Teacher and Speech-Language Therapist Perceptions of Classroom Listening in Innovative Learning Environment Classrooms

Abstract

The shift towards collaborative teaching practices and the development of Innovative Learning Environments (ILEs) have brought significant changes to educational settings, particularly regarding acoustic demands and classroom listening. The experiences of teachers and other professionals working within ILEs are under-researched. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore how educators and professionals perceive and manage classroom listening and learning within these spaces. Using a qualitative approach, semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight primary school teachers and eight speech-language therapists working in various school ILEs. Transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Three major themes were identified, namely experiences, creating order, and opportunities, with each theme encompassing two subthemes. Experiences included difficulties and positive experiences; creating order comprised teaching approaches and making it work; and opportunities involved collaboration and new roles. Key factors influencing the effectiveness of ILEs included collaboration, strategic resource use, use of scaffolding techniques, flexibility, and student engagement. The study highlighted the importance of mentorship for beginner teachers in order to foster a dynamic and supportive learning environment. Understanding these elements can help educators and professionals working together in ILE classrooms to shape their practices to enhance student outcomes.

1. Introduction

With increases in digital technology and changing teaching practices over the last few decades, there has been increasing support for educational spaces that more readily accommodate the learning needs of 21st century learners, with claims that traditional schooling is no longer relevant for modern times (Saltmarsh et al., 2015; Wilson, 2015). In response to these claims, there has been an international shift towards more collaborative teaching practice and the development of Innovative Learning Environments (ILEs) (Abbiss, 2015; Saltmarsh et al., 2015). This international shift is exemplified by initiatives such as the European Schoolnet’s Future Classroom Lab (FCL), which redesigns learning spaces into flexible, technology-enriched zones to promote collaborative, student-centred pedagogies (European Schoolnet, 2012). Like ILEs, the FCL is grounded in the principle that physical space, pedagogy, and technology must be integrated to support 21st-century learning, reinforcing that this approach to educational innovation extends well beyond any single country or policy context.

As learning and technology evolve so quickly, it is important to understand what is meant by innovation in relation to schools. Educational innovation is a significant issue in the international literature on education reform; the ultimate goal is to provide students with the ability to adapt to today’s complex and dynamic world (Huang et al., 2026). In this context, innovation is not a particular device or architectural trend, but rather the implementation of new ideas, methods and tools to enhance teaching and learning. In New Zealand, the term Innovative Learning Environments (ILEs) has been defined not just as open or flexible physical spaces but as learning ecosystems that encompass physical, social and pedagogical aspects (Ministry of Education, 2025; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2013), which also now includes a focus on inclusivity through Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (CAST, 2024; Ministry of Education, 2025). ILEs were introduced in educational policy language prior to the advent of technologies like generative AI and immersive technologies, but were designed to be future-focused and flexible as educational practices evolve (Abbiss, 2015; Ministry of Education, 2025; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2017).

To facilitate this adaptability, ILE classrooms are designed to have a number of key features including flexibility, openness and ensuring that learners have access to a variety of resources including technology and their peers (Ministry of Education, 2016; The Education Hub, 2018). In New Zealand, older classrooms have been progressively converted into open-plan ILE spaces, enabling combined classes and more flexible learning arrangements (Ministry of Education, 2011). However, these learning environments can pose significant challenges to teachers who are trying to balance the autonomous and flexible learning needs of their students, while managing the complexities of shared spaces and resources, decreased teacher-to-student ratios and the variable responsiveness of students to learning in open-plan settings (Saltmarsh et al., 2015). Although ILEs are desirable for pedagogical reasons (Education Review Office, 2018), spaces that are shared between multiple classes create a noisy acoustic environment which can negatively impact student wellbeing and learning (Bates et al., 2021; Dockrell & Shield, 2006, 2008; Mealings et al., 2015a, 2015c; Mealings, 2022a; Rance et al., 2023; Wilson, 2015; Yang & Bradley, 2009).

Research examining the acoustic environment in ILEs has highlighted the listening and speaking challenges faced by students and teachers within these environments. Classroom noise and teacher voice levels impact children’s ability to learn effectively and teachers’ vocal health (Mealings, 2016; Mealings et al., 2024). In addition, children with sensory or socio-cognitive difficulties may be more negatively affected by noisy environments, making their learning more challenging in open-plan classrooms (Benade, 2019; Mealings, 2022b). This highlights a critical intersection between spatial design and inclusion. When educational innovation is framed primarily in architectural or technological terms without a parallel focus on inclusive pedagogy, it risks overlooking the fundamental requirements of students with special educational needs. For an ILE to be truly successful, the physical environment must be coupled with inclusive teaching strategies that ensure vulnerable learners are not marginalized. Zipf et al.’s (2025) research involving a purposeful sample of students highlighted the need for careful consideration of the opportunities afforded by flexible learning spaces in order to ensure they are inclusive and not distracting.

A systematic review by Byers et al. (2018c) found that, since 1960, only 21 robust studies have been published about ILEs, with only three reporting a statistical benefit for children’s learning. This confirms a frequently stated claim that there is little evidence linking positive student outcomes to the shift in classroom design. Hattie’s (2009) systematic review concluded that quality teaching has a greater impact on students’ educational outcomes than other factors such as class size and structure, showing that problem-based learning and engaging students in co-operative learning had robust positive effects. Given that robust evaluation of these environments remains difficult, and teacher practice is central to facilitating these positive student outcomes, research into teachers’ experiences navigating ILEs is urgently needed.

1.1. Innovative Learning Environments (ILEs) in New Zealand Schools

In New Zealand, most school buildings were built at a time where traditional teaching methods were applied, with teaching being perceived as something that is “done to students”, rather than the current pedagogy that teaching is most effectively done collaboratively alongside the learner. There has been a dramatic increase in what we know about learning through research such as Hattie’s (2009) systematic review, and brain imaging studies that have allowed researchers to see the brain in action as learning occurs (Martin et al., 2015; Posner & Rothbart, 2005; Qin et al., 2004). This information has been used to redesign educational spaces and approaches (Ministry of Education, 2020b). The Ministry of Education has encouraged and funded schools to progressively update their learning spaces to flexible, open-plan ILE classrooms (Education Review Office, 2018; Ministry of Education, 2025). This policy direction reflects a commitment to ensuring that children school leavers acquire essential 21st-century skills, including problem solving and critical thinking, collaboration, leadership, adaptability, initiative, curiosity, and imagination, alongside effective oral and written communication and ability to access and analyse information (Benade, 2019; Ministry of Education, 2025). Establishing an evidence base to support ILEs is challenging, as there are few robust and valid instruments that assess these learning domains; hence, evaluations of the impact of learning spaces typically focus on student outcomes rather than on learning processes (Byers et al., 2018a). Since teachers are critical for student learning, research is also needed to fully understand the experiences of teachers working within modern classrooms. Alansari and Li (2022), drawing on NZCER’s National Survey of secondary schools, reported that some secondary teachers perceive that students can feel overwhelmed and distracted in ILEs, and recommended further research into both teacher and student experiences, including the specific teaching behaviours that might enhance student experiences in these environments (Alansari & Li, 2022; New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 2018).

1.2. Classroom Acoustics and Listening

For many children, primary school offers a first experience of formal education, preparing them for further education and life, through language, literacy, numeracy, and various other skills. The major methods of communication for younger children in the educational setting involve speaking and listening, due to children’s listening comprehension outpacing their reading comprehension (Hogan et al., 2014). It is vital that physical learning environments in classrooms are conducive to learning through listening for all children from these early stages to enhance future opportunities (Barrett et al., 2017; Fisher & Frey, 2014; Mealings, 2022b). Increased class size and structure negatively affect students’ speech perception and understanding. Studies conducted by Mealings et al. (2015c) in Australia, Dockrell and Shield (2008) in the United Kingdom, and Yang and Bradley (2009) in Canada all show higher intrusive noise levels in open-plan classrooms compared to conventional single-cell classrooms, resulting in signal-to-noise ratios (level of teacher’s voice relative to background noise) and speech intelligibility scores that are poorer than recommended for primary classrooms (Acoustical Society of America, 2000, 2002; Rance et al., 2023; Shield et al., 2010).

Acoustic performance requirements for New Zealand schools are set out by the Ministry of Education in Designing Quality Learning Spaces (DQLS), Acoustics Version 3.0, 2022 (Ministry of Education, 2020a), which specifies ambient noise levels using A-weighted equivalent continuous sound pressure level (LAeq dB SPL). Mandatory acoustic requirements include maximum ambient noise levels for occupied and unoccupied classrooms, specified separately for different spaces including learning spaces larger than 300 m³ and breakout rooms (unoccupied values range from 30 to 50 dB). Reverberation times and other acoustic specifications in the DQLS are designed to optimise speech intelligibility. Speech understanding is more adversely affected by poor classroom acoustics in children with hearing loss and communication difficulties; it has been recommended that noise levels should be 10 dB lower and reverberation times 0.2 s lower for these children (Mealings, 2016). Students with learning or language difficulties may also be differentially disadvantaged by noise and other distractions (Dockrell & Shield, 2006, 2008; Mealings et al., 2015c, 2015d; Mealings, 2016; Yang & Bradley, 2009).

Research in the United Kingdom exploring teachers’ and students’ perceptions of classroom noise and effects of different school environments on listening and learning found that, compared with older children with equivalent noise conditions, younger children perceived it as harder to listen to their teacher (Dockrell & Shield, 2008). Children reported being aware of a wide variety of both internal and external noise sources (Dockrell & Shield, 2004). There was a linear relationship between the children’s reports of greater perceived classroom noise and objective measures of noise, indicating that children are able to judge their listening environment. In Australia, Mealings et al. (2015a) observed a similar linear relationship between children’s perception and objective measurements, based on questionnaire responses. The highest ratings of distraction and difficulty concentrating and listening to the teacher and peers in the classroom corresponded to the classrooms with the highest objective measures of noise. Mealings et al. (2015b) also investigated teachers’ self-reported teaching background and style, the demographics of the children in their class, how they perceived the classroom listening environment, what internal and external noise sources were present, how they coped with noise, and their perceptions of open-plan versus enclosed classrooms. Teachers in larger, noisier classrooms (based on objective measurements) reported being more distracted by noise and found communication significantly more difficult than the teachers in smaller, quieter classrooms.

1.3. Impacts of Teaching on Classroom Listening

Although the success of students is largely attributed to the quality and style of teaching (Hattie, 2009), the building and acoustic features of learning spaces clearly have some impact (Rance et al., 2023; Mealings, 2022b; Mealings & Buchholz, 2024). Benade has argued that it is the social practice that happens within the space that is foremost, rather than the physical form of the space itself (Benade, 2019), a view supported by New Zealand studies showing that teachers’ and students’ perceptions of ILEs depend largely on how teaching and learning are organized within these spaces (Fletcher & Everatt, 2021; Fletcher et al., 2023). Perceived noise levels and relationships play a part in the dynamics of the space and may be experienced differently by teachers and students (Mealings & Buchholz, 2024; Mealings et al., 2024; Saltmarsh et al., 2015). Rhoad-Drogalis et al. (2018) examined whether positive teacher–child relationships may act as a protective factor for children with communication difficulties, enhancing important classroom-learning behaviours such as listening and communication. This longitudinal study used regression models to examine associations between the quality of the teacher–child relationship and future classroom learning behaviours. A positive teacher–child relationship was associated with better classroom-learning behaviours in school for children with communication difficulties. With the move towards ILEs, the number of students in each learning space has increased and teachers report greater challenges in monitoring and supporting individual learners, particularly amid higher levels of noise and distraction (Fletcher & Everatt, 2021; Fletcher et al., 2023). These conditions may influence teacher–child relationships and learning outcomes, especially for students who are more vulnerable to acoustic and attentional demands. Sun et al. (2022), however, noted that, while direct instruction privileges teacher–student interaction, collaborative groups result in better student engagement. They measured interactions in 24 fifth-grade classrooms and found that students were cognitively, behaviourally and emotionally more engaged during collaborative groups than during direct instruction.

Hattie’s (2009) synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses identified six broad domains that influence achievement (the student, home, school, curricula, teacher, and teaching and learning approaches), with teacher-related factors exerting a particular strong impact. In this work, Hattie argues that effective teachers deliberately foster classroom environments in which errors are welcomed as opportunities for learning, and where both teacher and students use mistakes to challenge misconceptions and refine their understanding (Hattie, 2009). While the literature provides valuable guidance for educational excellence, further research is needed to understand how teachers can respond to this evidence base and effectively adapt their practices within ILEs in New Zealand. Given the substantial changes in both the physical learning environment and pedagogical approaches associated with ILEs, there is a clear need to investigate how educators navigate these shifts and to identify strategies that support high-quality teaching and learning in these settings (Fletcher & Everatt, 2021; French et al., 2020).

Saltmarsh et al. (2015) examined teachers’ experiences in ILEs in three primary schools in Sydney using observational and interview data. Their findings highlighted that teachers’ conceptualisation of “structure” significantly shaped their pedagogical responses in open-plan settings. More recent work on innovative learning environments similarly argues that successful use of ILEs depends on providing teachers and leaders with ongoing, context-specific professional learning and support for planning, collaborating and managing learning in these spaces (Imms & Kvan, 2021). Similarly, Linek et al. (2003) investigated an intervention program focused on collaborative teaching to enhance student outcomes. This study aimed to shift educational practice from a teacher-centred to a student-centred approach. Although the intervention yielded positive results, it remains unclear whether improved student achievement was directly attributable to the professional development programme or other influencing factors. Further research is required to explore teachers’ experiences and identify effective strategies for aligning teaching practices with ILEs, particularly as the transition from traditional classrooms impacts both teacher and student behaviours (Byers et al., 2018b).

The present study seeks to examine how teachers and other professionals (speech-language therapists, SLTs) working within ILEs perceive classroom activities and children’s listening and learning. Through qualitative interviews, the current study aims to generate new insights into the lived experiences of professionals working in these environments, capturing the specific teaching practices that contribute to student success. By identifying key themes and pathways, this research intends to provide recommendations that can support educators in adapting their instructional methods to maximise student engagement and learning in ILE settings.

This study is significant because it addresses a clear gap in the current evidence base for teaching and student support practices within ILEs, particularly from the perspectives of teachers and SLTs. By focusing on professional accounts of classroom listening and learning, this research moves beyond architectural descriptions and policy rhetoric to illuminate day-to-day practices and adaptations that shape children’s opportunities to engage within ILEs. The findings are expected to yield context-relevant strategies for supporting student engagement, based on educator and SLT perceptions of effective practice, which can in turn guide school-level decision making and professional development tailored to ILEs.

Although children with learning and communication difficulties are likely to be disproportionately affected by the shift to ILEs (Dockrell & Shield, 2006; Millett, 2009; Rhoad-Drogalis et al., 2018), this study does not focus explicitly on these students. Instead, it aims to contribute to broader discussions on how teaching practices can be refined to support all students in ILE settings, while still acknowledging the particular vulnerabilities of children with additional learning and communication needs.

The current study explored participants’ personal experience, being concerned with their own perceptions to deepen understanding of classroom listening and the transition from traditional to ILE classrooms (Astalin, 2013). This approach allows participants to share their stories in ways that recognize interpretation as inherent in lived experience, and supports an in-depth exploration of how teachers and SLTs make sense of their practice in these changing environments (Smith, 2004).

2. Materials and Methods

This was a qualitative investigation. Data were obtained from 16 participants through semi-structured interviews (

Table 1. Demographic and professional characteristics of study participants.

Participant Group	Total	Self-Reported Gender (Female; Male)	Age Range (Years)	Experience Range (Years)	Workplace
Primary School Teachers	n = 8	6; 2	20–50	1–20+	† Decile 1–5 primary schools in Auckland, NZ
Speech-Language Therapists (SLTs)	n = 8	7; 1	20–60	1–15+	n = 2 in Ministry of Education (Auckland), n = 6 in private practice (NZ-wide)
Total	n =16	13; 3	20–60	1–20+	Various schools and private settings

† The 2013 New Zealand school decile system was developed to target resources to students from families experiencing material hardship; decile 1 schools are the 10% of schools with the highest proportion of students from low socio-economic communities https://www.ppta.org.nz/about-ppta/publication-library/document/119 (accessed on 12 February 2026).

). After receiving ethics approval from the University of Auckland Human Participant Ethics Committee (UAHPEC), and the Ministry of Education (MoE) (Reference Number: 020890), approved on 7 June 2018, participants were recruited using an advertisement, which was distributed by the primary investigator to schools around Auckland for school principals to consent to participate in the project. Teachers then self-selected to participate. SLT participants self-selected after consent was gained and information was sent out through the MoE, and information was posted on New Zealand online SLT forums. Teacher and SLT participants were coded as T1-T8 and SLT1-SLT8, respectively.

2.1. Procedure

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each participant by the primary investigator over a time period of eight weeks. Interviews followed a guideline of seven over-arching questions for teachers and five for SLTs, with sub-questions as prompts, and the researcher following the participant’s lead (see Appendix A). Each interview took between 20 and 60 min with ten interviews being done face-to-face and six of the interviews (with the privately working SLTs outside of Auckland) being carried out over the phone. These interviews were later transcribed by the primary investigator and reviewed by the co-investigators. Each participant was given a copy of their transcript for member-checking; no participants made changes.

2.2. Data Analysis

An inductive thematic analysis was conducted to explore participants’ experiences and strategies, allowing themes to be identified without the influence of preconceived hypotheses (Ho et al., 2017), whilst acknowledging the positionality of the investigators. The primary investigator was a postgraduate research student in speech-language therapy with prior experience in education at the time of data collection. The co-investigators have extensive research and clinical experience related to supporting children with communication needs in school settings. Guided by Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step framework, the analysis began with familiarisation through thorough reading of each interview transcript. NVivo 11 was used to systematically code meaningful units, which were organised into nodes, then subthemes and major themes that best captured the data (

Table 2. Themes, subthemes, and elements.

Themes	Subthemes	Elements	Participants
Experiences	Difficulties	Distraction	SLT3, SLT7; T2, T4
		Authority	T1, T7, T8
	Positive experiences	Different ways of learning	SLT2; T8
		Exposure to enriching experiences	T2, T3, T6
Creating order	Teaching approaches	Scaffolding	SLT1; T8
		Positioning	SLT1, SLT6; T2, T6
		Attention	T2, T4
		Using the spaces	SLT3; T2
		Resources	SLT1; T2
	Making it work	Planning	SLT3, SLT4; T2, T8
		Communication	SLT1, SLT2, SLT4; T3
		Establishing expectations	SLT3, SLT8; T5
		Flexibility	SLT3, SLT7; T8
Opportunities	Collaboration	Shared awareness	SLT3; T3
		Specialized knowledge	SLT8; T2
	New roles	Independent learner	T6
		Teacher-to-teacher guidance	SLT8; T3, T4

Note: STL; Speech-Language Therapist, T; teacher.

). Final themes were identified iteratively through the researchers reviewing the coding and interim themes. The transcripts were collaboratively analysed, and themes were discussed until consensus was reached regarding common recurring patterns in the data. Verbatim quotes were incorporated in the results and discussion to support the validity of the findings (Whittemore et al., 2001). Comparisons with the literature identified areas of similarity and difference (Tai & Ajjawi, 2016).

3. Results

Three major themes were identified, with each theme encompassing two subthemes (Table 2). These are described, with verbatim quotes to illustrate each subtheme.

3.1. Experiences

All participants, both SLTs and teachers, described a variety of experiences when working in ILE classrooms. These classrooms involve complex relationships and interactions that, when well-managed, provide enriched learning opportunities. However, without effective management, these experiences could be chaotic.

3.1.1. Difficulties

Participants highlighted various challenges arising from the physical environment and complex relationships within ILE classrooms as not merely a logistic hurdle, but as fundamental disruptions to their professional practice. These challenges centred around two key elements: distractions and authority.

• Distractions

Distractions emerged as a recurring barrier, with the architectural transparency of the ILE creating persistent sensory overstimulation. External noise and constant internal movement visible through expansive glass severely fragmented the children’s focus. For SLTs, managing this environment became a primary, exhausting aspect of their clinical role.

SLT3 noted, “You need to be able to control the distraction level so the child can maximise their attention, that is what I spend most of my time doing.” Furthermore, because the open design of the room made it nearly impossible to block out these distractions, it actively worked against keeping students together. As SLT7 explained, “If you find a quiet space within that block, they cannot concentrate because it is all glass and there is a lot of distraction, so sadly for those children they usually need to be withdrawn from that classroom to do their work with us.”

Teachers experienced this architectural openness as a constant competitor for student cognition. Rather than just being noisy, the visual availability of other groups meant students would easily “lose their train of thought, if they see something happen on the other side of the room” (T2). Consequently, establishing collective focus required educators to develop environment-specific strategies just to manage “getting everyone in the space’s attention” (T4).

• Authority

The boundless nature of ILE classrooms also destabilized traditional concepts of authority and professional identity. The lack of physical walls translated into a loss of spatial ownership, forcing educators and SLTs to constantly negotiate power dynamics and shared responsibilities. For many, this shared environment made them feel like they had less control over their work, with T7 expressing, “I do not feel that I have as much ownership of my class, and I find that difficult.”

This loss of spatial control directly impacted pedagogical delivery; because students were “all so spread out, it is hard to make sure that everyone is paying attention and that everyone’s getting the same message” (T1). Furthermore, maintaining authority became heavily dependent on the quality of co-teaching relationships. Authority was no longer inherent to the teacher’s role but had to be relationally negotiated. T8 emphasized that without a “very strong relationship with the person that you are teaching with… if you are battling, then you are better to shut the door and deal with your own class” (T8). Furthermore, T8 highlighted the need for balance in co-teaching dynamics: “It needs to be balanced, and it needs to feel that you are both equal, because it can be a power struggle and that is noticed by the children very, very quickly.”

3.1.2. Positive Experiences

Despite the challenges, more than half of the participants reported positive experiences working within ILEs, particularly regarding how the space fostered student autonomy.

• Different ways of learning

Rather than viewing the open architecture solely as a barrier, many participants experienced the ILE as an adaptable environment that actively facilitated personalized engagement. The spatial design allowed educators to cater to diverse learning profiles by giving children the freedom to physically regulate their bodies and choose how they engaged with tasks. This shift empowered students to take ownership of their leaning process. As T8 observed: “The kids have a choice, they can sit wherever they like and they can move.” Ultimately, participants viewed this physical flexibility not just as a seating arrangement, but as a crucial tool for supporting different developmental and learning needs. SLT2 described the benefits of ILEs: “There does seem to be a lot of catering towards learning modes in terms of the spaces they can work within, the children can choose where they feel more comfortable working when they are doing a follow on activity or an independent activity, there are different spaces that might suit the physical needs, physical as well as the cognitive needs for focusing and attending, so yeah I think it is catering more to their learning style, rather than ‘you all go and sit on that mat and learn over there’, it is ‘you can choose areas that might suit your needs a bit better’.”

• Exposure to enriching experiences

Beyond physical flexibility, the shared nature of the ILE expanded the children’s educational environment. Participants reported that exposure to multiple teachers and a broader range of age groups provided enriched social and academic opportunities.

T6 expressed, “I think it is quite good for the children to get to know more than one teacher, I think it teaches them to be a bit more flexible in their responses.” T3 highlighted the benefits of this exposure to larger groups. “I think it is good for them to have exposure to the larger group, as they can hear more of the conversation, the back-and-forth, and be exposed to more things than they would necessarily experience in a smaller, more focused group. So, I think it is good that they get both, but in terms of getting anything out of them, you want to be in that smaller group.”. T2 discussed how ILE spaces foster collaboration across age groups: “I guess the space gets the children working together quite quickly, so when you have got an ability group, regardless of whether you are at the upper end or the lower end, and you have got a year 4, 5, and 6 all in that group, the children do not really notice it or pay attention to it as much because they are used to working with everyone.”

3.2. Creating Order

To manage the open space of ILEs, teachers and SLTs relied on specific teaching strategies to create order. Without walls, these routines provided the structure necessary for children to concentrate.

3.2.1. Teaching Approaches

Teachers reported using various strategies in ILE classrooms to meet their students’ needs. However, it is unclear whether these strategies are unique to ILE settings or would be used regardless. Either way, the strategies outlined below support the effective flow of teaching, particularly in managing larger groups and maintaining order in these spaces.

• Scaffolding

Teachers and SLTs identified scaffolding as a key strategy for ensuring understanding when listening to instructions and learning new concepts. SLT1 described an approach that builds students’ confidence as communicators and learners: “take them aside afterwards and just say, can you repeat the instructions back to me?—just scaffolding and building confidence for people as communicators and learners.” Similarly, T8 emphasized the importance of scaffolding to manage classroom spaces: “More teacher scaffolding. Sometimes we take them out there (breakout space); we do not shut the doors, but it gives them a smaller classroom to work in instead of being here and we do not let them roam—it is about knowing your students. We know the ones that struggle, so we scaffold them, keep them with us, and often work with them out there.”

• Positioning

Due to lack of physical barriers, participants used strategies positioning for both children and teachers to manually block out distractions and managing behaviours and enhancing attention and listening. For example, if a student was overwhelmed by sensory stimulation, SLT6 recommended “turning the child’s back to windows or classroom movement to limit visual input.” Similarly, SLT1 said “I’ll recommend strategies around positioning of that student who might have processing difficulties or bad attention spans or a mixture of the two, to sit at the front, if it’s too noisy.”

Teachers also had to constantly negotiate their own physical placement to maintain authority and manage the space. T2 noted: “I think more so in this bigger classroom; you are always mindful as a teacher of where you have set yourself up so you can see the whole room and monitor everyone and now it is being mindful of that plus keep the group that you are focused on.”

Furthermore, T6 realised that if the rooms were so big, teachers found that standing in one place just forced them to shout and they need to change the strategy: “I am not set in one position; I am walking around a lot. In my first year I did sit in one position and would kind of talk to kids far away. I have learnt that does not work, then I am just shouting, so I will now get up and walk around and rove and speak to kids and then move back to my original position and keep doing that and keep checking, and that helps to keep noise levels down, so that is a big change for me.”

• Attention

In a large, open classroom, regular verbal instructions easily get lost. To counter this, teachers relied on collective auditory cues to capture the whole group’s attention at once. Singing was a common strategy to quickly synchronize focus, with T4 explaining, “I will sing a song like heads, shoulders, knees and toes or clap your hands or something and you just know that you have got everybody’s attention if they are joining in with the song.” Similarly, teachers used loud call and response chants. T2 described using a familiar chant to pause the room, noting that once the children responded “Our big one when we want to stop everyone is with a big loud voice say ‘tahi rua toru wha’ and the kids respond with ‘kissioa hi’ and they should have by responding stopped and that is their attention done.” This strategy was highly effective due to a visual ripple effect among the students.

T2 further reported “We found that it worked quite well for the kids that do not listen or are so engrossed in what they are doing, or if they have their headphones on, generally if they see other people around them stop and hear it, even if they did not hear the initial instruction, they know how to follow on. Additionally, T2 described “We have used a bell too, which was just a bit funny, because we just thought oh, we will just try something a little bit simpler like just a normal bell and dinged it once, and that was just to adjust noise level not to stop working and it worked a treat.” Teachers successfully introduced simple non-verbal cues like ringing the bell to adjust noise levels, not to stop the work.

• Using the spaces

Participants recognized that effectively navigating ILEs required deliberately dividing up the space to control sensory input and support different cognitive needs. Rather than reacting once students became overwhelmed, professionals used breakout spaces preventatively. SLT3 emphasized the importance of being “the ambulance at the top of the cliff rather than bottom to catch the fatigue and the auditory fatigue and the attention deficit before they kick in, being aware that this is going to be a busy, noisy activity that this child along with that one and that one, need to go and work in that quieter space so that they can really focus on the task.” Simultaneously, teachers actively organized the main floor to counterbalance the open architecture, ensuring “that the visual distractions of the other children and the other classes can be minimised as much as possible, with still being able to come together as a group” (SLT3).

To achieve this, teachers created intentional micro-environments to match varying levels of student self-regulation. T2 described “We have set the spaces up a bit differently, so workspace one is a bit more open, we have got the furniture that is a bit easier to move, big open spaces, and then workspace two is where we have set it up a bit more traditionally with desks and chairs and we tend to take our groups that need to be a little more focused and cannot manage themselves into that space and then we have got workspace three which is small, it is behind a wall, it is a little bit more cosy and again we take smaller groups into there and it is blocked off because of the dividing wall which makes it good, so yea the kids know those different spaces.”

• Resources

Participants discussed how effectively utilizing both high-tech and low-tech resources helped bridge the physical distance and manage the busy environment of the ILE. Digital tools allowed teachers to monitor students remotely, saving them from constantly walking across the expansive room.

T2 noted how digital tools helped manage the large physical space: “I think the technology has been the big driving force behind it with the collaboration, they are seeing things in real time, and you do not have to be in front of a child to see their work… we do not have to be wandering as much as probably we would have if it was the same classroom but we were doing our work in books.”

Professionals also relied on low-tech visual aids to manage classroom behaviour and cut through the auditory clutter. SLT1 highlighted the value of using “external stuff like visuals if needed, for helping with listening, like voice volume metres are really good, because you can just have a simple as visual on the wall and say, ‘hey guys let’s bring it down from a lion to whatever.”

3.2.2. Making It Work

Participants shared overarching strategies they use to make the ILE space work for them.

• Planning

In an ILE, planning went far beyond normal teaching preparation. It was a necessary tool to help everyone share the space smoothly and avoid chaos. T8 noted “Just being prepared and all those things, and I do not think it matters if you are in modern learning environment (MLE) or a single cell, those things are important, it is just you have got twice as many children.” To make it work, the staff had to plan their schedules carefully to avoid making the room too noisy and distracting all at once. SLT4 explained that “It is all about planning and everyone communicating, planning for not having a couple of really noisy activities happening at the same time, planning the day so not everyone is in that same space at the same time.” T2 echoed this necessity, noting that “Planning, knowing what you are going to do, even if that changes and you adapt on your feet, being well prepared is really essential.”

This need for deliberate foresight also applied to how children entered the open environment. Because the physical scale and social dynamics of an ILE can be overwhelming, SLT3 emphasized “I probably do a lot more of that for children that are going into a MLE, especially if they are coming from a single cell to a MLE, I would probably do a lot more transition planning around that than if they are just going from a single cell to a single cell.”

Furthermore, successful planning required deep, ongoing collaboration across different professional roles. Rather than working in isolation, T2 highlighted “I and a teaching partner need to work together and need to look at each other is planning together, so if I am doing a busier activity even if it is not so much talking but it is the kids being up moving around having to be doing things, if his group’s doing the same thing at the same time it is just going to be chaos so we try to plan so that we are not doing the same things like that at the same time, so we can really have that attention. So, yea the planning is a crucial part.” Planning allowed implementation of targeted strategies “We do work together and think about what we can do and come up with a plan to try and if it works it works and if it does not it does not and we reflect on that, so we regularly meet”.

• Communication

Communication was highlighted as a key factor for success in ILEs, with emphasis on communication between teachers, SLTs, and children. Teachers noted the importance of “little conversations” with their students to build relationships and improve engagement: T3 mentioned “I try and have as many little conversations with the kids across the team as I can, because I know if I get buy in from them, like we have got a relationship, then they are much more likely to listen when it is mat time so it makes my job easier, plus it is good just to get to know them.”

Interestingly, SLT participants, rather than teacher themselves, reported the importance of communication between teachers: “There needs to be clear communication” (SLT4), “Communication between the teachers working in those classrooms is essential” (SLT2). SLTs were aware of the need to discuss their plans with teachers, but this was not specific to the ILE context. As SLT1 expressed, “It really comes down to communication with teacher like ‘this is what I think is going to work and here is why’, but do not go right into the theory because you know they do not have the same specialist knowledge and just say ‘let me know if it is not working so we can try something else.”

• Establishing expectations

Creating consistency and setting expectations were reported as important methods for establishing a foundation for collaborative teaching and maintaining order in the space, for example (T5): “A lot of my foundations for teaching is laying down the expectations for behaviour and once that has been established then I can move forward and do the teaching.”

SLTs reported the importance of establishing routines and children knowing the teachers’ expectations to help the children plan and self-manage. According to SLT3, “I think also making sure that there are clear and consistent routines across all the separate groups across the classroom, so that if the children we are there to see are transitioning between teachers or areas, they know what to expect because it is consistent across, which will be less stressful for them. Whether that is with visual supports or whatever, just making sure that they have got that consistency”. SLT8 noted, “The positive side that I can see is that there is more of that self-guidance and expectation that they will use their executive functioning skills to plan and execute some of their own learning. So, I can see some positives, if kids know the boundaries of where those expectations are, it works really well.”

• Flexibility

While participants viewed flexibility as a necessary teaching skill in the unpredictable ILE, they revealed that this adaptability created a constant balancing act: (SLT7) “You have to be quite creative and flexible too, so if you’ve always done things a certain way, it’s not going to work in this space”; (SLT3) “We have gotta be adaptable and flexible, even more so than in those single cell classrooms because if the child needs some focused particularly if it’s one on one, but even if it is in small groups, support, then you need to be able to adapt the way.”

Teachers had to find a middle ground between being flexible and enforcing rules to keep the open space from getting chaotic. The large number of students made this a requirement. As T8 noted, “when you have got 60 children you have got to be flexible.” This meant stopping a lesson if it wasn’t working. T8 explained that “the teacher knowing herself and knowing ‘actually this is not going well, let’s stop and look at what went wrong, what can we change’ and refocus.”

3.3. Opportunities

Participants reported that ILEs offer the opportunity to adapt teaching style, as the presence of more teaching staff in the same space allows for more dynamic approaches and for the use of various resources.

3.3.1. Collaboration

Participants emphasized that collaboration is crucial for working effectively in ILE classrooms. They discussed collaboration between teachers, special educational needs coordinators, SLTs, teacher aides, parents, and between students and their education support, as well as among the students themselves.

• Shared awareness

Participants emphasised that, successfully navigating the ILE required a deep, shared awareness of both the physical space and the role of teaching team. SLT3 explained that “we need to be really aware that it is different and it is not necessarily bad, but it is different, I think there are advantages and disadvantages and we need to be aware of them and be able to show teaching staff and learning assistants that there are ways and means that the children on our caseload can still thrive in whatever environment they’re in, and if we do not understand that environment then we are not going to be able to give them the skills and strategies to help these kids get to their full potential.” Furthermore, this required a strong, unified mindset; T3 noted that “Mindfulness of what we are doing as a team and thinking about ourselves as a team and being on the same page and trying to move through things as a team together…being open and adaptable and aware that not everybody teaches in the same way.”

• Specialized knowledge

Teachers and SLTs noted that specialized knowledge is needed to ensure that children receive the necessary support, and the role of the special educational needs coordinators was acknowledged as key. T2 expressed “…and then we have also got our special educational needs coordinators who kind of ties it all together for us and keeps us going”, and similarly, SLT8 noted “That is where I see the difference—one child without support got lost in the system, while the other, with support, was managing OK.”

Participants discussed specialized support from teacher aides and SLTs and explained that collaboration between professionals allowed teachers to better support their students:

“My approach is to reach out to the people that can help, so it is been really good, we are fortunate enough that we have a lot of support system with this area and the school… but we do work together and think about what we can do and come up with a plan to try”.

(T2)

3.3.2. New Roles

ILE classrooms provide opportunities for the introduction of new roles for both the children and the teachers.

• Independent learners

Creating independence was highlighted as a positive aspect of the ILE model of teaching. Teachers reported an increase in the independence of children in their classrooms and shared strategies they use to encourage this. Independence is fostered through consistency and setting expectations, but it was also noted that these methods may not work for all children.

“They do become more independent because they have to solve more of their own problems because they are now one of say 40 kids, they do get a lot better and encourage it, we encourage them to help each other out, so they do become more independent quite quickly”.

(T6)

“I think for me the modern learning environment is about building independence in the kids and trusting them with tasks, and creating independence through a whole term of training, term one is exhausting from that point of view, but it pays off”.

(T6)

“They were used to being told what to do that day, so it took them some time to get into making that choice and taking responsibility for it, and there are always a couple, not many, maybe 5% who do not get it but there is always someone there to support that”.

(T6)

• Teacher-to-teacher guidance

ILE classrooms offer an opportunity for informal mentorship and guidance of beginner teachers. As T4 noted, “I think it is better to have other teachers there, to rebound from, and I think it is exceptional for me as a beginner teacher to be in this environment.”

However, participants warned that the shared workload of an ILE could also blur a new teacher’s sense of responsibility. T3 pointed out that “You definitely do not want everyone to be a brand new teacher, and you do wonder, I have got a beginner teacher in the space who is amazing, she is really good, but I do wonder about how much she realises is her job in a way, because she has not had her own classroom in a single cell and been responsible for all that comes with that, so as part of the team.”

Ultimately, the open space cannot fix or hide poor teaching; success relies entirely on strong foundational skills. As SLT8 explained, “I guess the modern learning environments where I have seen it working, it is because the teaching practice was good as a whole, and it would not matter if they were in a traditional environment or that modern learning environment because they had all the skills in place to support the learning… whereas perhaps in those environments where teachers are not as skilled, or have not got that level of experience, probably think they are doing the right thing, but maybe it is not.”

4. Discussion

This study provides insights into how teachers and SLTs navigate the complex environment of ILE classrooms. While these spaces successfully foster flexible learning and diverse peer exposure, their architectural transparency creates profound sensory challenges. The finding that distractions were the most commonly reported challenge aligns strongly with a growing body of research. Teacher and SLT participants described how noise from multiple sources, such as outside traffic, student movement, and digital technology, continuously interrupted both teaching and clinical work. This is consistent with Mealings et al. (2015d), who demonstrated that open-plan classrooms generate significantly higher intrusive noise levels than enclosed classrooms, resulting in signal-to-noise ratios well below recommended standards for young learners, with children’s speech perception accuracy and speed decreasing as noise levels increased. Similarly, Rance et al. (2023) showed that while not all students were adversely affected by open-plan classrooms, those with the poorest speech perception in noise and the weakest attention skills experienced the greatest negative impact on their reading development in the open-plan phases. This suggests that learners who already struggle with listening and attention are disproportionately disadvantaged by open ILE environments.

For speech-language practice, this raises an important concern: when the classroom environment itself exacerbates listening and attention demands for these children, clinicians and teachers may feel compelled to withdraw them from the shared space for therapy or focused work, potentially undermining the inclusive intent of ILE placements. The visual dimension of distraction reported by participants is equally significant. Beyond noise, the expansive glass and constant movement of others in the open space creates persistent visual competition for children’s attention. Empirical work has shown that classroom noise typically arises from multiple sources, including external background noise (road traffic, corridor and playground activity), internal classroom talk, and sounds from digital technology, all of which interact to degrade the listening environment (Roy & Li, 2013). Additionally, visual distractions can further compromise speech perception; competing stimuli in the peripheral visual field draw attention away from the speaker and, in turn, reduce children’s ability to process spoken language (Keetay, 1996). Fletcher and Everatt (2021) similarly noted that teachers in New Zealand ILEs commonly reported combined noise and visual distraction as major barriers to learning, a concern less readily recognized by students themselves, highlighting an awareness gap that professionals must actively manage.

Most of the participants described positive experiences working in ILE classrooms, noting that ILEs cater to a broader range of learning styles than traditional classrooms, particularly the way these spaces can support a broader range of learning approaches and expose children to a wider mix of peers and teachers, which enriches their teaching and learning experiences. However, three participants (two SLTs, one teacher) shared only negative experiences, perceiving no benefits for the children in their care. For these participants, the challenges arose from the difficulty of supporting children with additional learning needs, such as language delays and attention difficulties, in the noisy and distracting environment of an ILE classroom (Dockrell & Shield, 2006, 2008; Mealings et al., 2015a, 2015c; Mealings, 2016; Yang & Bradley, 2009). For the teacher holding this view, the perception seemed to stem from the difficulties she faced in negotiating her role within these new spaces. This is a crucial factor, as a teacher’s ownership of their teaching and classroom has been shown to influence the successful implementation of educational innovations (Ketelaar et al., 2013).

Creating order emerged as the second key theme, with “making it work” capturing how teachers and SLTs actively imposed structure on the open ILE environment. Participants emphasized that listening conditions were shaped not just by the physical classroom space, but also by how spaces were organized and which teaching strategies were used, both of which played a pivotal role in how well children could listen and learn. In this context, “resources” extended beyond furniture and technology to include the professional skills, routines, and judgment that individuals brought to the ILE setting. A variety of teaching approaches such as scaffolding, strategic positioning, explicit attention-getting cues, and deliberate use of breakout areas were repeatedly described as essential, indicating that pedagogical structure, rather than architectural flexibility alone, was central to supporting listening in these spaces. This echoes recent ILE work in Aotearoa New Zealand, which argues that learning outcomes in flexible spaces depend less on the architecture itself and more on how teachers intentionally organize activities and interactions within the space (Fletcher & Everatt, 2021). These findings indicate that successful ILEs depend on explicit support and professional learning for teachers and SLTs to develop environment-specific strategies for acoustics, space use, and listening support, rather than relying on open design alone to foster successful engagement and collaboration.

Participants also spoke at length about collaboration as a key mechanism for making ILE classrooms effective. Collaboration was a key subtheme under the theme “opportunities”; ILEs provide the opportunity for both collaboration and new roles. Both teachers and SLTs discussed collaboration in response to a variety of questions asked in the interview, such as their understanding of ILE classrooms, the essential teaching/working elements in an ILE classroom, the impact of ILEs on their working style and how they use collaboration to support specific children in that classroom, demonstrating that collaboration in ILE classrooms is multifaceted. It includes collaboration not only between teachers (which was the most frequently mentioned relationship) but also between teachers and parents, teachers and children, teachers, children, and other specialised knowledge coming into the classroom (e.g., teacher aides, SLTs), as well as collaboration between the children themselves. This theme aligns with the literature: collaborative teaching, defined as shared decision-making towards a common goal, leading to co-teaching and shared responsibility for the development, implementation, and evaluation of strategies, is a popular concept within the education field (Taşdemir & Yıldırım, 2017). Importantly, participants noted that, if collaboration is poor, classroom listening would also be poor, regardless of teaching strategies or support. Collaborative practice and collaborative learning styles are desired in modern education, whether in ILEs or traditional classrooms, and participants’ responses suggest that ILEs are achieving the goal of bringing this to the forefront.

Barriers to interdisciplinary practice also include a lack of professional development. Research indicates that without structured training to help education professionals acquire the skills needed to progress to the next stage of interdisciplinary practice, there will be no catalyst for change (Cardetti & Orgnero, 2013). This pattern is consistent with Timperley et al.’s (2007) model of professional learning, which emphasizes that change requires more than exposure to new practices; it depends on opportunities to connect new ideas with prior beliefs, experience dissonance, and work through that dissonance in supported ways.

The “creating order” theme can be understood as teachers and SLTs drawing on well-established pedagogical tools such as planning, scaffolding, positioning, and other teaching strategies which are already well established in traditional pedagogy (Hattie, 2009), to stabilise the openness of ILE spaces. In ILE spaces, teachers are adapting these familiar approaches to create a structured and functional learning environment. The “opportunities” theme then highlights how ILE may extend these familiar practices by foregrounding collaboration, shared responsibility, and informal professional learning. In particular, the shared space creates conditions for ongoing observation, feedback, and modelling between experienced and beginner teachers, aligning with Timperley et al.’s (2007) view that professional growth is most effective when it is cumulative, relational, and embedded in day-to-day practice.

Overall, the findings suggest that ILEs function as both a catalyst and a test for contemporary ideas about collaborative and interdisciplinary practice. ILEs bring multiple professionals into the same space, which can support informal mentorship and joint problem-solving, but the study also shows that, without clear structures, beginner teachers may be over-reliant on colleagues and experienced teachers may carry extra workload. This underscores the need for professional development that revisits core pedagogical strategies for ILEs and explicitly builds interdisciplinary skills such as co-planning, shared goals, and role negotiation, alongside sufficient time and leadership support, so that collaboration is intentional rather than assumed to emerge from proximity alone.

4.1. Implications

These findings should be considered when planning, implementing, and evaluating ILEs, as they highlight several practical and educational implications for teachers and other professionals working in these modern educational environments.

Firstly, these findings indicate that ILEs need to be treated as pedagogical and organisational innovations, not just architectural ones, with a clear focus needed on how teaching, support, and routines adapt to the space.

Secondly, there are important practical implications: schools should prioritise professional learning on acoustics, spatial arrangement, and environment-specific listening strategies, as well as providing structured opportunities for collaboration between teachers and SLTs.

Thirdly, the study highlights how physical space can either support or constrain progression toward deeper interdisciplinary practice, depending on how roles, time, and collaboration are deliberately structured.

Finally, there are clear educational implications, particularly for vulnerable learners, underscoring the need to ensure that ILE designs and practices actively reduce noise barriers, support clear and predictable learning routines, and promote equitable and flexible access to listening and participation.

4.2. Limitations and Future Directions

Analysis of qualitative data is inherently interpretive, meaning alternative interpretations of the findings are likely. The methodology allows for a level of depth and naturalness that would not be possible through other research approaches, offering an ‘insider’s perspective’ (Astalin, 2013), however, the researchers’ backgrounds and positionality may unconsciously influence their interpretations, introducing potential bias. Reflexivity and an awareness of interpretive bias are essential for managing qualitative data effectively (Buetow, 2019). The researchers have a strongly speech=language therapy-based perspective, rather than a teaching perspective, that may have influenced the development of themes.

Participants in this study were self-selecting and hence may hold stronger opinions on the topic of ILEs than the wider population of teachers and SLTs working in ILE classrooms. Self-selection bias is well-documented in research—individuals who choose to participate are often more motivated and have pre-existing opinions on the subject than the general population, potentially influencing the results (Pahwa et al., 2012).

Furthermore, the number of teachers and SLTs who took part in this research is relatively small. Because of this, the findings are not intended to be generalized across all educational contexts. However, consistent with the exploratory nature of qualitative inquiry, the general aim of this research is to address a critical problem in depth rather than to provide definitive solutions. By focusing on a smaller group, this study captures rich, detailed perspectives and offers an essential initial insight into how educators navigate the complex acoustic and inclusive pedagogical challenges of ILEs. These initial insights are highly valuable for bringing these sensitive, real-world issues to light.

Despite these limitations, this research provides valuable insights into teachers’ and SLTs’ complex experiences within ILE settings. The findings lay the foundation for further research with larger samples and contribute to the ongoing development of theory regarding pedagogical approaches and strategies that optimise the experiences of teachers, students and other professionals in ILE spaces. Future research should focus on the opportunities created by ILE classrooms, such as fostering collaboration, redefining teacher roles, promoting independent learning, and enhancing teacher-to-teacher mentorship.

5. Conclusions

This qualitative study identified three key themes related to classroom listening in ILE classrooms: experiences, creating order, and opportunities. These themes provide insight into how professionals working in ILE classrooms perceive and engage with their environment, the factors they believe contribute to an effective learning space, and the potential barriers that may hinder ILE success, specifically the ongoing conflict between architectural design and daily acoustic challenges. Teachers and SLTs shared similar perspectives regarding what professionals should prioritise when working in ILE classrooms. Key areas of focus include collaboration, effective use of resources, implementing strategies such as scaffolding and flexibility, establishing clear expectations for students, and fostering a dynamic learning environment that includes mentorship for beginner teachers. This alignment underscores the necessity of interdisciplinary collaboration to support all learners, particularly those with special educational needs who are disproportionately affected by poor acoustics and distractions.