This study investigates teachers’ perceptions of educational space, furniture, environmental conditions, and professional competences related to the pedagogical use of space, comparing traditional classrooms with Innovative Learning Environments (ILEs). The topic is situated within the growing international and European policy emphasis on student-centred, competency-based education, which increasingly recognises learning environments as key enablers of pedagogical innovation. Despite this attention, there remains a significant lack of empirical, practice-oriented evidence to guide schools and teachers in the effective transformation and pedagogical exploitation of physical learning environments.

The central research question guiding this study is: How do teachers’ perceptions of educational spaces, furniture, environmental conditions, and their own professional competences differ between traditional classrooms and Innovative Learning Environments, and what implications do these perceptions have for sustainable pedagogical innovation? This overarching question is complemented by subsidiary questions addressing (a) which spaces and material elements teachers consider essential for innovation, (b) how frequently different spaces and furniture are used in practice, (c) the barriers teachers encounter when moving beyond the traditional classroom, and (d) teachers’ perceived competence in planning and managing pedagogical use of space.

The primary objective of the research is to analyse and compare teachers’ perceptions across these dimensions in order to identify patterns that can inform evidence-based decision-making in school design, policy, and professional development. Secondary objectives include identifying priority areas for spatial transformation, exploring structural, organisational, and knowledge-related barriers, and examining teachers’ self-perceived competence in the pedagogical use of educational spaces.

The conceptual and theoretical framework integrates perspectives from educational change theory, learning environment research, and architectural pedagogy. The study draws on the conception of Innovative Learning Environments as flexible, technology-enabled spaces designed to support active, collaborative, and student-centred learning, as articulated in international frameworks and policy reports (Blannin et al., 2020; OECD, 2017). It is informed by models of educational change that conceptualise innovation as the interaction between pedagogy, space, and technology, with pedagogy acting as the primary driver of transformation and physical space functioning as an enabling condition rather than a determining factor (Silander & Ryymin, 2015; French et al., 2022). The framework is further grounded in influential pedagogical and architectural traditions that conceptualise space as an active educational agent, including the Reggio Emilia approach, which defines space as the “third teacher” (Edwards et al., 1998), Montessori pedagogy, which emphasises order, autonomy, and intentionally designed learning environments (Lawrence & Stæhli, 2023), and architectural theories that highlight flexibility, interaction, and informal learning through the design of intermediate and shared spaces (Hertzberger, 2008; Mattila, 2015).

The European and international dimension of the study is central to its relevance. The research aligns closely with European Union recommendations on key competences for lifelong learning (European Union, 2018) and with UNESCO’s global agenda for Education for Sustainable Development, both of which stress the importance of learning environments that promote autonomy, collaboration, well-being, and lifelong learning skills (UNESCO, 2017; Scott, 2015a, 2015b). In addition, the study responds to international evidence highlighting the measurable impact of physical learning environments on students’ learning outcomes and well-being (Barrett et al., 2015; Barrett et al., 2016). By providing empirical evidence from a European regional context, the research contributes to the international discourse on how physical learning environments can effectively support pedagogical innovation across diverse educational systems. Its findings are particularly relevant to other European contexts facing similar challenges, such as the adaptation of existing school buildings, the alignment of spatial design with competency-based and student-centred pedagogies, and the need to support teachers through coherent, system-level strategies for educational change (Patrix & Benade, 2018).

The study adopted a descriptive and comparative, non-experimental, cross-sectional research design, primarily quantitative in nature, with complementary qualitative elements derived from open-ended survey responses. Data were collected through an ad hoc online questionnaire specifically designed to examine teachers’ perceptions of educational spaces, furniture, environmental conditions, and professional competences related to the pedagogical use of space. The questionnaire was developed following an extensive review of international literature on Innovative Learning Environments, educational architecture, and pedagogical change. It consisted of 21 items combining Likert-scale questions, multiple-choice items, and open-ended questions. The instrument addressed multiple dimensions, including frequency and type of space use, perceived adequacy of furniture and environmental conditions, barriers to using alternative spaces, funding sources for spatial changes, and teachers’ self-perceived knowledge and competence in spatial planning and management. Content validity was ensured through expert review. Seven experts in educational innovation and learning space design evaluated each item in terms of clarity and relevance, following adapted Lawshe validation procedures (Tristán López, 2008). Feedback resulted in refinements to wording and structure, strengthening the coherence and validity of the instrument. The final sample comprised 228 teachers from different educational stages (early childhood, primary, secondary, and vocational education) in the Valencian Region (Spain). A non-probabilistic snowball sampling strategy was employed. Participants self-identified whether they worked primarily in traditional classrooms or in Innovative Learning Environments, enabling comparative analysis between groups. Data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS (version 28). Descriptive statistics were used to summarise teachers’ perceptions and practices. Given the ordinal and non-normally distributed nature of the data, nonparametric tests were applied. The Mann–Whitney U test was used to examine differences between groups for ordinal variables, while the chi-square test of independence was employed for nominal variables. Effect sizes were calculated to assess the practical significance of observed differences.

The findings reveal a strong and consistent association between Innovative Learning Environments and more positive teacher perceptions of educational spaces, furniture, environmental conditions, and professional competence. Teachers working in innovative environments reported significantly higher levels of perceived flexibility, adaptability, accessibility, and support for collaborative learning. They also demonstrated more diversified and frequent use of school spaces and flexible furniture, whereas teaching in traditional contexts remained largely confined to the regular classroom and conventional furnishings. Importantly, the study shows convergence across contexts regarding which spaces and material elements should be prioritised when initiating change, with the regular classroom and playground emerging as central levers for pedagogical innovation. This suggests that sustainable innovation should focus on improving everyday, highly accessible spaces rather than relying solely on isolated flagship projects. Despite these positive trends, the findings also highlight persistent barriers. Structural and organisational constraints, limited access to resources, and lack of time were widely reported, particularly in traditional settings. Moreover, a substantial proportion of teachers—including those working in innovative environments—reported insufficient knowledge of strategies for managing group work and planning pedagogical use of flexible spaces. This underscores that spatial transformation alone is insufficient without parallel investment in teacher professional development. Overall, the study concludes that educational innovation requires a systemic approach that aligns spatial design, furniture provision, environmental quality, and sustained, practice-oriented teacher training. By foregrounding teachers’ perceptions, the research provides empirically grounded guidance for policymakers, school leaders, and designers seeking to implement innovative learning environments in a coherent, equitable, and pedagogically meaningful manner

Blannin, J., Mahat, M., Cleveland, B., Morris, J. & Imms, W. (2020). Teachers as Embedded Practitioner-Researchers in Innovative Learning Environments. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 10(3), 99-116. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.887 Barrett, PS, Zhang, Y., Davies, F., & Barrett, LC. (2015). Clever classrooms: Summary report of the HEAD project. University of Salford. Manchester. Barrett, P., Barett, L., & Zhang, Y. (2016). Teachers’ views of their primary school classrooms. Intelligent Buildings International, 8(3), 176-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2015.1087835 Edwards, C., Gandini, L., y Forman, G. (Eds.). (1998). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach - advanced reflections (2ª ed.). Ablex Publishing. European Union (2018). COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018H0604(01) French, R., Mahat, M., Kvan, T. & Imms, W. (2022). Viewing the transition to innovative learning environments through the lens of the burke-litwin model for organizational performance and change. Journal of Educational Change, 23, 115-130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-021-09431-5 Hertzberger, H. (2008) Space and learning: lessons in architecture 3. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers. Lawrence, S., y Stæhli, B. (2023). Montessori architecture: A design instrument for schools. Park Books. Mattila, P. (2015). Learning environments for phenomenon-based learning. Finnish National Board of Education OECD. (2017). The OECD Handbook for Innovative Learning Environments. https://www.oecd.org/education/the-oecd-handbook-for-innovative-learning-environments-9789264277274-en.htm Patrix, M. & Benade, L. (2018). Beyond the Building. Reconceptualising Learning Environments: A literature review. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, 15(1), 10-19. Scott, C. L. (2015a). The Futures of learning 1: why must learning content and methods change in the 21st century? Unesco. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000234807 Scott, C. L. (2015b). The Futures of learning 2: what kind of learning for the 21st century? Unesco. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000242996 Silander, P., & Ryymin, E. (2015). Towards new learning environments: Phenomenon-based learning and digitalization. Finnish National Board of Education. Tristán-López, A. (2008). Modificación al modelo de Lawshe para el dictamen cuantitativo de la validez de contenido de un instrumento objetivo. Avances en medición, 6(1), 37-48. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Modificaci%C3%B3n-al-modelo-de-Lawshe-para-el-dictamen-Trist%C3%A1n-L%C3%B3pez/401781bbf691f0c15965fcf667e98a48e4899165 Unesco. (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals: learning objectives. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444