the interactions of social practices and histories, which project into a future to realise effective socio-spatial practices in ILE. Ongoing professional development, combined with consider recruitment practice, can help sustain an innovative culture over time (Charteris & Smardon, 2018; Young et al., 2022). By situating recruitment as a frontline strategy, policymakers and practitioners can better position ILEs to deliver on their promise of collaborative, student-centered teaching and learning (Blackmore et al., 2024). Future research might further refine these findings by integrating cross-cultural comparisons and longitudinal analyses of teacher retention and performance in open-plan settings

Blackmore, J., Hobbs, L., & Rowlands, J. (2024). Aspiring teachers, financial incentives, and principals’ recruitment practices in hard-to-staff schools. Journal of Education Policy, 39(2), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2023.2193170 Blackmore, J., & O’Mara, J. (2022). Putting professional learning practice first in innovative learning environments. Studies in Continuing Education, 44(2), 232–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2021.1977921 Charteris, J., & Smardon, D. (2018). “Professional learning on steroids”: Implications for teacher learning through spatialised practice in new generation learning environments. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(12). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n12.2 Charteris, J., Smardon, D., & Kemmis, S. (2022). Leadership in the built spaces of innovative learning environments: Leading change in people and practices in the perfectly self-managing society. Studies in Continuing Education, 44(2), 212–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2021.1928051 Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. Gislason, N. (2018). The whole school: Planning and evaluating innovative middle and secondary schools. In Alterator, S., & Deed, C. (eds). School space and its occupation (pp. 187-201): Brill Sense. Nelson, E., & Charteris, J. (2024). Shifting power relations in innovative learning environments: implications for initial teacher education and practicum. Oxford Review of Education, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2024.2320369 Stetsenko, A. (2020). Radical-transformative agency: Developing a transformative activist stance on a Marxist-Vygotskyan foundation. In Tanzi Neto, A., Liberali, F., & Dafermos, M. (eds.), Revisiting Vygotsky for social change: Bringing together theory and practice (pp. 31-62). Peter Lang Stetsenko, A. (2023). Radical-transformative agency: Continuities and contrasts with relational agency and implications for education. Práxis Educativa, 18, 1–28. http://educa.fcc.org.br/pdf/praxeduc/v18/1809-4309-praxis-18-21106.pdf Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press. Woolner, P., Clark, J., Laing, K., Thomas, U., & Tiplady, L. (2012). Changing spaces: Preparing students and teachers for a new learning environment. Children, Youth and Environments, 22(1), 52–74. Yin, Robert. 2017. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Singapore: Sage. Young, F., Tuckwell, D., & Cleveland, B. (2022). Actualising the affordances of innovative learning environments through co-creating practice change with teachers. The Australian Educational Researcher, 49(4), 805–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00447-7