Abstract:

Innovative Learning Environments (ILEs) are widely promoted to support student-centered and constructivist pedagogies, yet redesigned spaces alone do not ensure improved teaching. Effective implementation depends on teachers’ ability to design and enact constructivist tasks. Research–Practice Partnerships (RPPs) provide a promising framework for supporting sustained, evidence-informed pedagogical change by bringing together practitioners and researchers in long-term collaborations focused on real educational problems.

This study examines how pedagogical practices are enacted in ILEs within a multi-year RPP. Research questions:
(1) How are pedagogical practices enacted in ILEs compared to traditional classrooms?
(2) How does enacted pedagogy relate to students’ motivation and personal responsibility over time?

The study was conducted in three schools located within the same geographical region and in close proximity to the researchers’ academic institution. Across all three sites, innovative and traditional learning spaces co-existed at each grade level, enabling systematic comparison of enacted pedagogy. To address the second research question, one school was selected for the longitudinal examination of students’ motivation and personal responsibility. In this school, a cohort of Grade 9 students was followed over two years, through the end of Grade 10. A total of 131 students participated in the study: 75 students enrolled in the innovative program and 56 students in traditional classrooms.

Data were collected through classroom observations, analysis of learning tasks, and pre- and post-questionnaires administered to students. A total of 478 classroom observations were conducted. In addition, 307 learning tasks were. For the student component, pre- and post-questionnaires measuring intrinsic motivation and personal responsibility for learning were administered over two consecutive school years. The questionnaire items were drawn from the Ministry of Education’s national school climate surveys.

Analysis of pedagogical practices revealed that lecture-based teaching appeared much more frequently in traditional classrooms (63%) than in innovative spaces (36%), a difference confirmed by a large and significant chi-square effect (χ²=97.958, p<.001, Cramer’s V=.453). Conversely, cooperative learning was substantially more prevalent in innovative environments (35% vs. 15%, χ²=74.465, p<.001, V=.395). Individual learning also appeared more often in innovative spaces (29% vs. 22%, χ²=42.410, p=.006, V=.298). Practices reflecting pedagogical differentiation—adapting to differences between learners—were observed markedly more in innovative settings (85% vs. 56%, χ²=49.928, p<.001, V=.323). Similarly, tasks that encourage learners’ choice were more common in innovative classrooms (76% vs. 51%, χ²=32.314, p<.001, V=.260).

No significant differences were found between learning spaces regarding the complexity levels by Blooms’ taxonomy in the learning tasks. No significant differences emerged between innovative and traditional spaces in the level of teachers’ explicit instruction of learning skills. Overall, the degree of explicitness was low in both environments.

This study contributes to a deeper understanding of how pedagogical practices unfold within innovative learning environments and demonstrates the value of RPP-based processes for supporting evidence-informed, sustainable improvements in teaching and learning.

Keywords:

Pedagogical innovation, Research–practice partnership, Evidence-informed improvement, Longitudinal study.