Training on Innovative Learning Environments: Identifying Teachers’ Interests

Abstract

This article explores the training interests of non-university in-service teachers on the topic of innovative learning environments (ILEs). For this purpose, a specific questionnaire was designed and validated to collect teachers’ opinions on their current training interests. The questionnaire comprised a total of 32 items related to ILEs, grouped into four dimensions that included aspects of methodologies, digital technology, educational spaces, and specific didactic activities developed in these learning environments. The analysis of the 254 valid responses showed that the greatest interest is shown in the dimension that addresses didactic aspects of teaching in these environments, followed by aspects of the design of innovative educational spaces. Variations were also analysed according to demographic aspects such as gender, age, teaching seniority, and the educational stage at which the class is taught. The data obtained allow us to affirm that teachers have a high level of interest in the topic analysed. Furthermore, the grouping of different topics revealed by the correlational statistical study provides valuable information that allows teacher training consultants to create designs in coherence with the demands and interests expressed.

1. Introduction

Educational institutions globally are increasingly committed to fostering 21st-century competencies such as collaboration, critical thinking, and problem-solving in their students, as highlighted by Lee et al. [1]. This shift towards competency-based learning not only enhances students’ performance throughout their educational trajectories, but also necessitates a pedagogical evolution that effectively merges the finest practices in both the digital and pedagogical domains, as observed by Tena and Carrera [2]. Such a transformation demands a reimagining of educational spaces—environments that must be designed and equipped (including appropriate furniture, walls, structures, and technologies) to support diverse activities and pedagogical approaches that meet the modern student’s expectations. This renewal is closely associated with a redefinition of learning spaces [3].

We explore this emergent trend through the lens of innovative learning environments (henceforth referred to as ILEs), which herald the cultivation of new pedagogical practices within avant-garde educational settings. Our analysis draws on initiatives such as the European Schoolnet’s Future Classroom Lab and the “Aula del Futuro” project, detailed by INTEF [4], which synergize pedagogy, space, and technology. This framework is gaining traction nationally, evidenced by the creation of training laboratories like those in the Valencian Community, which serves as a pivotal impetus for this research.

Amidst this transformative journey and the paucity of prior studies illuminating this pathway, our research aims to elucidate the training interests of pre-university educators. Echoing Berenguer et al. [5], these interests may play a crucial role in transferring learned methodologies to classroom settings. Our study is structured around four key dimensions: methodologies and strategies, digital technology, educational spaces, and implementation in ILEs.

This study aims to meticulously delineate and scrutinize the diverse interests and preferences of educators within the realm of innovative learning environments (ILEs). Specifically, it seeks to undertake the following:

• Ascertain the pedagogical methodologies and strategies that garner the most interest among educators, thereby identifying those that hold the greatest potential for impactful learning experiences.
• Evaluate the digital technologies that captivate educators the most, focusing on those that promise to enhance pedagogical practices and student engagement effectively.
• Investigate the elements of innovative educational spaces that are of paramount interest to teachers, with a view to understanding how these environments can be optimized to support advanced educational outcomes.
• Explore the specific areas of interest concerning the practical implementation of the aforementioned methodologies, technologies, and educational spaces within ILEs.
• Examine whether the expressed interests of educators are influenced by demographic and professional variables such as gender, age, years of experience in the profession, and the educational stage at which they are currently teaching.
• Conduct a comprehensive analysis to establish correlations among the identified interests, with the objective of uncovering areas of shared enthusiasm and potential collaborative focus.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Interests and Training Needs of Teachers

Since Montero’s seminal work in 1987 [6], the training needs of educators have emerged as a significant area of scholarly inquiry within the context of Spain’s national education landscape. This research trajectory necessitates a nuanced understanding of some related concepts, particularly distinguishing between “training need” and “training interest”.

Training needs can be conceptualized in several ways, one of which aligns with the notion of preference or desire shaped by individual perceptions. Reflecting on this interpretation reveals a potential discrepancy: educators might recognize a need for specific training without possessing a genuine interest in pursuing it. This insight prompts a deeper exploration of “training interest” instead. Training needs expressed by teachers demonstrate that developing training programs focused on educational innovation and modern teaching techniques is essential for advancing initiatives in educational innovation [7].

Therefore, we adopt the definition of “interest” as an “inclination of the mind towards someone or something” coupled with a “desire to achieve something”. Our study aims to ascertain the specific training interests of teachers—namely, the subjects and skills they are genuinely eager to develop. This shift in focus from perceived needs to expressed interests allows for a more targeted investigation that better aligns with the intrinsic motivations of educators, thereby enhancing the relevance and effectiveness of professional development initiatives.

2.2. Innovative Learning Environments

It is crucial to recognize that the genesis of the survey utilized in this research to ascertain educational interests was the creation of a teacher training laboratory in the Valencian Community, Spain. This facility emerged under the aegis of the European Schoolnet’s Future Classroom Lab project [8,9], known domestically as the “Aula del Futuro”. This initiative champions a teacher training paradigm that is not only comprehensive, but also distinguished by its adaptability and flexibility. It fosters active learning and digital competence through specific spaces and resources [10] with the aim of exploring new teaching methods in new teaching and learning environments [11], rethinking teaching–learning processes, and reflecting on the role played by pedagogy, ICT, and space design [12]. Such a framework ensures that the pedagogical strategies employed are responsive to the evolving educational landscape, facilitating a more dynamic approach to teacher development.

The conceptual foundation of this “Aula del Futuro” aligns with what is recognized in the literature as an innovative learning environment (ILE), new-generation learning space [13], or smart learning space [14]. According to Mahat et al. [15], an ILE encompasses the transformation of educational spaces through innovative design coupled with cutting-edge pedagogical practices. This conceptualization is further augmented by Gros [16], who posits that such environments must integrate digital technology to fully realize their potential.

Consequently, our analysis reveals three principal dimensions that are essential for understanding the scope of teacher training in these innovative environments. These dimensions resonate with the themes explored in Radcliffe’s [17] study on next-generation learning spaces, which include pedagogy manifested through innovative teaching and learning methodologies, the design of innovative educational spaces, and the integration of digital technology. To these, we add a fourth dimension concerning the specific implementation strategies and teaching techniques suitable for these advanced settings. Each of these four dimensions is elaborated upon in the subsequent sections.

2.2.1. Methodologies and Strategies

In Europe, following the directives issued by the European Council in 2006 [18], there has been a marked shift in the focal point of pedagogical efforts from an emphasis on rote knowledge acquisition to a focus on the development of competencies and skills through experiential learning and practice [19]. This transition necessitates that classroom activities foster student participation, encouraging learners to cultivate autonomy and responsibility [20]. Consequently, educators are increasingly assuming the roles of guides or facilitators of learning, positioning students at the epicentre of the educational process [21]. This paradigm shift has propelled instructional methodologies and strategies to the forefront of educational research [22,23], forming a critical dimension of the study under discussion.

Within the scholarly discourse on effective educational methodologies and competencies, several approaches are frequently highlighted, including service learning [24,25], project-based learning [26,27], problem-based learning [28,29], inquiry-based learning [30,31], and cooperative learning [32]. These methodologies are integral to cultivating a learning environment that emphasizes practical engagement and collaborative problem-solving, aligning with the broader objectives of modern educational reform.

2.2.2. Digital Technology

In the contemporary educational landscape, it is imperative for teachers to become proficient in Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). This proficiency includes not only an awareness of available resources, but also an understanding of where to locate them and how to seamlessly integrate them into classroom activities [33]. Since the turn of the century, there has been a significant emphasis on equipping educators with both methodological and technological tools. These tools are designed to enhance students’ capabilities in navigating a digital environment, fostering skills in communication, collaboration, content creation, and problem-solving within a secure framework [34,35]. The current focus extends to the development and certification of digital teaching competence, reflecting a growing acknowledgment of its critical importance. Along these lines, innovative learning environments are based on the idea of redefining learning spaces through Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and promoting a different way of acting in educational processes [9].

To establish the components of this educational dimension, we draw upon international reports and studies that identify key emerging technologies and practices poised to shape the future of education both in the short and long term. These include advancements such as artificial intelligence, 3D printing, virtual reality, programming, educational robotics, and computational thinking [36,37]. This theoretical framework provides a foundation for understanding and implementing the technological transformations that are increasingly central to educational success.

2.2.3. Educational Spaces

The materiality of teaching spaces, despite its scant consideration and being an under-researched topic [38], is a crucial component in educational processes that significantly influences teachers, even if they are not usually aware of it [39]. Innovative learning environments respond to the educational problem of the obsolescence of learning spaces whose design was never intended to promote meaningful and constructive learning [40].

Innovative learning spaces, alternatively termed “innovative educational spaces”, can be conceptualized as pedagogical environments engineered to facilitate a high degree of flexibility in teaching, learning, and socio-educational interactions. These spaces are not delineated by rigid parameters, but are defined by experiential principles and values aimed at fostering dynamic interactions among students, educators, knowledge, and resources [15]. Contemporary educational paradigms demand environments that are flexible, open, interconnected, and conducive to active engagement [17,41,42]. Such spaces are designed to enhance and support the development of collaborative and active learning experiences, seamlessly integrating analogical and digital resources, as well as synchronous and asynchronous activities.

Building upon this foundation, and in alignment with recent investigations such as those by Nelson et al. [43], this study aims to explore the potential interest in specific aspects of learning environments, such as colour schemes, furniture selection, and acoustic considerations. Furthermore, drawing inspiration from the European initiative and the Future Classroom Lab, also known as Aula del Futuro [4], our analysis extends to examining how learning spaces are zoned and organized to optimize educational outcomes. This inquiry is intended to yield insights into the design and utilization of learning spaces that resonate with current educational needs and future directions.

2.2.4. Implementation of ILEs

Educators are required to possess more than mere awareness of the existence, characteristics, and functions of educational resources; they must also acquire comprehensive knowledge regarding their integration into the curriculum and effective utilization within teaching and learning processes. Consequently, it is posited that educators’ interests extend beyond adopting new teaching methodologies and mastering digital technologies for educational purposes. They also encompass a deep understanding of how to design and implement learning situations that incorporate these elements effectively. This includes the ability to structure these situations temporally, to guide and facilitate student engagement, and to employ assessment strategies that are congruent with contemporary pedagogical approaches. These competencies reflect some of the evolving roles of teachers in the modern educational landscape [44]. This shift underscores the dynamic nature of teaching roles and the increasing complexity of educational demands placed upon educators today.

3. Materials and Methods

Regarding the primary objective of this study, addressing the opinions of educators sharpens our focus and steers our investigation towards a comprehensive analysis of the training interests of active teachers concerning these specific types of educational environments. To achieve this objective, a meticulously designed methodology was employed to yield the requisite data. The key aspects of this methodological approach are detailed below.

3.1. Population and Sample

The selection of the sample was conducted in a semi-random manner as described hereunder. In collaboration with the INTEF, the Valencian Department of Education facilitated access for teachers to a designated training space known as the Classroom of the Future through its network of teacher training centres (CEFIRE) and subsequent agreements with various entities. This space, as conceptualized in the theoretical framework, has hosted numerous training activities since its inauguration, including self-requested visits by educational centres aimed at showcasing the space and elucidating its objectives. Prior to these visits, participating teachers were solicited to complete a questionnaire that aligned with the research objectives and served as the primary analytic tool for this study. Initially, eligibility to complete this questionnaire was extended to all active teachers who had requested a visit to the Classroom of the Future, thus rendering the sample selection semi-restricted to those educators.

To mitigate the potential bias introduced by this condition and to ensure a broader representativeness of the sample, the survey was also administered to a smaller cohort of teachers (N = 28) who had not requested a visit; thus, they were exempt from any influence that participation in the Classroom of the Future might have exerted. The comparative analysis of the results from both groups indicated no significant differences, affirming that the overall sample adequately reflects the broader population’s perspectives.

Demographic information was gleaned from the questionnaire responses, yielding the following data (

Table 1. Gender (item a2).

Gender	N = 254	% (100)
Male	46	18.1
Female	203	79.9
No response	5	2.0

,

Table 2. Age (item a3).

Age	N = 254	% (100)
20–30	30	11,8
31–40	93	36,6
41–50	82	32,3
51–60	47	18,5
No response	2	0,8

,

Table 3. Years of active teaching (item a4).

Years of Active Teaching	N = 254	% (100)
0–10	110	43.3
11–20	84	33.1
More than 20	60	23.6

and

Table 4. Educational stage (item a5).

Educational Stage	N = 254	% (100)
Kindergarten and primary ed.	183	72
Secondary ed., baccalaureate and vocational training	62	24.4
No response	9	3.5

).

3.2. Analysis Instrument—Preparation and Validation

Considering the innovative use of the Aulas del futuro, the absence of an ad hoc questionnaire in the existing literature necessitated the development and validation of a new instrument capable of diagnosing and compiling teacher training interests effectively.

To achieve this, an initial set of questions was devised beyond mere demographic data to diagnose these interests accurately. This set was organized into four distinct blocks or dimensions, plus a general demographic block (labelled as Dimension A). As articulated in the introduction, these four dimensions structure and guide the analysis, reflecting the primary characteristics of these educational environments and their practical implications within classroom settings. In each dimension, several items were included based on the key points typically observed in the literature. Brief demographic data from the evaluators were also required to establish a qualitative assessment of the evaluators by the researchers. In cases of contradictions, the expertise of the evaluators was taken into account to determine the correct criteria.

The preliminary version of the questionnaire underwent a rigorous validation phase, engaging the expertise of 13 educational professionals, including secondary school teachers, university professors in Teacher Training and Educational Sciences, inspectors, and teacher training advisors. They assessed the instrument for clarity, relevance, and significance [45]. Each expert was provided with a matrix outlining the questionnaire’s objectives, a concise explanation of its theoretical underpinnings, and instructions necessary for conducting the validation. This matrix also included space for experts to annotate observations and open-ended comments on each item.

Each criterion within the instrument was evaluated using a four-point ordinal scale, where 4 indicated ‘very high’, 3 ‘high’, 2 ‘medium’, and 1 ‘low’. The consolidated feedback was then tabulated, and the consistency among evaluators was analysed. An item needed to be rated as relevant (3 or 4 on the Likert scale) by at least 6 out of 7 experts to achieve an I-CVI of 0.78 and thus be considered valid. Any item that did not receive this score was revised and, if there was any doubt, the evaluators were consulted personally. Based on this expert feedback, the questionnaire was refined from 35 to 32 items, with several queries rephrased following the observations noted in

Table 5. Definitive questionnaire.

DIMENSION A. DEMOGRAPHY. PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL DATA
(1)	In order to guarantee anonymity, create an identification number that is your initials (first and last name), year of birth and the last two digits of your DNI (e.g., BGP198773)
(2)	Gender	Male		Female			Others/does not answer
(3)	Age	20–30	31–40	41–50		51–70	I prefer not to say
(4)	Years of teaching	≤10		11–20			>20
(5)	Educational stage	Kindergarten and Primary		ESO/Bach y FP *			Others
(6)	Previous experience	I have visited an AdF/AT of a CEFIRE **		I have visited an AdF/AT of a different place			No one
(7)	Previous training	I have previous training in the subject		I have no training in the subject			Others
Indicate the degree of interest in training in the following aspects (4—A lot of interest, 3—Quite a bit of interest, 2—Little interest, 1—Not at all interested) Indicate if you have received previous training in this regard (YES/NO)
DIMENSION B: METHODOLOGIES and STRATEGIES				1–4	Y/N	DIMENSION B: METHODOLOGIES and STRATEGIES		1–4	Y/N
(b1) Project-based learning						(b2) Problem-based learning
(b3) Inquiry-based learning						(b4) Cooperative learning
(b5) Flipped classroom						(b6) Design thinking
(b7) Visual thinking						(b8) Personalized learning
(b9) Service learning						(b10) Gamification
(b11) Work around corners/environments						(b12) Universal learning design (ULD)
DIMENSION C: DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY				1–4	Y/N	DIMENSION C: DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY		1–4	Y/N
(c1) Robotics						(c2) Programming
(c3) Computational thinking						(c4) Audiovisual technology
(c5) Documents/presentations/infographics						(c6) Virtual reality
(c7) Augmented reality						(c8) 3D printing
(c9) Scanning						(c10) Artificial intelligence
DIMENSION D: EDUCATIONAL SPACES				1–4	Y/N	DIMENSION D: EDUCATIONAL SPACES		1–4	Y/N
(d1) Characteristics of spaces useful for learning: colours, luminosity, sound...						(d2) Useful furniture for learning spaces
(d3) Zoning of spaces useful for learning
DIMENSION E: IMPLEMENTATION IN INNOVATIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS				1–4	Y/N	DIMENSION E: IMPLEMENTATION IN INNOVATIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS		1–4	Y/N
(e1) Design, programming and creation of projects or experiences that promote learning						(e2) Design and programming of learning experiences in environments different from the traditional classroom
(e3) Timing of a learning process						(e4) Management of coexistence and participation in innovative learning environments
(e5) Selection and organization of the appropriate methodology or strategy to promote learning						(e6) Design, organization and development of co-education
(e7) Learning assessment design: what, how and when to assess

Notes: * ESO/Bach./CF = secondary education, baccalaureate and vocational training. ** AdF = Aula del Futuro. AT = transforming classroom (name of the AdF in the Valencian Community).

. The final instrument was thus configured as follows:

“The following questionnaire is part of a research study at the University of Valencia. It aims to identify the training needs and interests of pre-university educators in relation to innovative learning environments (named locally as Aulas del futuro, Aulas transformadoras, etc.). Responses are completely anonymous, and we ask for your utmost honesty. The questionnaire can be completed in approximately 2–4 min. We greatly appreciate your cooperation.”

3.3. Data Collection and Analysis Procedure

Upon completion of the final questionnaire, it was distributed in paper format to the educators who requested a visit to the “Aula del Futuro”. A total of 226 responses were collected from active teachers, which, together with the 28 responses from teachers who did not request a visit, comprised the study sample (N = 254). The questionnaires were administered prior to the visit. The differences between teachers who had requested a visit and those who had not were not statistically significant; hence, the data were analysed collectively. The lack of a visit request does not necessarily correlate with differences in interests, as it may be attributable to scheduling conflicts, travel issues, or other logistical challenges. This group exclusively included teachers who reported having no prior exposure to or training in innovative learning environments (ILEs), as such prior experiences could potentially influence their responses.

The data from the questionnaires were statistically processed using SPSS version 28.0.1.1 to address the research questions and to clarify the true interests of educators regarding training in the use of ILEs. In addition to analysing the overall results, potential correlations between interests in various dimensions and items within the questionnaire and demographic variables (such as gender, age, years of experience, etc.) were examined.

In the data analysis phase, the initial test conducted was the Shapiro–Wilk normality test. A p-value less than 0.05 indicated that the data did not follow a normal distribution and were thus non-parametric. Consequently, to address the specific objectives set forth, the analysis included descriptive statistics, frequency analyses, and comparisons between independent samples using the Mann–Whitney U test (M-W) for two samples and the Kruskal–Wallis test (K-W) for more than two samples. Lastly, Spearman’s Rho test was employed to analyse correlations.

4. Results

4.1. Dimension B: Methodologies and Strategies

As previously noted, this dimension encompasses a list of methodologies and strategies focused on student-centred learning. Participants were requested to assess their degree of interest using a Likert scale (see

Table 6. Interest in the various methodologies of Dimension B.

Aspect (Items b1–b12)	Previous Training		SCALE 1–4 (1 = No Interest; 4 = Very Interested; NA = No Answer)
			N = 254 (100%)
	YES	NO	1	2	3	4	NA
Project-based learning (b1)	168	72	4 (1.6)	19 (7.5)	90 (35.4)	126 (49.6)	15 (5.9)
Problem-based learning (b2)	53	181	6 (2.4)	40 (15.7)	77 (30.3)	91 (35.8)	40 (15.7)
Inquiry-based learning (b3)	27	206	7 (2.8)	31 (12.2)	89 (35.0)	82 (32.3)	45 (17.7)
Cooperative learning (b4)	181	59	6 (2.4)	16 (6.3)	68 (26.8)	145 (57.1)	19 (7.5)
Flipped classroom (b5)	68	166	15 (5.9)	42 (16.5)	68 (26.8)	83 (32.7)	46 (18.1)
Design thinking (b6)	24	208	13 (5.1)	36 (14.2)	69 (27.2)	82 (32.3)	54 (21.3)
Visual thinking (b7)	52	180	13 (5.1)	36 (14.2)	65 (25.6)	89 (35.0)	51 (20.1)
Personalized learning (b8)	37	192	7 (2.8)	23 (9.1)	60 (23.6)	114 (44.9)	50 (19.7)
Service learning (b9)	71	163	11 (4.3)	34 (13.4)	61 (24.0)	96 (37.8)	52 (20.5)
Gamification (b10)	122	110	7 (2.8)	29 (11.4)	65 (25.6)	119 (46.9)	34 (13.4)
Work around corners/ environments (b11)	100	133	8 (3.1)	24 (9.4)	65 (25.6)	120 (47.2)	37 (14.6)
Universal learning design (b12)	121	114	11 (4.3)	17 (6.7)	61 (24.0)	129 (50.8)	36 (14.2)

), and were also asked about any prior training they had received in these areas.

It is noteworthy that items b1 and b4 elicited positive responses exceeding 90%, while items b8, b11, and b12 achieved response rates above 85%.

4.2. Dimension C: Digital Technology

Following the same framework, this dimension pertains to the devices and tools characteristic of technology and digitalization.

In this dimension, a common denominator was the limited previous training observed. The values presented in

Table 7. Interest in the technological elements common in AT (Dimension C).

Aspect (Items c1–c10)	Previous Training		SCALE 1–4 (1 = No Interest; 4 = Very Interested; NA = No Answer)
			N = 254 (100%)
	YES	NO	1	2	3	4	NA
Robotics (c1)	42	196	14 (5.5)	55 (21.7)	59 (23.2)	76 (29.9)	50 (19.7)
Programming (c2)	73	166	10 (3.9)	61 (24.0)	61 (24.0)	82 (32.3)	40 (15.7)
Computational thinking (c3)	37	200	13 (5.1)	66 (26.0)	61 (24.0)	63 (24.8)	51 (20.1)
Audiovisual technology (c4)	64	175	8 (3.1)	32 (12.6)	88 (34.6)	89 (35.0)	37 (14.6)
Documents/presentations/ infographics (c5)	76	159	14 (5.5)	32 (12.6)	76 (29.9)	92 (36.2)	40 (15.7)
Virtual reality (c6)	32	205	9 (3.5)	42 (16.5)	75 (29.5)	83 (32.7)	45 (17.7)
Augmented reality (c7)	36	201	13 (5.1)	43 (16.9)	69 (27.2)	85 (33.5)	44 (17.3)
3D printing (c8)	21	216	21 (8.3)	51 (20.1)	57 (22.4)	75 (29.5)	50 (19.7)
Scanning (c9)	18	220	29 (11.4)	53 (20.9)	61 (24.0)	57 (22.4)	54 (21.3)
Artificial intelligence (c10)	10	218	14 (5.5)	37 (14.6)	58 (22.8)	91 (35.8)	54 (21.3)

generally indicate less interest compared to the previous dimension. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that items c4, c5, and c6 received positive responses exceeding 75%.

4.3. Dimension D: Educational Spaces

The dimension of educational spaces highlights three elements to consider when conceptualizing the design of innovative learning environments.

The three items received positive evaluations from over 85% of the valid responses (see

Table 8. Interest in aspects related to educational spaces in AT (Dimension D).

Aspects (Items d1–d3)	Previous Training		SCALE 1–4 (1 = No Interest; 4 = Very Interested; NA = No Answer)
			N = 254 (100%)
	YES	NO	1	2	3	4	NA
Characteristics of spaces useful for learning: colours, luminosity, sound... (d1)	49	198	4 (1.6)	27 (10.6)	72 (28.3)	118 (46.5)	33 (13.0)
Useful furniture for learning spaces (d2)	44	202	4 (1.6)	19 (7.5)	70 (27.6)	124 (48.8)	37 (14.6)
Zoning of spaces useful for learning (d3)	38	207	3 (1.2)	26 (10.2)	61 (24.0)	127 (50.0)	37 (14.6)

), indicating a significant educational interest in this area. This interest likely stems either from a recognition of existing training deficiencies or from a favourable assessment of the impact that the physical environment has on student learning.

4.4. Dimension E: Implementation in Innovative Learning Environments

The final dimension analysed pertains to the pedagogical strategies utilized to implement these innovative learning environments (ILEs), including specific methodologies within innovative spaces and digital technology. The results of the expressed interests are presented in

Table 9. Interest in classroom implementation strategies (Dimension E).

Aspects (Items e1–e7)	Previous Training		SCALE 1–4 (1 = No Interest; 4 = Very Interested; NA = No Answer)
			N = 254 (100%)
	YES	NO	1	2	3	4	NA	Mean (x−)
Design, programming and creation of projects or experiences that promote learning (e1)	113	136	1 (0.4)	9 (3.5)	67 (26.4)	151 (59.4)	26 (10.2)	3.61
Design and programming of learning experiences in environments different from the traditional classroom (e2)	61	184	2 (0.8)	8 (3.1)	69 (27.2)	144 (56.7)	31 (12.2)	3.59
Timing of a learning process (e3)	73	173	2 (0.8)	24 (9.4)	73 (28.7)	125 (49.2)	30 (11.8)	3.43
Management of coexistence and participation in innovative learning environments (e4)	73	173	1 (0.4)	19 (7.5)	70 (27.6)	133 (52.4)	31 (12.2)	3.50
Selection and organization of the appropriate methodology or strategy to promote learning (e5)	113	134	1 (0.4)	13 (5.1)	72 (28.3)	140 (55.1)	28 (11.0)	3.55
Design, organization and development of co-education (e6)	79	166	3 (1.2)	20 (7.9)	62 (24.4)	138 (54.3)	31 (12.2)	3.50
Learning assessment design: what, how and when to assess (e7)	134	115	1 (0.4)	19 (7.5)	70 (27.6)	141 (55.5)	23 (9.1)	3.52

.

The percentage of positive responses (relative to valid responses) exceeds 90% for five of the seven items, with the remaining two items closely approaching this figure. According to these data, the teaching staff show the greatest interest in item e1, “Design, programming and creation of projects or experiences that promote learning”, followed by item e2, “Design and programming of learning experiences in environments different from the traditional classroom”. On the other hand, there is less interest expressed in item e3, “Timing of a learning process”. Having identified the interests of educators across the various dimensions examined and in line with the objectives of this study, a statistical analysis was conducted to explore the potential influences of various demographic variables such as gender, age, and years of teaching experience. Additionally, differences and possible correlations among the different dimensions were analysed to discern potential relationships indicating shared interests.

4.5. Differences between Dimensions

Firstly, the study establishes the existence of significant differences across the four dimensions analysed. To this end, a Kruskal–Wallis test was conducted, as the data distribution did not meet the assumptions of normality or homogeneity of variance, as previously noted. Only fully completed questionnaires without any missing values were considered valid samples. Within each dimension, all responses were aggregated to calculate the ranks for use in the test. The results are displayed in

Table 10. Kruskal–Wallis test for the four dimensions.

DIMENSION	N	x−	Average Rank	Statistical Results
B: METHODOLOGIES and STRATEGIES	165	3.30	342.85	HK-W = 66.62
C: DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY	164	3.01	276.41
D: EDUCATIONAL SPACES	215	3.42	414.73	p-value < 0.01
E: IMPLEMENTATION IN INNOVATIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS	207	3.53	441.11

.

It was observed that there were indeed significant differences in the interests expressed across each dimension (p < 0.01). The teaching staff expressed a greater interest in issues related to the implementation of innovative learning environments (E). Following this, the next most interesting dimension was that related to educational space (D), which is entirely related to the previous point. Finally, there was less interest in training on methodologies and strategies (B), perhaps an aspect that has been extensively covered in recent teacher training courses, and the dimension of ICT training (digital technology (C)) was of the least interest. Based on this initial analysis, we will focus our attention solely on the functioning of the two most popular issues: implementation and spaces.

4.6. E: Implementation of ILEs—Deep Analysis

As an initial analysis, the Kruskal–Wallis test was once again conducted to determine if there were significant differences between the items within the dimension (e1–e7), yielding a p-value of 0.164. This result indicates that there was no item that significantly stood out from the others.

However, a Spearman’s Rho correlation analysis was performed to determine if an increase in interest in one item implied an increase in others. It was observed that certain variables were positively correlated, meaning their variations moved in the same direction.

Analysing the correlations expressed in

Table 11. Spearman’s Rho test for Dimension E.

Items (e1–e7)	e1	e2	e3	e4	e5	e6	e7
e1	1	0.836 ***	0.663 **	0.598 **	0.643 **	0.555 **	0.577 **
e2		1	0.706 ***	0.619 **	0.646 **	0.621 **	0.586 **
e3			1	0.682 **	0.619 **	0.582 **	0.614 **
e4				1	0.708 ***	0.602 **	0.521 **
e5					1	0.592 **	0.665 **
e6						1	0.572 **
e7							1

Notes: ** indicates a medium positive correlation. *** indicates a high positive correlation (highlighted).

, we can affirm that the interest in the items of this dimension moves as a block, meaning that all the attributes more or less move similarly. In this case, we can conclude that interest in the “Design, programming and creation of projects or experiences that promote learning” (e1) implies that the sample is also interested in the “Design of Learning Experiences in environments other than the traditional classroom” (e2), as there is a strong correlation between these two items. This may be because they are two closely related issues and can be considered as the first steps any teacher should take to start working in innovative learning environments. The same occurs between the latter and the “Design and programming of learning experiences in environments different from the traditional classroom” (e3) and between the “Management of coexistence and participation in innovative learning environments” (e4) and the “Selection and organization of the appropriate methodology or strategy to promote learning” (e5). These aspects can also be related to each other since both aim to create an environment that fosters learning and student participation. This information can be used when designing training programs, where it will be particularly interesting to integrate these two aspects that are closely related in terms of interest.

4.6.1. Gender

To analyse potential differences in interests shown by male and female teachers (excluding responses from those who did not identify in binary terms), a Mann–Whitney U test was performed to determine if there were significant differences between genders (

Table 12. Compilation of N, means, and Mann–Whitney U test for Dimension E in relation to gender.

Items (e1–e7)	N (Female)	N (Male)	X− (Female)	X− (Male)	p
e1	185	40	3.68	3.35	0.012
e2	181	39	3.67	3.23	0.001
e3	182	38	3.52	3.13	0.017
e4	180	39	3.60	3.13	<0.001
e5	185	37	3.61	3.35	0.030
e6	183	38	3.56	3.24	0.020
e7	186	41	3.58	3.34	0.168

Note: Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) has been highlighted.

). The analysis was conducted on an item-by-item basis.

Statistically significant differences were observed between the interests of male and female teachers across all items, with the exception of those pertaining to evaluation. Notably, in every item assessed, women’s interest surpassed that of men. Detailed analysis of the responses reveals that 92% of women indicated considerable-to-high interest across all items, whereas this figure declines to 80% among male respondents.

Within the seven items comprising the dimension under study, it is noteworthy that just one respondent expressed “No interest” in four specific items, namely e1, e4, e5, and e7, suggesting that these topics link the entire sample under analysis.

Among male teachers, the items eliciting the greatest interest were e1 and e5, both with an average score of 3.35. Conversely, female teachers displayed the highest interest in items e1 (with an average score of 3.68) and e2 (with an average score of 3.67), indicating nearly equivalent levels of interest. It is interesting to note that there was agreement on item e1 as a preferred area, whereas for the second option, item e2, there was a noticeable divergence from male preferences (this divergence also extended to item e4).

These findings warrant careful consideration due to the significantly different sample sizes (N) for each gender group.

Lastly, to ascertain whether there were significant differences among the items for both genders, Kruskal–Wallis tests were conducted. The results indicated that the differences were not statistically significant for either group.

4.6.2. Age

In a parallel analysis, the same methodological approach was applied to the age categories delineated within the demographic dimension of the questionnaire. To determine if variances existed across each item in this dimension, a Kruskal–Wallis test was executed. The outcomes of this analysis are presented in

Table 13. Compilation of N, means, and Kruskal–Wallis test for Dimension E in relation to age.

Items (e1–e7)	Ages	20–30	31–40	41–50	51–70	p
Design, programming, and creation of projects or experiences that promote learning (e1)	N	27	90	73	36	<0.01
	X−	3.74	3.77	3.48	3.42
	R	126.11	127.87	100.55	94.38
Design and programming of learning experiences in environments different from the traditional classroom (e2)	N	27	38	72	35	0.003
	X−	3.70	3.73	3.47	3.40
	R	122.09	124.77	101.15	91.26
Temporization of a learning process (e3)	N	28	90	69	36	0.036
	X−	3.46	3.57	3.38	3.19
	R	117.25	122.63	106.71	91.47
Management of coexistence and participation in innovative learning environments (e4)	N	28	87	72	35	0.016
	X−	3.43	3.67	3.44	3.26
	R	112.13	124.13	106.67	89.54
Selection and organization of the appropriate methodology or strategy to promote learning (e5)	N	27	89	73	36	0.008
	X−	3.67	3.67	3.45	3.26
	R	126.81	214.46	103.37	93.85
Design, organization, and development of co-teaching (e6)	N	27	88	74	34	0.006
	X−	3.56	3.67	3.39	3.26
	R	116.61	126.24	102.46	92.25
Design of learning assessment: what, how, and when to evaluate (e7)	N	29	89	74	38	0.087
	X−	3.55	3.63	3.43	3.42
	R	119.24	126.25	107.82	102.42

Note: Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) has been highlighted.

.

For the various age groups analysed, statistically significant differences were observed in all items with the exception of the evaluation item. We can thus affirm that, in general, these topics are of more interest to people aged 31–40, except for the item on the “Selection and organization of the appropriate methodology or strategy to promote learning”, which is more interesting to people aged 20–30. This demographic exhibited heightened interest across the spectrum of issues presented, underscoring a distinct alignment of preferences within this age bracket.

4.6.3. Years of Teaching Experience

The same analysis as in the previous section was carried out for the different ranges of teaching experience obtained in the demographic data. The results of the Kruskal–Wallis test are shown in

Table 14. Compilation of N, means, and Kruskal–Wallis test for Dimension E in relation to years of teaching experience.

Items (e1–e7)	Years	N	X−	R	p
Design, programming, and creation of projects or experiences that promote learning (e1)	0–10	102	3.74	126.93	0.006
	10–20	77	3.47	100.92
	>20	49	3.59	109.96
Design and programming of learning experiences in environments different from the traditional classroom (e2)	0–10	101	3.75	127.49	<0.001
	10–20	77	3.43	98.14
	>20	45	3.51	100.94
Temporization of a learning process (e3)	0–10	103	3.56	124.98	0.011
	10–20	77	3.32	102.16
	>20	44	3.32	101.39
Management of coexistence and participation in innovative learning environments (e4)	0–10	100	3.61	122.89	0.017
	10–20	77	3.45	107.56
	>20	46	3.35	95.76
Selection and organization of the appropriate methodology or strategy to promote learning (e5)	0–10	102	3.66	124.21	0.033
	10–20	78	3.46	105.12
	>20	46	3.48	103.96
Design, organization, and development of co-teaching (e6)	0–10	100	3.61	123.17	0.024
	10–20	77	3.39	101.51
	>20	46	3.46	105.28
Design of learning assessment: what, how, and when to evaluate (e7)	0–10	105	3.63	127.37	0.010
	10–20	77	3.36	100.99
	>20	49	3.53	115.21

Note: Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) has been highlighted.

.

In this case, statistically significant differences were observed across all items, substantiating the assertion that these topics hold greater interest for individuals with less than 10 years of professional experience. This trend suggests that newer entrants to the field may demonstrate heightened engagement with the subject matter compared to their more experienced counterparts.

4.6.4. Educational Stage

For the educational stage, given that there were only two independent variables (kindergarten/primary and secondary/high school/vocational training), the Mann–Whitney test was employed due to the non-fulfilment of normality conditions. This approach was chosen to robustly assess differences between the groups under conditions where standard parametric tests could not be applied (

Table 15. Compilation of N, means, and Mann–Whitney U test for Dimension E in relation to the educational stage of instruction.

Aspects (Items e1–e7)	N (K/P)	N (S/HS/VT)	X− (K/P)	X− (S/HS/VT)	p
(e1)	180	60	3.67	3.47	0.654
(e2)	178	60	3.64	3.45	0.916
(e3)	179	61	3.49	3.26	0.502
(e4)	178	61	3.53	3.40	0.845
(e5)	178	61	3.58	3.44	* 0.020
(e6)	177	60	3.59	3.17	0.235
(e7)	180	61	3.53	3.49	0.302

Note: * statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) has been highlighted.

).

We observe that statistically significant differences were present only in the item pertaining to e-5, the “Selection and organization of the appropriate methodology or strategy to facilitate learning”, which was of greater interest to preschool and primary education teachers.

4.6.5. Other Dimensions

For the dimension on methodologies and strategies, the interest of the teaching staff in all analysed items was positive in more than 78% of responses, with significant differences between the items (p = 0.001), leading us to point out that there is a greater generalized interest in cooperative learning (x⁻ = 3.50), project-based learning (x⁻ = 3.41), and universal design for learning (x⁻ = 3.41).

The detailed analysis of these dimensions is beyond the scope of this study and will be addressed in future research.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Through the use of a questionnaire validated by expert judgment, this research focuses on understanding the formative interests of pre-university teachers regarding innovative learning environments. To achieve this, four dimensions corresponding to the basic elements of these educational environments were identified: teaching and learning methodologies and strategies, digital technology, educational space, and issues related to the implementation of basic didactic aspects in these innovative learning environments.

From the 254 responses received from active teachers, the expressed interest in training on these issues was analysed, highlighting that such interest is high in all four dimensions analysed. This is consistent with other studies indicating that rapid technological advancements result in the obsolescence of teachers’ knowledge and pedagogical skills in a short period. This necessitates continuous updating to stay abreast with the latest trends and knowledge [46].

Teachers showed the greatest interest in didactic issues. These results are coherent with Cleveland’s findings [47], which suggest that due to the significant difference these spaces have from traditional ones, teachers do not immediately recognize the pedagogical strategies they can apply to create these environments. Therefore, teachers feel the need to be trained on how to use innovative learning environments, how to design, program and create projects or learning experiences in these environments, how to manage timing, how to manage the coexistence and participation of pupils, how to select and organise the methodology to be applied, how to design assessments, and how to develop co-education (two teachers in charge of the lesson). It is widely recognized that in-service professional development techniques play a crucial role in teacher actualization, as they equip educators to adopt diverse teaching methods, utilize advanced technology, and integrate new knowledge and experiences into more inclusive classroom practices [48].

Concerning the other three dimensions analysed, according to the results obtained, the second most prominent dimension in terms of interest was related to innovative learning spaces, which means that teachers show great interest in knowing how to zone the space to create learning situations, what furniture is useful in these environments, and which characteristics of space are relevant for the learning process (colour, luminosity, sound, etc.). The literature emphasizes the importance of training teachers in spatial manipulation [49], as evidence indicates that, despite being in innovative environments, teachers who lack training on how to utilize these spaces do not transition to more active pedagogical approaches [50].

Thirdly, teachers showed interest in learning about methodologies and strategies. They were asked about their interest in a range of them and showed the greatest interest in cooperative learning, universal learning design, project-based learning, working around corners/environments, gamification, and personalized learning. They showed less interest in flipped classrooms.

The dimension considered least interesting by the surveyed teachers when it comes to receiving ongoing training was the one related to digital technology. The most interesting items of these dimensions were audiovisual technology; digital documents, presentations, and infographics; and virtual reality. These three items were preferred over artificial intelligence, programming, and robotics, three aspects considered of interest in our society. They expressed the least interest in scanning and computational thinking, although this was a topic in which they showed they did not have previous training. Authors like Tena and Carrera [2] and Pardo Baldoví [51] precisely indicate the appropriateness of teachers focusing, rather than on the use of technology, on designing learning scenarios capable of fostering competency-based learning.

Focusing our attention on the dimension that showed to be the most interesting, we analysed whether the expressed interest was influenced by demographic factors. As shown in the Results section, it can be broadly stated that women showed significantly more interest than men in training on these topics. Female teachers were interested in the “Design, programming and creation of projects or experiences that promote learning (e1)” and the “Design and programming of learning experiences in environments different from the traditional classroom (e2)”, while male teachers were also interested in e1 and the “Selection and organization of the appropriate methodology or strategy to promote learning (e5)”.

Regarding teacher age, statistically significant differences were found that let us conclude that individuals aged 31–40 had greater interest in the topics of this dimension. Analysing the data considering years of teaching experience, statistically significant evidence showed for the seven items that the topics were of greater interest for teachers with less than 10 years of professional experience. Data according to the stage at which they taught were not statistically significant in general, although we observed that kindergarten and primary education teachers showed greater interest in the seven topics.

The obtained results provide valuable information for those responsible for teacher training, indicating a high interest in training on topics related to innovative learning environments. Additionally, the findings offer valuable insights to guide the thematic focus of training activities towards areas of genuine interest within the teaching community.

These insights underscore the necessity for ongoing professional development tailored to the evolving needs and interests of educators. The alignment of training programs with these interests can significantly enhance the efficacy of teaching practices in innovative learning environments and ultimately improve student outcomes. Future research should consider longitudinal studies to track the impact of such training on teaching practices and student performance. Furthermore, exploring the effects of direct experiences with innovative learning environments, such as visits to the Aula del Futuro, can provide a deeper understanding of how hands-on exposure influences teachers’ formative interests and pedagogical approaches.