View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Interaction and Collective Emotional Climate in Innovative Learning Environments in Mathematics Lessons: A Third- and Fourth-Grade Students' Perspective

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Interaction and Collective Emotional Climate in Innovative Learning Environments in Mathematics Lessons: A Third- and Fourth-Grade Students' Perspective
Language: English
Authors: Riikka Alakoski (ORCID 0000-0002-3397-5467), Anu Laine (ORCID 0000-0003-3881-8134), Markku S. Hannula (ORCID 0000-0003-4979-7711)
Source: Learning Environments Research. 2025 28(1):81-102.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 22
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Elementary Education
Grade 3
Primary Education
Grade 4
Intermediate Grades
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Grade 3, Grade 4, Mathematics Education, Classroom Environment, Educational Innovation, Learner Engagement, Student Experience, Teacher Student Relationship, Peer Relationship, Grouping (Instructional Purposes), Teacher Collaboration
Geographic Terms: Finland
DOI: 10.1007/s10984-025-09530-7
ISSN: 1387-1579
1573-1855
Abstract: New school buildings are increasingly designed as innovative learning environments (ILEs) to increase interactivity and learning engagement. However, little is known about the students' experiences in these environments. This article examines how the pedagogy enabled by ILEs is linked to the mathematics lessons' interaction and collective emotional climate. We analysed 446 drawings made by third and fourth graders from 26 classes studying mathematics in ILEs. In some of the classes, the pedagogical affordances of ILEs were used effectively, while in others the teaching was done in a traditional way. We found that ILEs affected mathematics lessons' interaction and emotional climate through pedagogical groupings. Teacher collaboration and flexible groupings were related to more interactive student positioning and mathematical discourse, increased interaction between the students and teachers, and a more positive emotional climate than fixed groupings. Further, fixed groupings in the open environments were more likely to result in disciplinary and concentration problems. Rather than the environment itself, our results highlight the importance of the way teachers are able to exploit the affordances of the environment.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1486005
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGDvpEJ6BrfNaHOrTuDl6OAAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDI8X7SZCtATFnrW0LAIBEICBm4f4Q6I2Uhs12MvdCL3w7uPUKmwhxAWo5wzbBXm0AyEEwo_msSUu_SEVjTS3O2N7iZpqnNPA2UMxBX_IcfuyVAfI5QBYQDF3v2HhEOdkg9s3ellAl-pWQxuJ94BVLmTRIwtFvLDjfi09fOc0Bol5FOKKud59rH4Dr2TV0m-yQcvZoAydaSqafwCOKr9o9vDPHXAG8RTG3Sr17YVx
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184489881;oje01apr.25;2025Apr17.01:58;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184489881-1">Interaction and collective emotional climate in innovative learning environments in mathematics lessons: a third- and fourth-grade students' perspective </title> <p>New school buildings are increasingly designed as innovative learning environments (ILEs) to increase interactivity and learning engagement. However, little is known about the students' experiences in these environments. This article examines how the pedagogy enabled by ILEs is linked to the mathematics lessons' interaction and collective emotional climate. We analysed 446 drawings made by third and fourth graders from 26 classes studying mathematics in ILEs. In some of the classes, the pedagogical affordances of ILEs were used effectively, while in others the teaching was done in a traditional way. We found that ILEs affected mathematics lessons' interaction and emotional climate through pedagogical groupings. Teacher collaboration and flexible groupings were related to more interactive student positioning and mathematical discourse, increased interaction between the students and teachers, and a more positive emotional climate than fixed groupings. Further, fixed groupings in the open environments were more likely to result in disciplinary and concentration problems. Rather than the environment itself, our results highlight the importance of the way teachers are able to exploit the affordances of the environment.</p> <p>Keywords: Classroom climate; Collaboration; Drawings; Innovative learning environment; Interaction; Student perspective; Education Curriculum and Pedagogy Specialist Studies In Education</p> <hd id="AN0184489881-2">Introduction</hd> <p>School architecture is evolving, as new school buildings are increasingly designed as innovative learning environments (ILEs) (Young & Cleveland, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref1">45</reflink>]). The physical structures of ILEs vary from large open spaces to flexible classrooms that can be rearranged into different spatial arrangements using removable walls and furniture according to teaching needs (Saltmarsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref2">39</reflink>]). The pedagogy of ILEs is assumed to increase the interactivity of learning by facilitating collaborative teaching and learning as well as students' communication and movement around the class (Byers et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref3">9</reflink>]; Saltmarsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref4">39</reflink>]) and, further, to increase effective learning by improving students' engagement and motivation to learn (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref5">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>To collaborate in various working groups, students need an emotionally safe environment, where they can express their feelings and share their opinions without fear of confrontation (Wang & Degol, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref6">46</reflink>]). Furthermore, positive emotional experiences have been found to be associated with classroom interactions and students' motivation to learn (Meyer & Turner, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref7">34</reflink>]). Classroom climate, and emotional climate as part of it, is formed through emotionally reloaded relationships and interactions in the classroom (Evans et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref8">16</reflink>]; Wang & Degol, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref9">46</reflink>]) and is affected by the learning environment's structural aspects such as the appearance and furnishings of the classroom as well as the environment's size and physical and physiological resources (Evans et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref10">16</reflink>]). As ILEs are designed to provide affordances for collaborative and interactive pedagogy, classroom interactions and emotional climate are likely to be connected to the physical environment of the ILEs.</p> <p>Students' experiences of ILEs have previously been studied from various perspectives, such as how ILE relates to learning engagement (Byers et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref11">9</reflink>]; Moran, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref12">35</reflink>]), motivation (Hornstra et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref13">25</reflink>]; Schweder & Raufelder, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref14">40</reflink>]), students' well-being (Kariippanon et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref15">27</reflink>]), psychological safety (Charteris et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref16">11</reflink>]), or liking of school (Niemi et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref17">36</reflink>]). However, the relation between the ILEs and learning experiences is complex. Previous studies have shown that moving into an ILE does not necessarily lead to a change in pedagogical practices (Alakoski et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref18">3</reflink>]; Byers et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref19">9</reflink>]; Deed & Lesko, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref20">12</reflink>]; Saltmarsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref21">39</reflink>]) but may in fact camouflage conservative pedagogical practices (Dovey & Fisher, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref22">13</reflink>]). Therefore, the aim of this study is to increase the understanding of how the different ways in which teachers exploit the ILEs affect students' experiences of the ILEs. In particular, we examine how teacher collaboration and student groupings are reflected in students' perceptions of classroom interaction and the collective emotional climate of mathematics lessons.</p> <hd id="AN0184489881-3">Classroom climate and emotions</hd> <p>Classroom climate, broadly defined as the dynamics of classroom interaction, relationships, and the nature of the learning environment (Slee & Skrzypiec, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref23">41</reflink>]), is an essential aspect of teaching and learning. Positive classroom climate has been found to relate with increased engagement and deeper learning as well as improved academic achievement and motivation to learn (Aldridge & Blackstock, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref24">1</reflink>]; Erdem & Kaya, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref25">15</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref26">47</reflink>]), whereas negative classroom climate has been associated with increased bullying and aggressive behaviour, as well as social and emotional maladaptation (Leff et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref27">30</reflink>]; Somersalo et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref28">42</reflink>]). Moreover, positive classroom climate has been identified to broaden the focus in education from purely academic learning goals to also include students' social and emotional development (Evans et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref29">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>Classroom climate divides into four overlapping domains: (a) institutional environment (the school structural design and availability of resources); (b) academic (the ways in which learning and teaching are facilitated in the school); (c) community (the extent to which teachers and students communicate, collaborate, and support each other); and (d) safety (physical and emotional safety, order, and discipline) (Wang & Degol, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref30">46</reflink>]). Thus, when reviewing the classroom climate of the ILE, the climate is shaped by the physical structure of the learning environment, which in turn enables a pedagogy different from traditional environments (Kariippanon et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref31">27</reflink>]). The implemented pedagogy of the ILE, in turn, is connected to the safety domain of the environment as it affects the physical and emotional safety of the classroom (Kariippanon et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref32">27</reflink>]). The experience of safety embedded in the ILE is essential for students to grow, take risks, and learn (Charteris et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref33">11</reflink>]). Instead of the safety domain, Evans et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref34">16</reflink>]) refer to the emotional domain of the classroom climate and stress the importance of emotions and their overlapping impacts on each aspect of the classroom climate.</p> <p>The emotional climate while studying mathematics is both formed and embodied through the interactions occurring in the learning environment. Although emotional climate is formed through individual experiences, these experiences are always connected to some extent to the social interactions, communication, and norms of the community (Hannula, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref35">20</reflink>]). In that way, the emotional climate may affect the collaboration between the teachers and the pedagogy implemented in the ILE. For example, Hargreaves and O'Connor ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref36">22</reflink>]) found that collaborative cultures were characterised by emotionally loaded features such as trust, openness to problems, independence, joint efforts, and shared responsibility. Additionally, emotions are involved in the disciplinary and instructional contexts, and they are shared socially between the students (Evans et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref37">16</reflink>]). Because of this social dimension of emotional climate, we use the concept of collective emotional climate, which describes an individual's socially constructed experience of the mathematics lesson's emotional climate.</p> <hd id="AN0184489881-4">Teacher collaboration and interaction in ILEs</hd> <p>The physical structure of an ILE is designed to increase teacher collaboration. As ILEs are deliberately designed with diverse learning settings in mind (Bradbeer, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref38">7</reflink>]), this collaboration may take several forms. According to Friend et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref39">19</reflink>]), co-teaching is commonly organised by sharing teaching responsibilities and groups in diverse ways. Teachers may work together, taking turns leading (<emph>team teaching)</emph> or sharing teaching responsibilities with each other while the other(s) observe and circulate around the ILE (<emph>one teaches/one assists).</emph> Teachers may also divide the group flexibly according to teaching needs. The whole group can be divided into two halves (<emph>parallel teaching</emph>), one large group working with one or more teachers, one small group working with one teacher (<emph>alternative teaching</emph>), or the same-sized groups moving from one teacher to another (<emph>station teaching</emph>) (Friend et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref40">19</reflink>]). At its best, these collaborative teams form Professional Learning Communities, characterised by teachers' shared values and vision, collective responsibility for students' learning, willingness for reflective enquiry, and individual and collective professional learning (Bolam et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref41">6</reflink>]; Bradbeer, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref42">8</reflink>]; Hargreaves & O'Connor, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref43">22</reflink>]). Through joint professional development and allocated teaching responsibilities to suit each teacher's own strengths, teachers may broaden their mathematics pedagogy (Bradbeer, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref44">8</reflink>]; OECD, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref45">37</reflink>]). Further, teacher collaboration has also been found to increase teacher well-being and reduce student disruptive behaviour problems (Thousand et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref46">43</reflink>]) and is thus linked to the emotional climate of mathematics lessons.</p> <p>Collaborative teaching broadens mathematics lessons' social affiliations and relationships (Bradbeer, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref47">7</reflink>]). When working collaboratively in ILEs, teachers can group students flexibly in various groups, where teachers have new ways to connect with the students and their individual needs (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref48">37</reflink>]) and where interactions between the teacher and student, as well as between students, are reshaped (cf. <emph>station teaching; alternative teaching</emph>). For example, Lim et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref49">31</reflink>]) found that collaborative teaching may change the position of authority in the classroom, which in turn may empower the learner, encouraging autonomous learning and intrinsic motivation, and according to Baepler and Walker ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref50">4</reflink>]), improve the relationships between the learners. Active teacher–student interactions have been found to encourage students to participate in learning activities and complete more higher learning tasks (Howes et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref51">26</reflink>]) as well as to improve students' behavioural and emotional engagement (Havik & Westergård, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref52">24</reflink>]). In addition to teacher–student interactions, flexible grouping creates space for new social interactions between students, which in turn are essential for learning new mathematical concepts and integrating them with existing knowledge (Bishop, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref53">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Learning mathematics, the lessons' emotional climate, and the interactions and teacher collaboration afforded by the ILE are interconnected. The emotional climate of the ILE is built through classroom interactions (Meirovich, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref54">33</reflink>]). Simultaneously, these interactions are affected by the classroom's collective emotional climate, the teacher's instructional style, classroom management, and the emotional learning opportunities provided by the pedagogy (Evans et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref55">16</reflink>]). However, as found earlier, the built pedagogy of the ILE does not directly control how the space is used (Byers et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref56">9</reflink>]), but the implemented pedagogy depends on the level of cooperation between the teachers exploiting the environment (Bradbeer, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref57">8</reflink>]). Based on our earlier research (Alakoski et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref58">3</reflink>]), teachers' collaboration appeared in two ways during the mathematics lessons in the ILE. Although ILEs had increased teacher collaboration in all teams, in many teams this collaboration had remained confined to what Hargreaves ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref59">21</reflink>]) calls "contrived collaboration" arrangements fixed in time, compulsory, predictable, and therefore, often micro-politically regulated. In these classes, students studied in fixed groups, and teacher cooperation was limited to lesson planning and the organisation of individual events. In some classes, however, collaboration approached forms of Pedagogical Learning Communities (see Bolman et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref60">6</reflink>]), where pedagogy was based on teacher collaboration and flexible student groupings (see Friend et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref61">19</reflink>]). As it has been found that the impact of cooperation depends highly on the form it takes (Hargreaves & O'Connor, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref62">22</reflink>]), in this study, we were interested in how the used pedagogical groupings, afforded by the ILE, were reflected in students' drawings.</p> <hd id="AN0184489881-5">Research questions</hd> <p>This study aims to examine how the ILE and its use are reflected in the students' drawings of mathematics lessons. Based on our earlier study (Alakoski et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref63">3</reflink>]), the ILE itself did not change mathematics teaching, but the way teachers exploited the environment led to differences in teaching, as some teachers used collaborative and flexible grouping in the ILE. We were therefore interested in how different pedagogical groupings related to students' experiences in mathematics lessons' interactions and the emotional climate. Our research questions were:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How was the ILE and the use of pedagogical groupings reflected in the interactions in the mathematics lessons?</item> <p></p> <item> How was the ILE and the use of pedagogical groupings reflected in the collective emotional climate of the classroom in the mathematics lessons?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0184489881-6">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184489881-7">Study design and participants</hd> <p>Our research design follows a case study approach, aiming to illustrate, through a careful examination of a limited sample, the wider phenomenon of how the affordance of ILE is realised in school life. The study participants were 446 third and fourth graders from 26 classes in nine Finnish public schools where mathematics was taught in ILEs. The schools had operated with the ILEs for six months to six years. We classified the schools into four groups based on the learning environments' structural characteristics: open spaces, open spaces and classes, plaza and classes, and wall-modifiable classes. The common features between the schools were that the furniture and structural solutions enabled the environment to be adapted into new teaching units. The size of the groups varied from a minimum of eight students and one teacher to a maximum of 80 students and five teachers. All schools organised teaching according to subject-based timetables.</p> <hd id="AN0184489881-8">Data sources</hd> <p>As a research method, we used students' drawings, which are found to be a rich source of data on children's feelings and experiences (Laine et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref64">29</reflink>]; Quane et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref65">38</reflink>]; Turgut & Turgut, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref66">44</reflink>]). The drawing analysis was based on the method used in a previous study by Laine et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref67">29</reflink>]). The original instruction, used by Laine et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref68">29</reflink>]), was modified for this study to capture the spatial elements of the drawings. The students performed the drawing task during their mathematics lessons in 2023 under the supervision of their teachers and the first author. All volunteering students who were at school that day and had a guardian's assent (73.2% of students) participated in the drawing task. The task was as follows: <emph>Draw a picture of your ordinary mathematics lesson. Draw</emph> yourself <emph>in math class in the place where you usually study. Also, draw the students and teachers who are often in the same space during math lessons. Use speech and thought bubbles to illustrate the conversation and thinking. Label the student representing you as 'ME' and the adult(s) representing the teacher(s) as 'TEACHER.' At the top of the picture, write the name of the place.</emph> After the instructions were given, students had 45 min to draw the picture. Apart from individual clarifications requested by the students, no other general instructions for drawing the picture were given.</p> <hd id="AN0184489881-9">Data analysis</hd> <p>Our aim was to examine how the used pedagogical groupings were reflected in students' drawings. Hence, we divided the classes, based on the earlier interviews with teachers (Alakoski et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref69">3</reflink>]), into two categories according to the pedagogical groupings used:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Fixed grouping—the teacher taught the group; collaboration was limited to lesson planning and the organisation of individual events; ILE's adaptability was generally not exploited for the pedagogical groupings (FIXED-group).</item> <p></p> <item> Flexible grouping—two or more classes studied together with two or more teachers, and/or the teaching team used flexible groupings between the student groups; ILE's adaptability was exploited for the pedagogical groupings (FLEX-group).</item> </ulist> <p>To answer the research questions, we used an abductive analysis, where the coding framework was formed by a dialogue between theory and data (Kennedy & Thornberg, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref70">28</reflink>]). The coding of the drawings was discussed between the authors, but the final coding and analysis was done by the first author with ATLAS.ti 23.2.1. First, the drawings were analysed by concentrating on the interaction of the location and discourse. To do that, we coded the following features from the drawings with scoring values of 1 (visible in the drawing) and 0 (not visible in the drawing).</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Teachers' positioning in the class</emph> interactive (among the students or towards the students); non-interactive (behind the desk, alone, or no teacher)</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Students' positioning in the class</emph> interactive (together working/sitting in groups or pairs); non-interactive (alone)</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Students' and teachers' speech content</emph> mostly mathematics-related speech (maximum one non-mathematics-related); ambivalent (both mathematics-related and non-mathematics-related); mostly non-mathematics-related speech (maximum one mathematics-related); no interaction presented</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Students' and teachers' interactivity of neutral/positive mathematical speech</emph> mathematics-related speech (including interaction); mathematics-related speech (no interaction); non-mathematics-related speech.</item> </ulist> <p>Once the drawings were coded, the values of the class drawing codes were summed for each interaction category. After that, χ<sups>2</sups> tests were performed to compare the effect of the pedagogical grouping on the mathematics lessons' interaction for each category separately. As the drawings were analysed from several angles, a total of six χ<sups>2</sups> tests were carried out to examine the relationship between pedagogical groupings and (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref71">1</reflink>) teacher(s)'s positioning, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref72">2</reflink>) students' positioning, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref73">3</reflink>) teacher(s)'s content of speech, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref74">4</reflink>) students' content of speech, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref75">5</reflink>) interactivity of teacher(s)'s and students' speech, and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref76">6</reflink>) interactivity of students' speech. Because the different elements of interaction are likely to be correlated, we applied a Bonferroni correction to the statistical significance test. Thus, the threshold for a statistically significant result was set at 0.00833.</p> <p>Second, drawings were analysed by concentrating on the holistic evaluation of the emotional climate. We claim that students choose to draw something they consider representative of their mathematics lessons in general. Therefore, we consider the drawings to represent the drawer's perception of the social reality of the classroom; hence, the collection of drawings from a class provides a valid measure of a relatively stable classroom collective emotional climate (Hannula, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref77">20</reflink>]). Thus, the collective emotional climate was interpreted for each drawing from all the students' and the teachers' facial expressions and in the students' speech and thought bubbles. After that, we classified the emotional climates presented in the drawings into six categories with scoring values from − 1 to + 1. During the analysis, we found that the categories used in the original study (Laine et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref78">29</reflink>]) did not describe well the full variation of class collective emotional climate. Therefore, we added two new categories, mostly positive and mostly negative. Each drawing was categorised into one of the following six classroom climates:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Positive + 1 (all persons smiled and/or thought positively, some could be neutral)</item> <p></p> <item> Mostly positive + 0.5 (same as positive, one person was sad/angry and/or thought negatively)</item> <p></p> <item> Negative − 1 (all persons were sad/angry or thought negatively, some could be neutral)</item> <p></p> <item> Mostly negative − 0.5 (same as negative, one person smiled and/or thought positively)</item> <p></p> <item> Ambivalent 0 (at least two positive and two negative persons in the class, as interpreted from their facial or other expressions) or neutral 0 (all facial or other expressions were neutral)</item> <p></p> <item> Unknown (in 6% of the drawings (<emph>n</emph> = 26), the emotional climate could not be identified. These drawings were excluded when computing the collective emotional climate's point average).</item> </ulist> <p>Based on the values of the drawings' emotional climate, we calculated the emotional climate point averages for each class and made a <emph>t</emph>-test to see whether the pedagogical groupings were connected to the quality of the classes' collective emotional climate.</p> <p>Last, to ensure the reproducibility and reliability of the study, a third party coded a random sample of 20% of the drawings with the code frame created. For this random sample of 93 drawings, the agreement rate for the 558 codes was 96%. Differences in coding were mostly related to differences in interpreting facial and verbal expressions or ambiguities in the drawings.</p> <hd id="AN0184489881-10">Results</hd> <p>Our study's purpose was to examine whether the pedagogical groupings enabled by the ILEs are related to mathematics lessons' interactions and the collective emotional climate. The results are presented below.</p> <hd id="AN0184489881-11">Interactions in the mathematics lessons</hd> <p>The link between pedagogical groupings and the students' and the teachers' interactions of mathematics lessons was studied from three different angles, from the perspective of (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref79">1</reflink>) students' and teachers' positioning, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref80">2</reflink>) content of speech, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref81">3</reflink>) interactivity of mathematical speech. The results are reported in the following subsections.</p> <hd id="AN0184489881-12">Students' and teachers' positioning</hd> <p>First, we were interested in students' and teachers' positioning in the ILE. Non-interactivity of the positioning was reflected in students sitting alone. In these drawings, students were often quiet, concentrating on the task, or speech was about mathematical statements or thoughts. A non-interactively positioned teacher was drawn alone or away from the students, whereas the interactively positioned students were sitting together. Students were often drawn talking to each other or looking at each other. The interactively positioned teacher was drawn among the students or facing them. Figures 1 and 2 present examples of the different ways students and teachers were positioned in the ILEs. Figure 1 is a drawing from the FIXED-group where students study in a classroom with their own class, mainly with one teacher. In Fig. 1, students are positioned non-interactively, sitting alone with their mathematics books. One student says, 'Help,' and others are silent. The teacher is drawn among the students (interactive), talking about multiplication, '5 × 5 = 25.'</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 An example of non-interactively positioned students and an interactively positioned teacher (FIXED-group, plaza, and classes)</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 An example of interactively positioned students and a non-interactively positioned teacher (FLEX-group, open space)</p> <p>Figure 2 is a drawing from the FLEX-group where three teachers used flexible groupings and collaboration in the open space. In Fig. 2, students are positioned interactively in a cooperative seating arrangement. Most of the students are sitting in groups or pairs. One is working alone on the sofa. The teacher is drawn alone behind the teacher's desk (non-interactive).</p> <p>The relationship between pedagogical groupings and the students' and teachers' positionings was investigated using a χ<sups>2</sups> test of independence. A statistically significant difference was found between the pedagogical groupings for students' positioning (Table 1). In most of the drawings, students' positioning was drawn interactively, sitting in groups or pairs. However, students were more likely to work in interactive seating arrangements in FLEX-groups than in FIXED-groups.</p> <p>Table 1 Results of the χ<sups>2</sups> test and descriptive statistics for students' positioning</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Students' positioning</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Pedagogical groupings</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Fixed</p></th><th align="left"><p>Flexible</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Interactive</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>147 (61%)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>187 (91.2%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Non-interactive</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>94 (39%)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>18 (8.8%)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>χ</emph> <sups> <emph>2</emph> </sups> = 53.807, df = 1, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001. Numbers in parentheses indicate column percentages</p> <p>There was no statistically significant difference for teachers' positioning between pedagogical groupings (Table 2). The teachers' position was drawn evenly either among the students or facing the students (interactive) or away from the students, e.g. behind a desk or with their back to the students (non-interactive) in the drawings from both the FIXED- and FLEX-groups.</p> <p>Table 2 Results of the χ<sups>2</sups> test and descriptive statistics for teachers' positioning</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Teachers' positioning</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Pedagogical groupings</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Fixed</p></th><th align="left"><p>Flexible</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Interactive</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>132 (54.8%)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>125 (61%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Non-interactive</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>109 (45.2%)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>80 (39%)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>χ</emph> <sups> <emph>2</emph> </sups> = 1.746, df = 1, <emph>p</emph> =.186. Numbers in parentheses indicate column percentages</p> <hd id="AN0184489881-13">Content of speech</hd> <p>Next, we examined whether the pedagogical groupings were related to the content of speech (including thought bubbles) in the drawings. Mostly mathematics-related speech was shown in the drawings as thinking about mathematics, discussing a topic, or asking for help. Mostly non-mathematics-related speech was reflected in the drawings in the form of disturbances and reports of concentration difficulties. The drawings could also include mentions or thoughts of non-mathematical topics such as toilet needs or recess. Ambivalent and mostly non-mathematics-related drawings with classroom disruptions were common, especially in the classes using fixed groupings in the ILEs consisting of an open space. Figure 3 is an example of a drawing where the content of speech was mathematics-related speech and thoughts, whereas Fig. 4 is an example of a drawing where the content of speech was ambivalent, including a lot of work disturbances.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Mathematics-related speech—FLEX-group in the open + classes</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Ambivalent: both on mathematics- and non-mathematics-related speech—FIXED-group in the open space</p> <p>In Fig. 3, students are working in the open space in a small group. All three students are thinking about mathematics exercises. Two teachers are standing near the students. One of them gives work instructions to students, while the other says, 'Please ask if you need help.'</p> <p>In Fig. 4, students are working within the rows in the open space. Some students are thinking or talking about math: 'This I can't do' or 'Easy.' However, many students are talking about things other than mathematics, and the atmosphere is drawn as chaotic. Some students mention the noise. Two students talk about whether the school nurse is available. One is asking for permission to go to the toilet, while one is thinking, 'Boring.' Also, many students are drawn saying just 'blah blah blah.' Two teachers are drawn. One of them is behind the teacher's desk instructing the students, while the other is standing quietly among the students. Both figures are from the ILEs, consisting of an open space and classes. However, the classes differed in their use of the ILE. The pedagogy of Fig. 3 was based on teacher collaboration and flexible grouping, while Fig. 4 is from a FIXED-group where teachers attempt to force the open space into a traditional classroom grouping.</p> <p>To examine the relationship between pedagogical groupings and the content of speech, we made a χ<sups>2</sups> test of independence for both students' and teachers' speech. A statistically significant difference was found between the pedagogical groupings for students' content of speech (Table 3). Students' non-mathematics-related speech was more likely in the FIXED-groups than FLEX-groups. However, the pedagogical groupings were not different for teachers' content of speech, as after a Bonferroni correction (threshold value for <emph>p</emph> = 0.008), the difference between the pedagogical groupings and teachers' speech was not statistically significant (Table 4).</p> <p>Table 3 Results of the χ<sups>2</sups> test and descriptive statistics for students' content of speech</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Students' content of speech</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Pedagogical groupings</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Fixed</p></th><th align="left"><p>Flexible</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Mostly non-mathematics-related</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>53 (22%)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>14 (6.8%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ambivalent: both mathematics- and non-mathematics-related</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>27 (11.2%)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>17 (8.3%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mostly mathematics-related</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>108 (44.8%)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>130 (63.4%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>No speech/thoughts presented</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>53 (22%)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>44 (21.5%)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>χ</emph> <sups> <emph>2</emph> </sups> = 25.101, df = 3, <emph>p</emph> = < 0.001. Numbers in parentheses indicate column percentages</p> <p>Table 4 Results of the χ<sups>2</sups> test and descriptive statistics for teachers' content of speech</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Teachers' content of speech</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Pedagogical groupings</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Fixed</p></th><th align="left"><p>Flexible</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Mostly non-mathematics-related</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>35 (14.5%)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>13 (6.3%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Ambivalent: both mathematics- and non-mathematics-related</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>4 (1.7%)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>3 (1.5%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Mostly mathematics-related</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>118 (49%)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>119 (58.1%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>No speech/thoughts presented</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>84 (34.9%)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>70 (34.1%)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>χ</emph> <sups> <emph>2</emph> </sups> = 8.654, df = 3, <emph>p</emph> = 0.034. Numbers in parentheses indicate column percentages</p> <hd id="AN0184489881-14">Interactivity of mathematical speech</hd> <p>Last, we examined the interactivity of mathematics-related neutral and positive speech in the drawings. Drawings of teachers' and students' interactive speech included mentions of an interactive teaching situation or mathematics discussion between the whole group (Fig. 5), between the teacher and the student(s) (Fig. 6), or between the students (Fig. 7). Figure 5 is an example of a drawing where mathematics-related speech was a joint discussion on the topic of the lesson. Figure 5 is from the FLEX-group where two classes were studying together with two teachers, and flexible groupings were used occasionally. In Fig. 5, the teacher is asking about multiplications: 'What is the answer?' Some students are thinking about the answer while some have raised their hands to answer. Some students are drawn to being silent with smiles on their faces.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 5 Joint discussion of the topic—FLEX-group in the open space</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 6 Teacher–student discussion about mathematics—FLEX-group in the open space and classes</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 7 Student–student discussion about mathematics—FLEX-group in the plaza and classes</p> <p>Figure 6 is an example of a drawing where the interaction was a discussion between the teacher and the student. In the drawing, students are thinking about the mathematics problems, while the teacher asks the student next to her if they need help. Figure 6 is a drawing from the FLEX-group in which pedagogy is based on three teachers' collaboration and flexible grouping.</p> <p>In some of the pictures, students were drawn discussing exercises, work instructions, or opinions about mathematics. Figure 7 is an example of a drawing where students discuss the topic of the lesson. In the drawing, students ask for help from each other and discuss the exercises: 'Can you help me with this one?' 'Yes, show me where.' The drawing is from a FLEX-group, where the pedagogy is based on three teachers' collaboration and flexible grouping.</p> <p>To examine whether the pedagogical groupings were related to the interactivity of the mathematics-related discourse between the persons in the class, we made a χ<sups>2</sups> test of independence for positive and neutral mathematics speech. A statistically significant difference was found between the pedagogical groupings for the interactivity of the mathematics-related discourse (Table 5). The interactive mathematics discussion between the students or student(s) and teacher(s) was more likely in the FLEX-groups than in the FIXED-groups.</p> <p>Table 5 Results of the χ<sups>2</sups> test and descriptive statistics for interactivity of neutral/positive mathematics-related speech between students or students and teachers</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Interactivity of mathematics-related neutral/positive speech (teachers and students)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Pedagogical groupings</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Fixed</p></th><th align="left"><p>Flexible</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Including interactive discussion on mathematics between the persons</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>88 (36.5%)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>109 (53.2%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Only one-way mathematics-related speech /thoughts, no interaction between the persons</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>86 (35.7%)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>54 (26.3%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>No mathematics-related speech /thoughts</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>67 (27.8%)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>42 (20.5%)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>χ</emph> <sups> <emph>2</emph> </sups> = 12.462, df = 2, <emph>p</emph> = 0.002. Numbers in parentheses indicate column percentages</p> <p>Last, as the ILEs are designed to support student collaboration and interaction, we wanted to examine with the χ<sups>2</sups> test whether the pedagogical groupings afforded by the ILE were related to the interactivity of neutral or positive mathematics-related speech between the students. Although the drawings with students talking about mathematics with each other were slightly more common in the FLEX-groups than in the FIXED-groups, the difference between pedagogical groupings and interactivity of mathematics-related speech between the students was not statistically significant (Table 6).</p> <p>Table 6 Results of the χ<sups>2</sups> test and descriptive statistics for interactivity of neutral/positive mathematics-related speech between students</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Interactivity of neutral/positive mathematics-related speech (students)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Pedagogical groupings</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Fixed</p></th><th align="left"><p>Flexible</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Including interactive discussion on mathematics between the students</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>29 (12.03%)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>43 (21%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Only one-way mathematics-related speech /thoughts, no interaction between the students</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>83 (34.44%)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>63 (30.7%)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>No mathematics-related speech /thoughts</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>129 (53.53%)</p></td><td char="(" align="char"><p>99 (48.3%)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>χ<sups>2</sups> = 6.546, df = 2, <emph>p</emph> = 0.038. Numbers in parentheses indicate column percentages</p> <hd id="AN0184489881-15">The collective emotional climate of mathematics lessons</hd> <p>The collective emotional climate was a sum of all facial and verbal expressions presented in the drawing. The emotional climate that the students drew was positive, mostly positive, negative, mostly negative, ambivalent, or neutral. In some pictures, the emotional climate could not be interpreted. Figure 8 presents an example of a drawing with an ambivalent emotional climate.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 8 The collective emotional climate is ambivalent</p> <p>Figure 8 is a drawing from the FIXED-group with one teacher in the classroom. In Fig. 8, three students are smiling, one is saying, 'Math is the best!', and the other two are talking about things other than math. One student is looking sad and says, 'I don't get it.' Three of the students are looking neutral with their mouths drawn round. The teacher and student next to her are looking severe. Both wish the others would be quiet. Hence, the collective emotional climate of the drawing is ambivalent.</p> <p>The collective emotional climate varied a lot among the classes. Table 7 illustrates the classes' point averages of collective emotional climate in order of magnitude. Classes shown with a green background used cooperative and flexible groupings, and classes with a white background used fixed groupings in their teaching.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>To examine whether there is a relationship between the pedagogical groupings used and the class's collective emotional climate, we did a <emph>t-</emph>test. The results indicate that there is a statistically significant difference between the mean collective emotional climate of the FIXED-groups and the FLEX-groups (Table 8). Specifically, FLEX-groups had a higher mean collective emotional climate than FIXED-groups. The effect size was small, with a Cohen's <emph>d</emph> of 0.286.</p> <p>Table 8 Results of the <emph>t-</emph>test—pedagogical groupings related to the collective emotional climate in mathematics lessons</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Fixed</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Flexible</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p><italic>t</italic> (24)</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Cohen's <italic>d</italic></p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Point average of collective emotional climate</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.391</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.324</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.682</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.207</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>− 2.524</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.019</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.286</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0184489881-16">Discussion</hd> <p>This study aimed to increase the understanding of how ILEs, through pedagogical groupings, are connected to mathematics lessons interactivity and emotional climate. Our results confirm earlier findings that through teacher collaboration, ILEs have the potential to improve emotional aspects (Hornstra et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref82">25</reflink>]; Kariippanon et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref83">27</reflink>]; Niemi et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref84">36</reflink>]; Schweder & Raufelder, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref85">40</reflink>]) and interactivity (Byers et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref86">9</reflink>]; Saltmarsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref87">39</reflink>]) of learning.</p> <p>First, the results show that flexible groupings were connected to an improved interaction in mathematics lessons. When teachers worked collaboratively and used flexible groupings, students were more often interactively positioned together, and there was more teacher(s)–student(s) discussion about mathematics than in the classes where pedagogy was based on individual teaching and fixed groupings. Interestingly, despite teachers reported that flexible groupings had increased student peer learning (Alakoski et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref88">3</reflink>]), this was not significantly reflected in their students' drawings. Although student-to-student interaction on mathematics was slightly more common in the drawings of flexible groupings, the difference between FLEX-groups and FIXED-groups was not significant. This may be explained by our earlier finding that despite the flexible space and teacher collaboration, teaching had remained rather teacher-led (Alakoski et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref89">3</reflink>]). Indeed, ILE's spatial and pedagogical changes require teachers to adopt new pedagogical approaches and navigate new and up-scaled spaces (Deed & Lesko, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref90">12</reflink>]; Saltmarsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref91">39</reflink>]). A common experience among teachers in our study was that they did not fully understand what the ILE was aiming for, nor had they received sufficient training to work in the ILE (Alakoski et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref92">3</reflink>]). Therefore, the training of future teachers should pay more attention to identifying the spatial affordances for pedagogy and developing collaborative pedagogical approaches. Above all, attention needs to be paid to supporting organisations undergoing change. For this, it would be important to examine more closely the process of transforming the learning environment, how it is managed, implemented, and supported.</p> <p>Second, the results increase our understanding of previously reported students' behavioural challenges in the modern learning environments. In earlier studies (Chapman et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref93">10</reflink>]; Kariippanon et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref94">27</reflink>]), especially open environments have been found to increase disruptions and decrease student concentration. Our results show that, rather than the environment itself, the disciplinary and concentration problems were connected to the way the ILE was used. In the open environments where teachers tried to force the ILE into traditional form with fixed groupings, students more often displayed disciplinary issues in their drawings, and the discourse was mainly about things other than mathematics. Instead, when the pedagogy was based on teachers' collaboration and use of flexible groupings, the discourse in the drawings was mainly about mathematics, and there were hardly any references to disciplinary problems. However, it should be noted that the possibility of flexible groupings is also linked to the flexibility of space. In some schools, there were too many students for the space available, limiting the flexible use of the ILE. This inflexible occupying the space in turn has been found to cause stress and concentration difficulties for both students and teachers (McPherson & Saltmarsh, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref95">32</reflink>]; Niemi, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref96">36</reflink>]). Thus, if pedagogy and learning are to be developed through physical space, attention should be given to the number of students using the space.</p> <p>Third, changing groupings seems to improve the classes' emotional climate, as in the classes with flexible groupings, the collective emotional climate was perceived more often as positive. The result is supported by the earlier finding by Frenzel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref97">18</reflink>]), that emotional experience is influenced not only by how students perceive the environment but also by class relations and composition in terms of gender and achievement. While the effect size of our result was small (Cohen's <emph>d</emph> 0.286), it is typical for educational research. For example, in Hattie's ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref98">23</reflink>]) large synthesis of educational research, most effect sizes on achievement vary between 0.05 and 0.59.</p> <p>To conclude, our results show that ILEs, through teacher collaboration, may improve mathematics lessons' interactivity and emotional climate. For learning mathematics, this is significant as increased mathematical discourse enables students to learn new mathematical concepts and integrate them with their existing knowledge (Bishop, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref99">5</reflink>]). Further, active two-way interaction between teachers and students encourages students to engage and solve more demanding learning tasks (Howes et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref100">26</reflink>]). Emotional climate, in turn, has been found to increase student engagement and deep learning, as well as improve academic achievement and motivation to learn (Aldridge & Blackstock, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref101">1</reflink>]; Erdem & Kaya, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref102">15</reflink>]; Havik & Westergård, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref103">24</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref104">47</reflink>]). However, in line with Bradbeer ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref105">8</reflink>]), not all cooperation is equally effective. Positive outcomes were associated with collaboration that approached the form of Pedagogical Learning Communities (Bolman et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref106">6</reflink>]), involving a redefinition of teachers' long-held identities, established teaching 'rules,' and a sacrificing of varying degrees of autonomy (Bradbeer, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref107">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, as a limitation, our study focused only on the perspectives of third and fourth grade students, with no special needs, in a Finnish school context. Many studies have reported that, for example, motivation (Schweder & Raufelder, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref108">40</reflink>]) and liking of school tend to decrease as students get older (Eggum-Wilkens et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref109">14</reflink>]; Niemi et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref110">36</reflink>]). Moreover, Niemi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref111">36</reflink>]) found that higher-grade students who had experienced both traditional and renewed design preferred traditional classrooms over the flexible spaces. From a cultural perspective, emotional climate, as part of the socially constructed school climate, reflects culture-related norms, values, and beliefs (Aldridge & Blackstock, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref112">1</reflink>]). Thus, as the experiences of different age groups may differ and are connected to the cultural context of the country, more research on the area is needed. Also, as ILEs have been found to pose challenges for the psychological safety of special needs students and inclusion (Charteris et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref113">11</reflink>]), more information on ILEs from the perspective of students with special needs is needed. Last, in this study, we used students' drawings as a research method. Although drawings have been found to be a rich source of data (Laine et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref114">29</reflink>]), some students may find it challenging to produce a drawing, which may affect the reliability of the results. For example, in some drawings, there was a contradiction between facial and verbal expressions, or the difference between a neutral and a happy/sad expression was unclear.</p> <hd id="AN0184489881-17">Conclusions</hd> <p>Our results show that mathematics lessons' interactions and emotional climate can be improved through collaborative pedagogy and flexible groupings enabled by ILEs. However, the positive effects of the ILEs relate to the way teachers can exploit the environment. If the teachers are not ready to change their pedagogical practices, the ILE can turn against itself. Thus, when planning and implementing new school buildings, better consideration must be given to the capacity and commitment of the working community to work in a new environment. Through teacher education and in-service training, and by supporting the organisation during the process of change in the learning environment, ILEs have the potential to improve education.</p> <hd id="AN0184489881-18">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We would like to thank Pia Ilomanni for the parallel coding of the drawings.</p> <hd id="AN0184489881-19">Author contributions</hd> <p>All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Riikka Alakoski. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Riikka Alakoski, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Riikka Alakoski, Anu Laine, Markku S. Hannula did conceptualization and gave methodology; Riikka Alakoski done formal analysis and investigation and writing—original draft preparation; Riikka Alakoski, Anu Laine, Markku S. Hannula done writing—review and editing; Funding acquisition was made and this study was funded by the Research Foundation of Mannerheim League for Child Welfare; Resources: No external resources; Anu Laine and Markku S. Hannula supervised the study.</p> <hd id="AN0184489881-20">Funding</hd> <p>Open Access funding provided by University of Helsinki (including Helsinki University Central Hospital). This study was funded by the Research Foundation of Mannerheim League for Child Welfare (Grant number – not received).</p> <hd id="AN0184489881-21">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184489881-22">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.</p> <hd id="AN0184489881-23">Ethical statement</hd> <p>Students were informed before the study about the purpose and stages of the study and the voluntariness of their participation. According to the practices in each municipality, a research permit was sought from either the municipal school administration or the principal of the school. To protect the identity of the research participants, the data were treated with confidentiality throughout the whole analysis process. In Finland, an ethics review is not required for this type of non-risk research involving healthy, fully informed volunteer minors whose guardian's written consent has been received (TENK, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref115">17</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184489881-24">Informed consent</hd> <p>Participation in the research was voluntary and required a guardian's written consent.</p> <hd id="AN0184489881-25">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0184489881-26"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref24" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aldridge JM, Blackstock MJ. Assessing students' perceptions of school climate in primary schools. Learning Environments Research. 2024; 27: 579-602. 10.1007/s10984-024-09492-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref72" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. (2023). ATLAS.ti Mac (version 23.2.1) [Qualitative data analysis software]. https://atlasti.com</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref18" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Alakoski, R, Laine, A, & Hannula, M. S. (2024). Teaching mathematics in innovative learning environments—The entangled tensions between the learning environment and pedagogy. European Journal of Education, 59(3), e12661. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12661</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref50" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Baepler P, Walker JD. Active learning classrooms and educational alliances: Changing relationships to improve learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 2014; 2014; 137: 27-40. 10.1002/tl.20083</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref53" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bishop A. The social construction of meaning: A significant development for mathematics education?. For the Learning of Mathematics. 1985; 5; 1: 24-28</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref41" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bolam, R, McMahon, A, Stoll, L, Thomas, S, & Wallace, M, Greenwood, A, Hawkey, K, Ingram, M, Atkinson, A, & Smith, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining effective professional learning communities. Research Report 637. University of Bristol, Bath and London, Institute of Education. Retrieved Nov 14, 2024, from https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/5622/1/RR637.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref38" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bradbeer CImms W, Cleveland B, Fisher K. Working together in the space-between. Evaluating learning environments. 2016; SensePublishers: 75-90. 10.1007/978-94-6300-537-1_6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref42" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bradbeer CImms W, Kvan T. The enactment of teacher collaboration in innovative learning environments: A case study of spatial and pedagogical structuration. Teacher transition into innovative learning environments. 2021; Springer. 10.1007/978-981-15-7497-9_5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref3" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Byers T, Imms W, Hartnell-Young E. Evaluating teacher and student spatial transition from a traditional classroom to an innovative learning environment. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2018; 58: 156-166. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.07.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chapman A, Randell-Moon H, Campbell M, Drew C. Students in space: Student practices in non-traditional classrooms. Global Studies of Childhood. 2014; 4; 1: 39-48. 10.2304/gsch.2014.4.1.39</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charteris J, Anderson J, Page A. Psychological safety in innovative learning environments: Planning for inclusive spaces. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 2024; 28; 5: 688-704. 10.1080/13603116.2021.1974108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deed C, Lesko T. 'Unwalling' the classroom: Teacher reaction and adaptation. Learning Environments Research. 2015; 18; 2: 217-231. 10.1007/s10984-015-9181-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dovey K, Fisher K. Designing for adaptation: The school as socio-spatial assemblage. The Journal of Architecture. 2014; 19; 1: 43-63. 10.1080/13602365.2014.882376</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eggum-Wilkens ND, Valiente C, Swanson J, Lemery-Chalfant K. Children's shyness, popularity, school liking, cooperative participation, and internalizing problems in the early school years. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2014; 29; 1: 85-94. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.10.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erdem C, Kaya M. The relationship between school and classroom climate, and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. School Psychology International. 2024; 45; 4: 380-408. 10.1177/01430343231202923</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans IM, Harvey ST, Buckley L, Yan E. Differentiating classroom climate concepts: Academic, management, and emotional environments. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online. 2009; 4; 2: 131-146. 10.1080/1177083X.2009.9522449</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finnish National Board on Research Integrity, TENK. (2019). The ethical principles of research with human participants and ethical review in the human sciences in finland—finnish national board on research integrity tenk guidelines 2019. Publications of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK 3/2019.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frenzel AC, Pekrun R, Goetz T. Perceived learning environment and students' emotional experiences: A multilevel analysis of mathematics classrooms. Learning and Instruction. 2007; 17; 5: 478-493. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friend M, Reising M, Cook L. Co-Teaching: An overview of the past, a glimpse at the present, and considerations for the future. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth. 1993; 37; 4: 6-10. 10.1080/1045988x.1993.9944611</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hannula MS. Exploring new dimensions of mathematics-related affect: Embodied and social theories. Research in Mathematics Education. 2012; 14; 2: 137-161. 10.1080/14794802.2012.694281</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hargreaves A. Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers' work and culture in the postmodern age. 1994; Cassell</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hargreaves A, O'Connor MT. Cultures of professional collaboration: Their origins and opponents. Journal of Professional Capital and Community. 2017; 2; 2: 74-85. 10.1108/JPCC-02-2017-0004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie J. Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. 20081; Routledge. 10.4324/9780203887332</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Havik T, Westergård E. Do teachers matter? Students' perceptions of classroom interactions and student engagement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2019; 64; 4: 488-507. 10.1080/00313831.2019.1577754</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hornstra L, van der Veen I, Peetsma T, Volman M. Innovative learning and developments in motivation and achievement in upper primary school. Educational Psychology. 2015; 35; 5: 598-633. 10.1080/01443410.2014.922164</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Howes C, Burchinal M, Pianta R, Bryant DM, Early D, Clifford RM, Barbarin OA. Erratum to "Ready to learn? Children's pre-academic achievement in pre-kindergarten programs" [Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23 (2008) 27–50]. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2008; 23; 3: 429-430. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.08.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kariippanon KE, Cliff DP, Lancaster SL, Okely AD, Parrish A-M. Perceived interplay between flexible learning spaces and teaching, learning and student wellbeing. Learning Environments Research. 2018; 21; 3: 301-320. 10.1007/s10984-017-9254-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy BL, Thornberg RFlick U. Deduction, induction, and abduction. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection. 2018; SAGE Publications: 49-64. 10.4135/9781526416070.n4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laine A, Ahtee M, Näveri L. Impact of teacher's actions on emotional atmosphere in mathematics lessons in primary school. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2020; 18: 163-181. 10.1007/s10763-018-09948-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leff SS, Power TJ, Costigan TE, Manz PH. Assessing the climate of the playground and lunchroom: Implications for bullying prevention programming. School Psychology Review. 2003; 32; 3: 418-430. 10.1080/02796015.2003.12086209</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lim FV, O'Halloran KL, Podlasov A. Spatial pedagogy: Mapping meanings in the use of classroom space. Cambridge Journal of Education. 2012; 42; 2: 235-251. 10.1080/0305764X.2012.676629</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McPherson A, Saltmarsh S. Bodies and affect in non-traditional learning spaces. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2017; 49; 8: 832-841. 10.1080/00131857.2016.1252904</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meirovich G. Creating a favorable emotional climate in the classroom. The International Journal of Management Education. 2012; 10; 3: 169-177. 10.1016/j.ijme.2012.06.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer DK, Turner JC. Re-conceptualizing emotion and motivation to learn in classroom contexts. Educational Psychology Review. 2006; 18; 4: 377-390. 10.1007/s10648-006-9032-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moran, A. (2019). Campfire, watering hole, cave, life: David Thornburg interpreted in Ireland. In W. Imms, & M. Mahat (Eds.), Transitions 18. Continuing the conversation. Symposium Proceedings 2018 (pp. 151–156). https://<ulink href="http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marco-Braga/publication/335703143%5fTRANSITIONS18%5fSYMPOSIUM%5fPROCEEDINGS%5f2018/links/5d76905492851cacdb2de524/TRANSITIONS18-SYMPOSIUM-PROCEEDINGS-2018.pdf">www.researchgate.net/profile/Marco-Braga/publication/335703143%5fTRANSITIONS18%5fSYMPOSIUM%5fPROCEEDINGS%5f2018/links/5d76905492851cacdb2de524/TRANSITIONS18-SYMPOSIUM-PROCEEDINGS-2018.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Niemi K, Minkkinen J, Poikkeus AM. Opening up learning environments: Liking school among students in reformed learning spaces. Educational Review. 2022; 76; 5: 1191-1208. 10.1080/00131911.2022.2098927</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. Innovative learning environments. 2013; OECD Publishing. 10.1787/9789264203488-en</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quane K, Chinnappan M, Trenholm S. Draw yourself doing mathematics: Developing an analytical tool to investigate the nature of young children's attitudes towards mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal. 2023; 35; 3: 445-473. 10.1007/s13394-021-00399-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saltmarsh S, Chapman A, Campbell M, Drew C. Putting "structure within the space": Spatially un/responsive pedagogical practices in open-plan learning environments. Educational Review. 2014; 67; 3: 315-327. 10.1080/00131911.2014.924482</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schweder S, Raufelder D. Does changing learning environments affect student motivation?. Learning and Instruction. 2024; 89: 101829. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101829</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slee PT, Skrzypiec G. Well-being, positive peer relations and bullying in school settings. 2016; Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-319-43039-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Somersalo H, Solantaus T, Almqvist F. Classroom climate and the mental health of primary school children. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. 2002; 56; 4: 285-290. 10.1080/08039480260242787</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thousand JS, Villa RA, Nevin AI. The many faces of collaborative planning and teaching. Theory into Practice. 2006; 45; 3: 239-248. 10.1207/s15430421tip4503_6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turgut S, Turgut IG. Me while I am learning mathematics: Reflections to elementary school students' drawings. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education. 2020; 13; 1: 139-154. 10.26822/iejee.2020.179</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young F, Cleveland B. Affordances, architecture, and the action possibilities of learning environments: A critical review of the literature and future directions. Buildings. 2022; 12; 1: 76. 10.3390/buildings12010076</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang MT, Degol JL. School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review. 2016; 28: 315-352. 10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang MT, Degol JL, Amemiya J, Parr A, Guo J. Classroom climate and children's academic and psychological wellbeing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Developmental Review. 2020; 57: 100912. 10.1016/j.dr.2020.100912</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Riikka Alakoski; Anu Laine and Markku S. Hannula</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref115"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1486005
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Interaction and Collective Emotional Climate in Innovative Learning Environments in Mathematics Lessons: A Third- and Fourth-Grade Students' Perspective
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Riikka+Alakoski%22">Riikka Alakoski</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3397-5467">0000-0002-3397-5467</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anu+Laine%22">Anu Laine</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3881-8134">0000-0003-3881-8134</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Markku+S%2E+Hannula%22">Markku S. Hannula</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4979-7711">0000-0003-4979-7711</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Learning+Environments+Research%22"><i>Learning Environments Research</i></searchLink>. 2025 28(1):81-102.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 22
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+3%22">Grade 3</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+3%22">Grade 3</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+4%22">Grade 4</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics+Education%22">Mathematics Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Classroom+Environment%22">Classroom Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Innovation%22">Educational Innovation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Experience%22">Student Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Relationship%22">Peer Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grouping+%28Instructional+Purposes%29%22">Grouping (Instructional Purposes)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Collaboration%22">Teacher Collaboration</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Finland%22">Finland</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10984-025-09530-7
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1387-1579<br />1573-1855
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: New school buildings are increasingly designed as innovative learning environments (ILEs) to increase interactivity and learning engagement. However, little is known about the students' experiences in these environments. This article examines how the pedagogy enabled by ILEs is linked to the mathematics lessons' interaction and collective emotional climate. We analysed 446 drawings made by third and fourth graders from 26 classes studying mathematics in ILEs. In some of the classes, the pedagogical affordances of ILEs were used effectively, while in others the teaching was done in a traditional way. We found that ILEs affected mathematics lessons' interaction and emotional climate through pedagogical groupings. Teacher collaboration and flexible groupings were related to more interactive student positioning and mathematical discourse, increased interaction between the students and teachers, and a more positive emotional climate than fixed groupings. Further, fixed groupings in the open environments were more likely to result in disciplinary and concentration problems. Rather than the environment itself, our results highlight the importance of the way teachers are able to exploit the affordances of the environment.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1486005
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1486005
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10984-025-09530-7
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 22
        StartPage: 81
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 3
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 4
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Classroom Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Innovation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grouping (Instructional Purposes)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Collaboration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Finland
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Interaction and Collective Emotional Climate in Innovative Learning Environments in Mathematics Lessons: A Third- and Fourth-Grade Students' Perspective
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Riikka Alakoski
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Anu Laine
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Markku S. Hannula
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1387-1579
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1855
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 28
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Learning Environments Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1