Next Article in Journal
A Comparative Analysis of AI Use in Scientific Inquiry Learning Among Gifted and Non-Gifted Students
Next Article in Special Issue
Taking Care: A GloCal Service-Learning Experience with Teacher and Parent Education in Northeast Brazil
Previous Article in Journal
Advancing Sustainable Design Education: University-Led Initiatives in Engaging Primary School Students and Empowering Communities
Previous Article in Special Issue
Mapping the Integration of Theory of Planned Behavior and Self-Determination Theory in Education: A Scoping Review on Teachers’ Behavioral Intentions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 12
10.3390/educsci15121610
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Delphi Validation of a Rubric for IkasLab Spaces for Active and Global Learning

by
Aitor Yañez-Perea
*,
Naiara Bilbao-Quintana
and
Arantzazu López-De la Serna
Bilbao Faculty of Education, University of the Basque Country (EHU-UPV), 48940 Leioa, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(12), 1610; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15121610
Submission received: 19 September 2025 / Revised: 25 November 2025 / Accepted: 26 November 2025 / Published: 28 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Addressing Challenges in Teacher Preparation for Transformative Education)
Versions Notes

Abstract

Innovative learning environments such as IkasLab demand evaluation instruments that connect spatial design with pedagogical, cognitive, and technological dimensions; however, no validated tools currently address this need. This study aimed to develop and validate a rubric for assessing IkasLab classrooms, conceived as active learning environments that foster cognitive and metacognitive processes. A two-round Delphi study was conducted with a panel of 13 experts in learning spaces, cognitive processes, and ICT. Quantitative assessments and qualitative contributions were analysed, and the expert competence index (K = 0.835) confirmed a high level of expertise and consensus. The resulting rubric is organised into four blocks—social learning spaces, learner-centred environments, spaces for reflective thinking, and spaces for deep learning—each linked to specific cognitive processes derived from established theoretical frameworks. The validated instrument offers a structured and coherent framework for examining how spatial, cognitive, and technological components interact within IkasLab environments. The findings contribute theoretically by articulating a model that associates physical learning spaces with cognitive processes, and practically by providing an evidence-based tool for teachers, designers, and policymakers seeking to evaluate or implement active, flexible, and cognitively oriented learning environments.

1. Introduction

1.1. Learning Spaces and Maker Movement

The contemporary classroom is undergoing a profound transformation that disrupts the established educational tradition that has governed teaching and learning processes. This transformation has profound implications for the classroom environment, leading to the emergence of digitalised classrooms and classrooms in the process of digitalisation. These classrooms are characterised by connectivity, facilitating both telematic and face-to-face educational processes.
This transformation requires rethinking teaching–learning processes and the physical and virtual spaces in which they occur. In this context, maker culture has emerged as a prominent movement, emphasising the value of collaborative environments and hands-on activities. These approaches are designed to facilitate deeper learning through creative problem-solving, which is increasingly recognised as a crucial component of effective education (Aleixo et al., 2021). Although the movement did not originate within formal education, it has rapidly become integrated into classroom teaching and learning. This is in response to two main challenges: firstly, to incorporate programming activities to enhance cognitive and pedagogical processes in instruction; and secondly, to address the necessity to develop technology-related competencies in curricula (Juan Poveda, 2020). This shift has encouraged teaching practices aligned with the maker philosophy, leading to the integration of STEAM processes and techniques as practical methods that facilitate a holistic vision of learning processes (interconnecting science, technology, engineering, art and mathematics), the inclusion of educational technology in teaching, learning from responding to real problems and the need to reduce the gender gap in job profiles (Gutiérrez-Esteban & Jaramillo-Sánchez, 2022; García Fuentes et al., 2023).
Consequently, the advent of these pedagogical movements and techniques necessitates a reflection on and re-evaluation of educational spaces, with the objective of adapting them to the pedagogical requirements of the 21st century and structuring them in interdisciplinary processes (Castro Campos, 2022).

1.2. Aula del Futuro and IkasLab

One such approach, which aligns with the principles of maker culture and STEAM educational techniques, is the Future Classroom Lab (hereinafter FCL). The FCL project, a European initiative coordinated by European Schoolnet, comprises various ministries of education, among other entities. The FCL project aims to cultivate a pedagogical vision that integrates innovative educational approaches, the utilisation of different resources and ICT, and dynamic student and teacher roles within a designated physical space (Gómez García et al., 2022).
The FCL model has evolved differently across European countries, and its adaptation in Spain has been Aulas del Futuro (hereinafter AdF). Following the FCL model, AdF proposes redesigning educational spaces and teaching–learning processes through six learning zones, the characteristics of which are summarised below based on the explanation of Román Graván et al. (2023):
  • Investigate: learning space that facilitates individual, pair, and group discovery through the implementation of active methodologies, with the objective of fostering skills such as critical thinking, active exploration, and problem-solving.
  • Create: area of creation, prototyping, design and production, through the use of technology and manipulative resources, to develop creative, interpretative, evaluation and related skills.
  • Present: a designated space to cultivate communication skills, whether individually or collectively, employing both analogue and digital resources.
  • Interact: a space to guarantee the development of collaborative skills in the teaching-learning process, generating interactions among the students themselves and between students and teachers.
  • Exchange: this is an area to develop deeper communication and collaboration based on the promotion of autonomy, focusing on self-responsibility and decision-making.
  • Develop: a zone for self-reflective and informal learning, providing students with the possibility to investigate based on their own interests for self-knowledge in learning processes.
In the Spanish context, the AdF is developed in a different and parallel way by the autonomous communities, leading to projects such as the Creative Classrooms of the Government of the Canary Islands (2020). In the context of the Basque Autonomous Community, the project has been called IkasLab (translated as ‘learning laboratory’), as its own adaptation of the AdF for the development of innovative educational spaces. This proposal, which is still in the development and implementation stage, is outlined in theoretical terms in Yañez-Perea and Bilbao-Quintana (2024), where they present the four educational spaces that would constitute this type of classroom:
  • Ikertu (investigate): an area equivalent to the investigate space of the AdF where exploratory skills are fostered through active methodologies.
  • Sortu (create): a space analogous to the create area in the AdF, where creative, design and student evaluation processes are promoted.
  • Komunikatu (communicate): an area similar to the presentation area of the AdF for the sharing of results through work on communication skills.
  • Pentsatu (think): IkasLab’s own proposal as a transversal space that runs through the rest of the spaces with the aim of developing metacognitive thinking, encouraging self-regulation of learning processes and making the pupils’ cognitive processes visible.
In a similar vein, the publication by Yañez-Perea and Bilbao-Quintana (2024) underscores the necessity to establish educational spaces that are associated with the cognitive processes to be cultivated in the teaching and learning process. Consequently, in this work, certain cognitive processes are associated with the physical spaces of IkasLab.

1.3. Thinking and Cognitive Processes

Indeed, it is crucial to consider the cognitive functions that should be cultivated when conceptualising an educational space. As Salmon and Barrera (2021) note, learning environments that explicitly support thinking processes enhance students’ curiosity, reflection, self-awareness, and engagement. Consequently, students become active participants in both the design of their learning environment and the learning process itself. As Ritchhart (2015) asserts ‘the design of the school buildings is a physical manifestation of ingrained and widely held assumptions about learning’ (p. 230).
Consequently, it is imperative to cultivate learning environments that embody the processes to be undertaken, thereby ensuring that the space itself becomes an enabler of these cognitive processes.
In this regard, it is essential to provide a concise overview of the aforementioned cognitive processes, which have been identified as internalised actions that facilitate the codification of information from the external world, represented on an internal plane, transforming, codifying, synthesising, elaborating, storing and retrieving it (Manrique, 2020). Cognitive processes are thus defined as the tools employed by students to process, internalise and manipulate the information covered in classroom settings. The specific cognitive processes utilised are determined by the prevailing style of thinking exhibited by the learner. In essence, students tend to collect, reorganise and retrieve information in a manner that aligns with their individual contexts. Consequently, it becomes imperative for educational communities to establish learning environments conducive to diverse forms of thinking and cognitive processes (Rigo, 2017; Gardner, 1993).
In conclusion, it must be emphasised that it is crucial to create educational settings that place significant emphasis on cognitive processes in the development of teaching and learning processes. When pedagogical approaches are modified by educators, encompassing a departure from rote learning and an emphasis on cultivating students’ cognitive abilities, these students are provided with environments conducive to autonomous thought, decision-making, and the construction of their own learning experiences (Moncayo Bermúdez & Prieto López, 2022; Cañas Encinas et al., 2021).

1.4. Research Gap and Objectives of the Study

Although hybrid educational spaces and their evaluation have been the subject of previous research, the IkasLab project makes an original contribution to this field by integrating pedagogical, curricular, cognitive, metacognitive and technological aspects into classroom design. It is therefore all the more notable that there is an absence of scientifically validated tools that have been endorsed by a panel of experts in this area.
In response to this gap, the objective of this study is to develop and validate a rubric for evaluating IkasLab spaces through a Delphi validation process. These spaces have been conceptualised as a resource to support pedagogical innovation and the development of cognitive processes. The employment of the Delphi method offers the opportunity to strengthen the internal coherence of the instrument, while it also ensures expert consensus.
The resulting rubric aims to function as a practical guide for the design, implementation and assessment of active educational spaces.

2. Materials and Methods

This paper proposes a rubric to serve as an evaluation tool for the IkasLab learning spaces. The selection of a rubric as a means to evaluate IkasLab learning spaces has been guided by two fundamental criteria: its capacity to establish a broad array of evaluation objectives, and its ability to facilitate feedback and self-evaluation at different levels of development, thereby serving as a pivotal tool for individuals seeking to achieve these objectives (Rodríguez-Gallego, 2017; Muchiut et al., 2022).
The rubric has been developed from three fundamental components: firstly, Ritchhart’s Thinking Routines Matrix (Ritchhart et al., 2014) and the subsequent Matrix (Ritchhart & Church, 2020) that extends the aforementioned, in which key cognitive processes in the educational context and thinking routines are linked; and on the other hand, the Experiential Learning Rubric by Evin et al. (2021), as they define it as ‘the first standardized measurement tool to evaluate the appropriateness of the learning environments created by the experiential educators’ (p. 195). While there is no explicit connection between these two educational approaches and IkasLab itself, a closer examination reveals a convergence of ideas centred on fostering experiential learning, cultivating diverse learning styles, and engaging in reflection to ensure meaningful learning (Espinar & Vigueras, 2020; Granados & García, 2016; Ritchhart et al., 2014; Yañez-Perea & Bilbao-Quintana, 2024). Consequently, it has been determined that these approaches share the fundamental concepts necessary to execute the proposed adaptation.
In the case of the first two tools, these are two matrices in which Ritchhart et al. (2014) and Ritchhart and Church (2020) propose thinking routines that make it possible to develop a conscious and deep metacognitive work, and links all these activities with the executive functions that students can develop based on them. Thus, in this case, the key thinking movements collected in the matrices have been classified and linked to the physical spaces of IkasLab. On the other hand, the initial block from the Experiential Learning Rubric (Evin et al., 2021), corresponding to the learning spaces, has been adapted dividing dimensions and criteria. Finally, the indicators and descriptors have been specified, each of which is linked to the types of thinking collected in the first step, thus generating the rubric for the evaluation of IkasLab spaces (see Appendix A).
It is important to note that the correlation between indicators and types of thinking has been established on the basis of the types of thinking that may prevail when designing an IkasLab space (in student collaboration and relationships, types of thinking more related to the social (e.g., listening, questioning, feedback, focusing attention) will predominate, while in others, such as in the evaluation indicator for the Ikertu/Research space (3.1), others related to research competences will predominate). However, it should be noted that the attainment and work on certain types of thinking will come hand in hand with teaching performance. In essence, it is the responsibility of the educator, through their pedagogical intervention, to determine the specific types of thinking they aim to cultivate, for instance, by establishing a collaborative environment (a concrete example being the rationale behind fostering collaboration among students through the creation of an Interactive Collaborative Space, as outlined by Gamboa-Rodríguez (2015). This collaborative space fosters the provision of feedback, the establishment of connections between students, and the synthesis of ideas collectively.
Finally, it should be noted that the five levels of development of the rubric of Evin et al. (2021) have been maintained as it is understood that this can facilitate a more exhaustive evaluation of the spaces (Brookhart, 2018; INTEF, n.d.). For example, level 3 provides a sufficient level of achievement, level 4 exceeds expectations and level 5 guarantees an optimal level of development.
Following the proposal’s formulation, it was resolved to employ the Delphi technique for validation of the rubric. The selection of this method stemmed from the assertion by López-Gómez (2018) that the Delphi approach stands as a distinguished research method, boasting a substantial history and notable proliferation in the domain of qualitative research in the Social Sciences.

2.1. Sample

The execution of the Delphi method necessitates the establishment of a panel of experts with the objective of validating the research process. In the present context, as López-Gómez (2018) observes, a predetermined number of experts was not stipulated to undertake the Delphi process, as there is no scientific consensus supporting the notion that a particular number surpasses another. However, as supported by various studies (Ludwig, 1997; Landeta, 1999; Gordon, 1997), a sample size of approximately 15 experts is considered adequate, with greater emphasis placed on the expert competence index (López-Gómez, 2018). In addition, it should be noted that, as this process covers aspects related to the AdF and post-traditional educational spaces, as well as the cognitive processes of students and educational technology, the panel of experts has been formed by specialists in these three fields. To address these concerns, a diverse panel of specialists from the three aforementioned domains was convened. This panel comprised international researchers, professors, and IkasLab classroom teachers, ensuring a comprehensive and balanced representation. Initially, approximately 30 professionals were contacted, but it was the 13 listed in Table 1 who participated in the two rounds of the validation process. It is important to acknowledge the inclusion of a column classifying the gender of the experts in the table. This has been incorporated with the objective of mitigating the gender disparity and ensuring the adherence to equality criteria in the research process.

2.2. Instrument

The validation of the rubric was achieved through the design and implementation of a mixed questionnaire, which was developed by the authors. The utilisation of a questionnaire was deemed appropriate as García Alcaraz et al. (2006) have indicated that data collection is of pivotal importance in the research process and the questionnaire can function as a valuable instrument for this purpose. The questionnaire was meticulously designed to encompass both closed questions with a quantitative value (Likert scale) and open questions with a strong qualitative connotation. This approach was adopted to comprehensively gather both technical and specific aspects, while also seeking to gather contributions developed without setting limits on the panel of experts (Fernández, 2007).
The questionnaire was divided into four sections: the first section collected contributions in relation to learning spaces; the second assessed the interrelation between indicators and the types of thinking proposed in the rubric; the third section evaluated ICT immersion; and the last section aimed to collect data from the experts to calculate the expert competence index (K).

2.3. Procedure

In order to conduct the Delphi, it was important to make use of the possibilities offered by ICT to contact experts from different countries who could enrich the collection of contributions from different perspectives. Therefore, an explanatory dossier on the research was designed and the panel of experts was contacted by e-mail.
Once the participants had been identified, the questionnaire, designed using the Google Forms platform, was distributed. After a week’s deadline, the responses were collected, organised and, after coding, used to adapt the rubric presented. Once this was done, a new rubric was resent together with a new questionnaire, so that a second round of contributions could be made and the instrument could be readapted for the last time. Following the development of the second round, it was determined that the consensus among the experts was sufficient (Ramírez Chávez & Ramírez Torres, 2024). Therefore, it was established that a third round would not be necessary to accurately analyse the data.
Despite the absence of a formal consensus criterion that had been established a priori (e.g., percentage of agreement or reduction in IQR), the decision to conclude the Delphi process after two rounds was based on the stability of the experts’ responses. The second round demonstrated consistent growth in the mean results, accompanied by a decrease in standard deviations (see Table 3). This indicates greater homogeneity and convergence among the experts’ judgements. Moreover, the qualitative feedback received during the second round did not introduce any substantial new contributions that required conceptual changes to the instrument.

3. Results

The rubric obtained at the end of the two rounds of the validation process can be found in Appendix A. It should be noted that once the process was completed, and as indicated in the previous section, the expert competence index (k) was calculated in order to guarantee the quality of the result (López-Gómez, 2018; Cabero Almenara & Barroso Osuna, 2013). To calculate this index, the steps indicated by López-Gómez (2018) were followed by calculating the knowledge coefficient (Kc) and the argumentation coefficient (Ka), weighting the latter according to the criteria established in Cabero Almenara and Barroso Osuna (2013) (Table 2). Both are included in Appendix B of this paper. And based on all this, it is concluded that, in this case, the result obtained is k = 0.835; therefore, being above 0.8, the high influence of the sources can be highlighted regarding the validation of the rubric. Given the attainment of a sufficiently elevated index, it was deemed unnecessary to exclude any experts, thereby ensuring the preservation of the sample’s diversity.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the obtained rubric is divided into four main blocks (1—Social learning spaces, 2—Learning spaces with the student at the centre, 3—Spaces for reflective thinking, 4—Spaces for maintaining and developing deep thinking), and in each of them, we can find criteria and indicators based on the IkasLab’s suggestion (Yañez-Perea & Bilbao-Quintana, 2024) and linked to specific cognitive processes included in Ritchhart’s matrix (Ritchhart et al., 2014; Ritchhart & Church, 2020).
Lastly, it is worth noting that the category showed a clear improvement throughout the validation process. Although in the first round only 50% of the experts rated the indicators as ‘very appropriate’ (5 on a Likert scale) and 33% rated the descriptors as such, in the second round these percentages increased to 62.5% in both cases, with the remaining 37.5% rating them as ‘appropriate’ (4 on a Likert scale). An increase was also observed in the questions relating to the suitability and linkage of the cognitive processes indicated, which were initially rated neutrally by 41.6% of the experts (3 on the Likert scale), but in the latest version were rated by 100% of the experts at 4 and 5 on the scale. Finally, the aspect that showed a more modest improvement was the inclusion of ICT in the rubric, which only 33.3% of the experts considered to be “very appropriate” in the first version, but this percentage has increased to 57.14% in the latest version. Furthermore, to ensure the graphical representation and visualisation of the enhancements achieved in each round and section, Table 3 has been incorporated. The following table provides a comprehensive summary of the aforementioned aspects. Moreover, it visually illustrates the increased consensus among experts, as evidenced by the upward trend in the mean scores for each block across rounds, accompanied by a decrease in the standard deviations. This pattern indicates greater data homogeneity and reinforces the progressive alignment of expert judgments with the proposed rubric.
Table 3. Mean values and standard deviations obtained from the results of the questionnaire and Delphi rounds.
Table 3. Mean values and standard deviations obtained from the results of the questionnaire and Delphi rounds.
Round 1Round 2
SECTION 1: Learning spaces
M4.124.64
SD1.080.64
SECTION 2: Thinking and cognitive processes
M3.984.55
SD1.020.80
SECTION 3: ICT in Education
M3.414.00
SD1.331.08
Overall, the results show a clear upward trend in expert agreement. Therefore, the internal coherence of the rubric obtained can be highlighted, even though some aspects, such as ICT, could be improved. This provides a solid foundation for the discussion section, where the implications, strengths and remaining challenges will be examined in depth.

4. Discussion

Following the validation of the proposed instrument, it can be concluded that the rubric can serve as an effective tool for evaluating IkasLab spaces and potentially other learning spaces that promote active and thinking-based learning. In this regard, a novel instrument has been developed that, unlike other standardised tools for evaluating educational spaces—such as LSRS v3 (Learning Space Rating System), Teenergy Schools, and the WELL Building Standard, among others compiled by Alcaraz García (2022)—is grounded in educational and curricular criteria rather than exclusively architectural aspects. The significance of this distinction lies in the fact that certain tools, such as Attewell’s guide (Attewell, 2019), primarily emphasise the improvement of the physical conditions of educational spaces—including lighting, sustainability, and comfort. By contrast, the present proposal focuses on transforming the educational processes that take place within hybrid classroom contexts.
In addition, although there are several frameworks to evaluate educational spaces, such as the ones that have been mentioned before, there remains a gap in Delphi-based validation of evaluation tools for hybrid or Future Classroom Lab-type environments. Thus, this study, which validates an instrument that combines pedagogical, spatial and cognitive dimensions, makes an original contribution to the field.
While the process and the tool obtained as a result are valued positively, further exploration into its usefulness is recommended to enhance its effectiveness. To this end, it would be worthwhile to evaluate the IkasLab spaces created thus far and collect data that could provide insight into the instrument itself, such as the reliability index. Similarly, it would also be interesting to observe the transferability of the tool, applying it in other FCLs or in other formal or informal educational contexts.
Furthermore, it would be worthwhile to continue investigating the potential of the rubric to function as a practical instrument or even a step-by-step guide for educational institutions that opt to establish an IkasLab. However, to achieve this objective, it is essential to ensure that the rubric is made accessible to the educational community.
As previously mentioned in the results section, the process has been satisfactory for the improvement of the instrument; however, the aspects related to the implementation of ICT have received the fewest positive ratings. Indeed, the lower consensus among experts could be attributed to a number of factors. These include differing levels of technological maturity experienced by the experts, or the type of learning environments they have been influenced by. In contradistinction to spatial or cognitive aspects, which can be regarded as more stable in terms of their theoretical frameworks, aspects pertaining to the integration of ICT are susceptible to considerable variation depending on contextual factors, infrastructure, or pedagogical considerations.
Consequently, it would be worthwhile to enhance this aspect by incorporating specific and uniform criteria in Delphi to improve the instrument from a technological perspective. It would be advantageous to incorporate novel elements pertaining to the advancement of digital competence, as exemplified by DigCompEdu.
Indeed, the tool could be substantially enhanced through the implementation of new Delphi processes aimed at refining its components, achieving greater consensus on aspects such as ICT, and incorporating additional experts to broaden the range of perspectives. It is important to note that, although the size and composition of the sample were adequately justified, it comprised only 13 experts and may therefore present certain limitations in terms of diversity and richness.

5. Conclusions

The Delphi validation confirmed the robustness of the proposed rubric by reaching strong expert consensus. Furthermore, it supported the assessment of active learning spaces like IkasLab across areas such as social learning, learner-centred environments, reflective thinking, and deep learning.
Moreover, the integration of spatial, cognitive and digital dimensions in this study, as exemplified by approaches such as IkasLab, Future Classroom Lab and Classroom of the Future, offers a distinct contribution to the field of education. In a similar vein, it serves to reinforce the efficacy of the Delphi method as a scientific procedure for validating complex constructs related to contemporary hybrid educational spaces.
The rubric obtained can serve as a reference for different educational agents (teachers, administrators, policymakers) who wish to advance the IkasLab project or similar projects that aim to remodel educational spaces to align the curricular, organisational, cognitive, and metacognitive needs of students.
Finally, although a number of positive conclusions have been mentioned, it is imperative that the negative aspects outlined in the results and discussion sections are also given due consideration for the purposes of future research. In summary, the development of a more extensive panel of experts and the incorporation of additional dimensions in future research would be a valuable endeavour. This approach would facilitate the establishment of a more multifaceted rubric. In addition, the incorporation of empirical research would be a valuable avenue for observing the practical benefits and dependability of the rubric as a tool for evaluating educational spaces.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.Y.-P. and N.B.-Q.; methodology, A.Y.-P.; validation, A.Y.-P., N.B.-Q. and A.L.-D.l.S.; formal analysis, A.Y.-P.; investigation, A.Y.-P.; resources, N.B.-Q. and A.L.-D.l.S.; data curation, A.Y.-P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.Y.-P.; writing—review and editing, N.B.-Q. and A.L.-D.l.S.; visualisation, A.Y.-P.; supervision, N.B.-Q. and A.L.-D.l.S.; project administration, N.B.-Q. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

As the study involved a non-interventional Delphi process with expert adults, voluntary participation, and no collection of sensitive personal data, the research is exempt from ethics committee approval under the applicable Spanish regulations. Nevertheless, all participants were fully informed before taking part.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data generated and used during the Delphi process for the validation of the instrument are not publicly available, as they were collected from experts under confidentiality agreements.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
STEAMScience, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics
FCLFuture Classroom Lab
ICTInformation and Communication Technology
AdFAula del Futuro

Appendix A. Rubric for the Evaluation of IkasLab Spaces

Table A1. Rubric for the evaluation of IkasLab Spaces.
Table A1. Rubric for the evaluation of IkasLab Spaces.
1. 
Social Learning Space
CriteriaIndicatorsUnacceptableUnsatisfactoryNeeds
Improvement		SatisfactoryRelated Types of Thinking
1.1.
Know each other
Collaborative space 1.The space does not fulfil any of the criteria established for the development of collaborative spaces, being limited to private spaces for students.The space guarantees a public space where students can share their results, in a very limited way and without fulfilling the rest of the conditions.The space fulfils 2–3 of the conditions established by Gamboa-Rodríguez (2015), making it a largely collaborative space.The space guarantees the presence of the four conditions for generating an interactive collaborative space. Both the furniture and materials, both analogue and digital, are adapted to contextual needs.Plan, make connections, identify new ideas, ask questions, synthesise, counter-argue, give and receive feedback, listen, interrogate, involve and reflect.
Relational space 2.Space does not allow for the creation of relationships between users of the educational space.The space guarantees analogue interactions between students, without guaranteeing simple communication between different agents.The space guarantees the interrelation between students and teachers in a simple and analogue way.The learning space allows for the generation of face-to-face and/or telematic relationships between students and the rest of the educational agents (teachers, families, local groups, etc.) in a simple way.Interrelate, gain perspective, identify complexities, ask, explore, make decisions, involve, feedback, listen, probe, focus attention, consider implications.
1.2.
Basic rules
Use of and interaction between the space and the students.The scope of the space is confined to the framing of the teaching and learning process, with no provision for its facilitation.The space has been designed to incorporate decorative features that contribute to an overall sense of cosiness, though these features do not appear to have been incorporated with the intention of facilitating learning (for example, posters and cartoon characters).The space has been designed to facilitate learning through passive interaction, with mechanisms such as mathematical formulas on the walls and linguistic clues.The space is replete with spatial resources that facilitate the teaching and learning process, inviting students to interact with it.Discover, explore, design thinking, relate, observe, interpret, investigate.
Use of and interaction between the students and the material 3.Classroom resources are typically characterised by a conventional approach, which involves the transmission of messages and information through analogue means or the utilisation of technology as a substitute.The classroom has been equipped with digital resources that serve to augment the teaching and learning processes in accordance with the second level of SAMR model. Furthermore, it exhibits few characteristics of intelligent spaces (Zhu et al., 2016; García-Tudela, 2023).The educational space implements technological material at level 3 of the SAMR model and also fulfils two of the three characteristics of intelligent spaces (Zhu et al., 2016; García-Tudela, 2023).The space guarantees a variety of both analogue and digital materials. The latter are used for the redefinition of learning processes according to the fourth level of the SAMR model. In addition, they fulfil the three requirements of ubiquity, connectivity and personalisation as set out by Zhu et al. (2016) and García-Tudela (2023).Discover, explore, investigate, make questions
Appropriate use of space.The classroom does not exhibit any physical indicators of the utilisation of spaces or materials, thereby creating a challenging environment for students to regulate their behaviour and/or performance.The space contains indications, which are largely limited to prohibitions and restrictive rules.Some spaces are organised in a systematic way to regulate the behaviour of pupils and facilitate their learning processes.The space has been organised in such a way that the use and timing of each of the resources is clear, facilitating the learning and behavioural processes of the students.Reason, identify complexities, plan, reflect, organise and classify, predict and infer.
2. 
Learner-centred Learning Space
2.1.
Expectations and
contributions
Space and modifiability 4.The concept of space is created on the basis of a rigid watertight structure, wherein the teacher is responsible for the preparation of the learning environment, while the student’s role is to work within this environment.The space affords students a modicum of autonomy in its adaptation, particularly with respect to the ubiquity of materials during collaborative tasks.Each of the IkasLab spaces is reconfigurable, with the student determining its utilisation and adaptation to fulfil its designated purpose (e.g., relocating tables, selecting alternative materials, employing them in a novel manner, etc.).The classroom is reconfigurable, allowing students to adapt all spaces to their learning needs. They are able to mix teaching materials from different spaces, move furniture between the three IkasLab spaces, and adapt the digital spaces presented to their needs.Explore, classify and organise, discover, probe, establish connections, make questions, investigate and make complex.
Inclusive space.The spatial and resource allocation is conceptualised on a global and unique basis, which poses challenges in terms of facilitating effective collaboration among students from diverse backgrounds.The space and its resources present certain facilities for students with special educational needs, with the focus on facilitating the physical environment for students with functional diversity.The physical space and its resources are designed to accommodate the diversity of students, with multiple functions that fulfil one or two of the UDL guidelines. 5The space has been fully adapted to meet the needs of students with special educational needs, both physical and psychological, integrating these realities in a normalised way in the classroom and being able to adapt to momentary needs, through analogue and/or digital tools.Identify what is important, identify complexities, summarise and capture the essence, organise previous knowledge and predict.
2.2.
Methodology
Learning spaces and students’ autonomy 6.The workspace is fully organised by the teacher, who directs the teaching activity and determines the material, the time and the use that is made of it.The teaching and learning processes are completely autonomous but the teacher strictly controls the environment and the type of material, its use and the time allowed for its use. The students, for their part, have to comply with what is stipulated in this area.The space, the material and the use of the latter are prepared in such a way that the students act autonomously in it, but the teacher continues to lead the learning process over and above the self-regulation of the students, with the teacher being the one who indicates mistakes and the way forward.Students adopt an entirely autonomous role, assuming individual and/or group responsibility for the learning process. They cultivate the capacity to select and discard materials in pursuit of the stipulated learning objectives.
Consequently, students perceive the instructor as a facilitator, one who is consulted only in cases of necessity.
This pedagogical approach is complemented by spatial elements that facilitate self-regulation, such as metacognitive questions and content fragments, enabling students to redirect their learning process in the event of error or confusion.		Organise prior knowledge, make connections, reason, construct explanations, metacognition, reflect and plan.
Spaces for learning and developing active 7 methodologies in real contexts.The space replicates the use of traditional methodologies through textbooks with individual exercises and based on the mechanical training of students.The provision of space facilitates sometimes the interrelation of classroom activities with real-world contexts. Nevertheless, learning remains predicated on the mechanical training of specific operations.The workspace is designed to provide solutions to real problems, with students actively seeking solutions to problems presented to them, but always within the classroom.The learning space has been meticulously designed to provide solutions to real problems, where students are encouraged to work actively with materials both inside and outside the classroom, and to introduce elements into the classroom that will improve learning processes.Establish connections, make questions, plan, involve, make complex.
Interrelation of spaces.Spaces are delimited, generating closed and hermetic learning corners.Some spaces are delimited, while in others certain connections are generated.The spaces are not clearly defined, but the interconnection between them is limited, as it is difficult for students to move from one to another.The spaces are not delimited, generating interrelations between them and guaranteeing the possibility of creating varied learning itineraries.metacognition, synthetise, imply, establish connections, capture the essence, explore.
Level of maturity according to the AdF 8.According to the AdF model, the classroom is at Level 1–2 (Change/Enrich) with little or very limited ICT presence.The classroom is located on Level 3 of the AdF maturity model, fostering student collaboration and autonomy through technology.The classroom is at level 4 of maturity, allowing for the broadening of the objectives and learning processes of the students and encourages their self-regulation.The classroom is at the optimum level of techno-pedagogical innovation, providing autonomy and freedom to both students and teachers.Metacognition, make complex, explore.
3. 
Space for Reflective Thinking
3.1.
Creation of the Ikertu (Investigate) space
Space for students to explore and self-explore.The classroom does not guarantee a space where students can question their previous knowledge and explore new ideas. Therefore, it lacks the Ikertu space.The classroom allows for the exploration of the students, as long as it is guided by the teacher. In a way, starting from the foundations of Ikertu.The classroom facilitates the exploration and self-exploration of students to a limited extent, owing to a lack of resources, resulting in the creation of an Ikertu space that is deficient in resources and functioning.The space has been meticulously organised to facilitate students in conducting research at their own pace, challenging their pre-existing knowledge and paving the way for the acquisition of novel insights, thereby aligning with the core objectives of an Ikertu space.Investigate, explore, discover, describe, explore complexity, organise previous knowledge, relate, interpret, infer, identify new ideas, analyse and observe.
3.2.
Creation of the Sortu (Create) space
Space for sharing opinions and comparing ideas for product creation.The classroom does not provide spaces and/or moments where students can compare their research and/or opinions and listen to those of others, limiting opportunities for individual and collective creation.The classroom guarantees interaction between students in a very limited way, so the contrast of ideas and opinions is limited, as is the creation of products, starting with a design of the Sortu space.The classroom is designed to guarantee spaces and moments where students can contrast product research in person, although the creation of products based on this is limited, creating a Sortu space that allows for collaboration but limits creation.The classroom provides spaces and times when students can compare their research and improve it based on other contributions and then design products in person and/or online, creating a Sortu space that is true to its objectives.Explain, listen, summarise, make questions, describe, reason, feedback, interrogate, observe, analyse.
3.3.
Creation of the Komunikatu (Communicate) space
Space for sharing products and research, testing hypotheses and receiving substantiated contributions.The classroom does not guarantee the presentation of research conducted, thereby leading to the dissolution of the Komunikatu space.The classroom guarantees the exhibition of the work done, but does not include the idea of receiving contributions from others, starting with ideas related to the Komunikatu space.The classroom generates spaces where ideas are presented and received, without generating syntheses or bridges between them, creating a Komunikatu space that does not attend to the interpersonal relationships of the students.The classroom is designed to present completed research, test hypotheses and receive substantiated contributions, either online or in person, to generate new or improved ideas from the contributions, creating a culture of collaborative thinking as characterised by the Komunikatu space.Listen, summarise, reason, counter-argue, construct explanations, feedback, make questions, focus attention, identify new ideas.
3.4.
Create of Pentsatu (Think) space
Spaces for the development of metacognition.The space does not inherently guarantee opportunities for discourse on thinking or the development of metacognitive thinking, which consequently complicates the evaluation processes undertaken by students.Some spaces include metacognitive elements and elements for reflection on learning processes.All the spaces include some detail that refers to metacognitive thinking, without making it explicit directly and without establishing connections between them.All the spaces bring together different moments and materials to encourage metacognitive reflection and reflection on the learning process, making thinking visible and connecting that thinking throughout the different moments of the learning process.Metacognition, reflect, remember, extract, reason, identify complexities, take perspective, consider implications.
4. 
Space to Develop and Maintain Deep Learning
4.1.
Learning styles and learning flexibility.
Space for the development of the same educational and cognitive processes in different ways 9.Space does not guarantee opportunities to develop educational and cognitive processes in a varied way, being restrictive in the field of cognitive accessibility and limiting the experience to one type of intelligence.Space guarantees the possibility of performing cognitive and educational processes in a variety of ways, but always based on linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences.The space guarantees a diverse experience adapted to the cognitive needs of the students, but only at certain points in the learning process.The classroom environment fosters the development of cognitive processes, offering a diverse array of learning opportunities throughout the teaching and learning process. This facilitates the attainment of learning objectives through varied pathways, thereby enhancing cognitive accessibility.Extract, metacognition, establish connections, identify the key concept, distil, organise knowledge, make decisions, relate, remember.
1 A collaborative space is understood to be a space that fulfils the four conditions established by Gamboa-Rodríguez (2015) for the formulation of Interactive Collaborative Spaces (ICS). These conditions are as follows: (1) shared solution areas, referring to the need for the learning space to offer private and public workspaces; (2) distributed control, referring to the guarantee that every participant in a group can interact with the material or project at all times; (3) human-scale interfaces, referring to the spatial guarantee that users can meet comfortably around the project or problem they are working on; and (4) omnidirectional interfaces, allowing multidirectional interaction with the material so that it is oriented towards the disposition of any participant in the group and communication is as clear as possible. 2 Relational space is understood to be the set of interactions that occur between all the educational agents in the predetermined space (Peralvo Basantes, 2021). 3 The indicator is predicated on the notion that the implementation of technology fosters learning through Technology Enhanced Environments (TEE), as this is instrumental in the collection, storage and transformation of data in the Information Society, thereby paving the way for ambient intelligence (Cabero Almenara, 2017). However, it is important to acknowledge that the creation of these technology-rich intelligent spaces requires techno-pedagogical planning. To this end, the levels of specificity have been established through Puentedura’s SAMR model (Puentedura, 2010) (Sánchez-Márquez et al., 2018) and the technological characteristics (connectivity, ubiquity and personalisation) that these intelligent spaces must possess, as posited by Zhu et al. (2016) and García-Tudela (2023). 4 It is important to understand space as a learning environment and not as a corner (Riera Jaume et al., 2014). That is to say, as a learning space not tied to a specific discipline or job, which allows students to modify the spatial organisation and which is more tied to the development of cognitive skills and processes than to the development of content (Yañez-Perea & Bilbao-Quintana, 2024). 5 The three UDL principles are as follows: (1) The principle of multiple forms of engagement, which guarantees an understanding of the purpose of the teaching-learning process, involves students and generates motivation among them in a diverse way. (2) The principle of multiple forms of representation, which is intended to convey content and information to students in a diverse way. (3) The principle of multiple forms of expression. The objective of this principle is to ensure that each student can articulate their knowledge and learning processes through a variety of strategic and organisational skills (CAST, 2024; Alba Pastor et al., 2018). 6 Autonomy is defined as the capacity of students to assume responsibility for their own learning process. In order to achieve this autonomy, it is essential that students are provided with opportunities to take control of the learning process and make decisions for themselves. Concurrently, teachers must be willing to adopt a different role, thereby avoiding the exercise of power relations that could hinder the development of student autonomy (Luelmo del Castillo, 2020). 7 Defining active learning as ‘the process of acquiring knowledge, skills, values and attitudes through any educational strategy that involves students in the process by engaging them in activities and discussions, rather than simply putting them in the position of passively listening to information given by the teacher’ (Pertusa-Mirete, 2020, p. 4). According to Lara-Robayo et al. (2024), active methodologies are designed to promote student engagement through problem-solving and the application of concepts to real-world contexts, facilitated collaboratively and adapted to the needs of the students. As indicators 1.1. and 4.1. already address elements related to collaboration between students and flexibility of learning, the present indicator focuses exclusively on the implementation of these methodologies in real-world contexts. 8 Indicator to be measured using the ‘Aula del Futuro’ maturity level measurement rubric (INTEF, n.d.). https://auladelfuturo.intef.es/noticias/modulo-2-del-kit-modelos-de-madurez-para-el-aula-del-futuro/ (accessed on 25 Novembre 2025). 9 In response to the cognitive diversity that Gardner (1993) refers to in his theory of Multiple Intelligences, emphasising the need to generate rich and varied educational experiences to address the cognitive diversity of students, through his theory of entry points (Rigo, 2017; Moran et al., 2006; Gardner, 1993).

Appendix B. Knowledge Coefficient (Kc), Argumentation Coefficient (Ka) and Expert Competence Index (K) Obtained by Each of the Experts

Table A2. Knowledge Coefficient (Kc), Argumentation Coefficient (Ka) and Expert Competence Index (K) obtained by each of the experts.
Table A2. Knowledge Coefficient (Kc), Argumentation Coefficient (Ka) and Expert Competence Index (K) obtained by each of the experts.
ExpertKnowledge Coefficient
(Kc)		Argumentation Coefficient (Ka)Expert Competence Index (K)
EX10.910.95
EX20.90.90.9
EX30.60.70.65
EX40.70.80.75
EX50.910.95
EX60.810.9
EX70.70.80.75
EX80.80.90.85
EX90.70.80.75
EX100.910.95
EX110.90.90.9
EX120.70.80.75
EX130.80.90.85
Overall average0.790.880.835

References

  1. Alba Pastor, C., Sánchez Serrano, J. M., & Zubillaga del Río, A. (2018). DUA: Diseño universal para el aprendizaje. Documento adaptado a la versión 2018. Educadua y Edelvives. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alcaraz García, S. (2022). Guía de observación y evaluación de la idoneidad del espacio físico en el aula [Ph.D. thesis, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid]. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Aleixo, A. A., Silva, B., & Ramos, M. A. S. (2021). Análisis del uso de la cultura maker en contextos educativos: Una revisión sistemática de la literatura. Educatio Siglo XXI, 39(2), 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Attewell, J. (2019). Building learning labs and innovative learning spaces. Practical guidelines for school leaders and teachers. European Schoolnet. Available online: https://fcl.eun.org/documents/10180/4589040/FCL_guidelines_2019_DEF.pdf (accessed on 25 November 2025).
  5. Brookhart, S. (2018). Appropriate criteria: Key to effective rubrics. Frontiers in Education, 3, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cabero Almenara, J. (2017). La formación en la era digital: Ambientes enriquecidos por la tecnología. Gestión de la Innovación en Educación Superior, II(2), 41–64. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/157759633.pdf (accessed on 25 November 2025).
  7. Cabero Almenara, J., & Barroso Osuna, J. (2013). La utilización del juicio experto para la evaluación de TIC: El coeficiente de competencia experta. Bordon, 65(2), 25–38. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4283114.pdf (accessed on 25 November 2025). [CrossRef]
  8. Cañas Encinas, M., Pinedo González, R., & García Martín, N. (2021). La promoción y la enseñanza de las habilidades del pensamiento profundo y visible en las sesiones de educación física en educación primaria. Retos: Nuevas Tendencias en Educación Física, Deporte y Recreación, 41, 387–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. CAST. (2024). Pautas de diseño universal para el aprendizaje, versión 3.0 [graphic design]. CAST. Available online: https://udlguidelines.cast.org/static/udlg3-graphicorganizer_spanish_update_8142024.pdf (accessed on 25 November 2025).
  10. Castro Campos, P. A. (2022). Reflexiones sobre la educación STEAM, alternativa para el siglo XXI. Praxis, 18(1), 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Espinar, E. M., & Vigueras, J. A. (2020). El aprendizaje experiencial y su impacto en la educación actual. Revista Cubana de Educación Superior, 39(3), 1–14. Available online: http://scielo.sld.cu/pdf/rces/v39n3/0257-4314-rces-39-03-e12.pdf (accessed on 25 November 2025).
  12. Evin, I., Erdogan, M., Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. (2021). Rubric for experiential training. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(4), 188–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fernández, L. (2007). ¿Cómo se elabora un cuestionario? Butlletí LaRecerca. [Google Scholar]
  14. Gamboa-Rodríguez, F. (2015). Diseño de espacios colaborativos interactivos para el aprendizaje. In J. Zubileta-García, & C. Rama Vitale (Coords.), La educación a distancia en México: Una nueva realidad universitaria (pp. 201–211). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México & Virtual Educa. [Google Scholar]
  15. García Alcaraz, F., Alfaro Espín, A., Hernández Martínez, A., & Molina Alarcón, M. (2006). Diseño de Cuestionarios para la recogida de información: Metodología y limitaciones. Revista Clínica de Medicina de Familia, 1(5), 232–236. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1696/169617616006.pdf (accessed on 25 November 2025).
  16. García Fuentes, O., Raposo Rivas, M., & Martínez Figueira, M. E. (2023). El enfoque educativo STEAM: Una revisión de la literatura. Revista Complutense de Educación, 34(1), 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. García-Tudela, P. A. (2023). Entornos inteligentes de aprendizaje: Modelos, análisis y prospectiva [Ph.D. thesis, Universidad de Murcia]. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10201/135373 (accessed on 25 November 2025).
  18. Gardner, H. (1993). Inteligencias múltiples: La teoría en la práctica. Planeta. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gordon, T. (1997). The delphi method. AC/UNU Millennium Project. Available online: https://eumed-agpol.iamm.fr/private/priv_docum/wp5_files/5-delphi.pdf (accessed on 25 November 2025).
  20. Government of the Canary Islands. (2020). Guía para la transformación de espacios educativos. Government of the Canary Islands. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gómez García, M., Alameda Villarubia, A., Poyatos Dorado, C., & Ortega Rodríguez, P. J. (2022). Future classroom lab: A project for the pedagogical redefinition of educational centers. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 98(36.2), 133–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Granados, H., & García, C. L. (2016). El modelo del aprendizaje experiencial como alternativa para mejorar el proceso de aprendizaje en el aula. Ánfora, 23(41), 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gutiérrez-Esteban, P., & Jaramillo-Sánchez, G. (2022). Por una educación maker inclusiva. revisión de la literatura (2016–2021): [For an inclusive maker education. literature review (2016–2021)]. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 64, 201–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. INTEF. (n.d.). Módulo 2 del KIT: Modelos de madurez para el Aula del Futuro. Available online: https://auladelfuturo.intef.es/kit-aula-del-futuro/ (accessed on 12 November 2025).
  25. Juan Poveda, C. G. (2020). Discusión sobre la robótica educacional y el movimiento maker en educación: Perspectivas y retos [Master’s Thesis, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya]. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10609/118446 (accessed on 25 November 2025).
  26. Landeta, J. (1999). El método Delphi: Una tecnica de previsión para la incertidumbre. Ariel. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lara-Robayo, C. F., Punina-Soto, M., Pazmiño-Andaluz, I. C., Garcés-Escalante, Y. M., Alvear-Vargas, C. C., Proaño-Cruz, M. C., Coronado-Salinas, J. E., Gómez-Muñoz, L. P., Gómez-Muñoz, V. H., & Nuñez-Lescano, J. M. (2024). Efectividad de las metodologías activas en el desarrollo de competencias matemáticas en estudiantes de educación básica. Polo del Conocimiento: Revista Científico-Profesional, 9(1), 1728–1748. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/9282003.pdf (accessed on 25 November 2025).
  28. López-Gómez, E. (2018). El método Delphi en la investigación actual en educación: Una revisión teórica y metodológica. Educación XX1, 21(1), 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ludwig, B. (1997). Predicting the future: Have you considered using Delphi methodology? Journal of Extension, 35(5), 15. Available online: https://archives.joe.org/joe/1997october/tt2.php (accessed on 25 November 2025).
  30. Luelmo del Castillo, M. J. (2020). Autonomía del alumno: Implicaciones para el profesor: ENSAYOS. Revista De La Facultad De Educación De Albacete, 35(2), 267–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Manrique, M. S. (2020). Tipología de procesos cognitivos. Una herramienta para el análisis de situaciones de enseñanza. Educación, 29(57), 163–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Moncayo Bermúdez, H., & Prieto López, Y. (2022). El uso de metodologías de aprendizaje activo para fomentar el desarrollo del pensamiento visible en los estudiantes de bachillerato de U.E.F. Víctor Naranjo Fiallo. 593 Digital Publisher CEIT, 7(1), 43–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Moran, S., Kornhaber, M., & Gardner, H. (2006). Orchestrating multiple intelligences. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 22–27. [Google Scholar]
  34. Muchiut, A. F., Vaccaro, P., Díaz, S. C., Roskiewich, R., Passamani, A. H., Sosa, S. E., & Vallejos, B. (2022). Evaluación de las funciones ejecutivas mediante rúbricas. Journal of Neuroeducation, 3(1), 134–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Peralvo Basantes, M. A. (2021). Dimensión relacional: Eje de potencialización de experiencias de aprendizaje en la educación inicial. Revista Scientific, 6(21), 201–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pertusa-Mirete, J. (2020). Metodologías activas. La necesaria actualización del sistema educativo y la práctica docente. Supervisión 21: Revista de Educación e Inspección, 56(56), 1–21. Available online: https://usie.es/supervision21/index.php/Sp21/article/view/467/861 (accessed on 25 November 2025).
  37. Puentedura, R. (2010). SAMR and TPCK: Intro to advanced practice. Available online: http://hippasus.com/resources/sweden2010/SAMR_TPCK_IntroToAdvancedPractice.pdf (accessed on 25 November 2025).
  38. Ramírez Chávez, M. A., & Ramírez Torres, M. Z. (2024). El método DELPHI como herramienta de investigación. Una revision. LATAM. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, 5(1), 3368–3383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Riera Jaume, M. A., Ferrer Ribot, M. J., & Ribas Mas, C. (2014). La organización del espacio por ambientes de aprendizaje en la Educación Infantil: Significados, antecedentes y reflexiones. RELAdEI: Revista latinoamericana de Educación Infantil, 3(2), 19–39. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=7598479 (accessed on 25 November 2025).
  40. Rigo, D. Y. (2017). Pensando las puertas de entrada al conocimiento. Anuario de Investigaciones, 5(1), 19–32. Available online: https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/aifp/article/view/18297/18488 (accessed on 25 November 2025).
  41. Ritchhart, R. (2015). Creating cultures of thinking. The 8 forces we must master to truly transform our schools. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ritchhart, R., & Church, M. (2020). The power of making thinking visible: Practices to engage and empower all learners. Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2014). Hacer visible el pensamiento. Paidós. [Google Scholar]
  44. Rodríguez-Gallego, M. (2017). Evidenciar competencias con rúbricas de evaluación. Escuela Abierta, 17, 117–124. Available online: https://ea.ceuandalucia.es/index.php/EA/article/view/57/34 (accessed on 25 November 2025). [CrossRef]
  45. Román Graván, P., Sánchez Toscano López, M. R., Hervás Gómez, C., & Cotrino García, J. A. (2023). Las aulas del futuro como recurso educativo en la formación de docentes y estudiantes. In B. Peña Acuña (Coord.), El aula del futuro. Experiencias educativas (pp. 41–60). Octaedro. [Google Scholar]
  46. Salmon, A. K., & Barrera, M. X. (2021). What are you thinking?: Scaffolding thinking to promote learning. YC Young Children, 76(2), 59–63. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sánchez-Márquez, J. A., Sellares-Alegre, N., Hernández-Muñoz, N. A., & Mondelo-Villaseñor, M. (2018). Integration of technological and didactic tools in the development of competences focused on solving problems and making decisions. Revista GEON, 5(2), 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yañez-Perea, A., & Bilbao-Quintana, N. (2024). IkasLab. Una adaptación del Aula del Futuro a partir de un análisis sistemático. In C. Llorente-Cejudo, R. Barragán-Sánchez, N. Pérez-Rodríguez, & L. Martín-Párraga (Coords.), Enseñanza e innovación educativa en el ámbito universitario (pp. 2059–2068). Dykinson. [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhu, Z., Sun, Y., & Riezebos, P. (2016). Introducing the smart education framework: Core elements for successful learning in digital world. International Journal of Smart, 1(1), 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Profile of the expert panel.
Table 1. Profile of the expert panel.
ExpertWorkplaceProfessional StatusStudy FieldSex
EX1Harvard Graduate School of Education, Project Zero (EEUU)ProfessorCognitive processes and thinkingM
EX2Complutense University of MadridDoctor, LecturerCognitive processes and thinkingF
EX3Ikasbidea Ikastola IPI Secondary SchoolTeacher at secondary schoolIkasLab classroom teacherM
EX4Simon Bolivar Andean University (Ecuador)ProfessorICT in educationM
EX5La Sabana University (Colombia)Doctor, LecturerCognitive processes, thinking and ICT in educationF
EX6Complutense University of MadridDoctor, LecturerCognitive Processes, thinking and ICT in educationM
EX7IES Miguel de Unamuno Secondary SchoolTeacher at secondary schoolIkasLab classroom teacherF
EX8CEIP Plaentxi Primary SchoolTeacher at primary schoolIkasLab classroom TeacherF
EX9CEIP Gandasegi Primary SchoolTeacher at primary schoolIkasLab classroom teacherM
EX10Autonomous University of Bucaramanga (Colombia)LecturerCognitive processes and thinkingM
EX11Berritzegune CentralConsultantHead of IkasLab project, ICT in educationF
EX12University of Andorra (Andorra)Doctor, LecturerICT in educationF
EX13Universidad del Desarrollo UDD (Chile)Doctor and Magister directorCognitive processes and thinkingF
Table 2. Assessment of sources of argumentation to obtain the “Argumentation Coefficient” (Ka) (Cabero Almenara & Barroso Osuna, 2013) (translated).
Table 2. Assessment of sources of argumentation to obtain the “Argumentation Coefficient” (Ka) (Cabero Almenara & Barroso Osuna, 2013) (translated).
Source of ArgumentationDegree of Influence of Each Source on Their Criteria
H
(High)		M
(Medium)		L
(Low)
Theoretical analyses carried out by the expert0.30.20.1
Experience gained0.50.40.2
Study of works on the subject by Spanish authors0.050.050.05
Study of works on the subject by foreign authors0.050.050.05
Self-knowledge about the state of the problem in foreign contexts0.050.050.05
Own intuition0.050.050.05
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yañez-Perea, A.; Bilbao-Quintana, N.; López-De la Serna, A. Delphi Validation of a Rubric for IkasLab Spaces for Active and Global Learning. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 1610. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15121610

AMA Style

Yañez-Perea A, Bilbao-Quintana N, López-De la Serna A. Delphi Validation of a Rubric for IkasLab Spaces for Active and Global Learning. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(12):1610. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15121610

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yañez-Perea, Aitor, Naiara Bilbao-Quintana, and Arantzazu López-De la Serna. 2025. "Delphi Validation of a Rubric for IkasLab Spaces for Active and Global Learning" Education Sciences 15, no. 12: 1610. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15121610

APA Style

Yañez-Perea, A., Bilbao-Quintana, N., & López-De la Serna, A. (2025). Delphi Validation of a Rubric for IkasLab Spaces for Active and Global Learning. Education Sciences, 15(12), 1610. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15121610

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop