What do New Zealand teachers and principals perceive is happening for English as an additional language students with the changing architecture of New Zealand schools?

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the perceptions of New Zealand teachers and principals about how English as an additional language (EAL) students are faring in the profound changes to the architectural design of school building structures. A national online survey was sent to teachers, middle management and principals in schools and provided qualitative responses to gage the perceptions of participants. Additionally, semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight teachers at four primary schools. The perceptions of these key people provide a range of lenses to better understand the interplay between EAL students’ learning, physical classroom environments and culturally inclusive pedagogical practices. The study found that the innovative architectural design of classrooms may benefit EAL students when the following factors are taken into consideration: (i) peer teaching and student collaboration, (ii) teacher support for EAL students, (iii) classroom noise, and (iv) teachers’ perceptions of EAL students’ personality/cultural traits.

KEYWORDS:

• Innovative learning environments
• culturally relevant education
• EAL students
• teachers’ perceptions

Introduction

Non-native English-speaking students in our English dominated schooling system are a key priority if policy makers, staff at teacher education institutions, school leaders and teachers are intent on turning the tide in these students’ long-term life circumstances. In recent years, New Zealand schools have had a significant growth in students from diverse language and cultural backgrounds (Education Review Office, 2018). For example, from 2009 to 2017 state schools in New Zealand have had an increase of Asian students, from 9.1 percent to 11.8 percent. The reality now in New Zealand state schools is that approximately 50 percent of students are non-European, with about half of these (24 percent in total) being from a Māori (Indigenous people of New Zealand) background. The remaining 26 percent include approximately 10 percent of Pasifika students whose families originated from a range of Pacific Islands (such as Samoa, Tonga and Fiji) and students from a wide range of cultures, such as Chinese, Korean, Filipino, Malaysian, Indian, Afghani, Iraqi, Zimbabwean. This article focuses on those within this 26 percent who use English in addition to another language that is the main language used at home to communicate with their family. Such English as an additional language (EAL) learners are from diverse language backgrounds. English is not their first language, but they will be learning English as an additional language in an English medium of instruction environment. In New Zealand, such students will often be referred to as English as a second language learners, or speakers of English as a second or other language (ESOL), and these terms were used by respondents in the study. The term immigrant students is sometimes also used to describe some of these children, and there is also a Māori term, tauiwi, that refers to those individuals who may be seen as recent arrivals to New Zealand, and this term can be used to refer to those included in the current study. However, the primary focus of this study is not on the “immigration” or “length of stay” of the participants, but on how students who may use a language other than English as a home language integrate into a school environment where English is the medium of instruction. Therefore, EAL is considered the more appropriate term to use given the primary focus of the work, and its brevity for ease of use in this paper.

Culturally inclusive and contextually relevant practices are crucial areas that enhance engagement and self-worth of culturally diverse learners. Similar to other westernised countries, learners from diverse cultural backgrounds bring prior knowledge and experiences that are different from the mainstream European/English speaking learners in New Zealand’s typically Eurocentric schools. For effective and relevant learning to take place, teachers need to build on students’ existing cultural knowledge in order to engage students from Indigenous and diverse cultures (Au, 2002; Macfarlane, 2015). For example, in a New Zealand study which explored Māori students who were succeeding in their secondary schooling, there was a strong acknowledgment of their culture by their teachers and the principals (Macfarlane et al., 2014). The students' engagement with their Māori culture during their schooling was underpinned by Māori values such as manaakitanga and māhaki (being inoffensive, humble and tolerant). They had a positive sense of self-efficacy and self-concept, had high expectations, and enjoyed physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being. The place-based pedagogy which underpinned their schooling was relevant to their own cultural environment and there was a sense of being able to circumnavigate between two worlds of being Maōri and walking within the wider societal contexts.

Coupled with the increase in the culturally diverse nature of students in schools, has been a change to the architectural design of school buildings in New Zealand, with a move from traditional single teacher classrooms to innovative learning environments with multiple teachers and larger cohorts of students. Innovative learning environments is a term of convenience often used in the education sector at present to denote these new types of buildings, but other terms have been used such as flexible learning environments, physical learning space, 21st century learning space, contemporary learning environments and modern learning environments (see, for example Byers et al., 2018). Arguably the word “innovative” has a connotation of creative, imaginative or ingenious, nevertheless there are many who may question the aptness of this choice of term. The architectural structure of innovative learning environments often includes very large open areas, with withdrawal areas for teachers to work with smaller groups of students. Leaders of schools in New Zealand have been expected to gradually update their teaching and learning spaces to meet this profound change to innovative learning spaces, as has been envisioned by the New Zealand Ministry of Education (Ministry of Education, 2017). The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2013) depicts learning environments as an organisational architecture that recognises the social nature of learning by facilitating engagement, motivation, individualised learning, group work and formative assessment. The innovative learning environment was deemed an exemplary catalyst for physical, social and pedagogical contexts to be in unison for holistic learning to take place (Byers et al., 2018). However, whether innovative learning environments are conductive to the learning of EAL students from a range of diverse cultures in New Zealand’s predominantly westernised schooling system is an area that has been understudied. Hence, it is worthy of further research findings that can inform evidenced research-based practices that support such changes to the architectural design of schools.

Literature review

Linguistic and cultural traits of EAL students

Much of the related literature in the area of innovative learning environments has focused on teachers, school leadership, teaching and learning in general (see, for example, Mackey et al., 2018; Smardon et al., 2015). Nevertheless, the potential effects on New Zealand students using English as an additional language needs to be examined. Children who speak English as one of the two or more languages spoken at home, are more than likely not to have English as their first learnt language. Furthermore, they are liable to face challenges when they are enrolled in mainstream education in an English medium environment (Barnard, 2009). Current practices for providing instruction for EAL students include the “push in” model, where such students are provided with extra English language teaching in their own classroom, and the “pull out” model, where EAL students are removed from the normal classroom instruction and taken to a dedicated English language teaching space and taught by a qualified English second or other language teacher. The two differing approaches have resulted in claims that one model is more beneficial than the other (Bell & Baecher, 2012). In New Zealand schools, decisions about these different types of support are dependent on the philosophy of the school leadership team. Thus, schools in New Zealand utilise “push in” and “pull out” models, as well as other approaches.

Students’ cultural practices that take place in their familial environment need to be taken into account in a culturally responsive education system. In New Zealand there has been recognition of the need to take Māori, and to some extent Pasifika, cultural backgrounds into account in educational philosophies. However, other cultural groups are often ignored in these policies. For example, what might be termed Eastern philosophies/methodologies, which often have their foundations in Confucian Heritage Culture, have been assimilated by various EAL groups living and learning in New Zealand. The Western ways of working in groups and dealing with difference in opinions may not be the same as that previously experienced by such EAL students. Difference in thinking, expressing ideas and dealing with conflicts are all areas to be considered before determining teaching and learning strategies. For example, students from a country with a strong Confucius heritage background, such as China, Vietnam, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Malaysia, are likely to be strongly influenced by a collectivist orientation and in group unity, potentially leading to them to perform better in organised groups (Nguyen et al., 2006). Such collectivist cultures often value interdependence, hierarchical roles, and respect for authority (DeCapua & Wintergerst, 2004). In contrast, what might be referred to as a more Western education approach values questioning, identifying reasons for knowledge, and challenging views. This often places more value on independence, individualisation, and avoidance of hierarchies to allow equal roles. This has to be taken into consideration when fostering collaborative learning for many EAL students within groups (see Dixon, 2005). Understandably, student-centred approaches, where students play active participants in learning through group discussions, inquiry or project-based learning, are crucial as schools progress into the twenty-first-century education and particularly in innovative learning environments. Understanding the learning culture of EAL students, and making a gradual shift in teaching pedagogies to acknowledge/support such backgrounds, will be important in keeping students motivated while they accommodate to a different style of education. Neuman and Bekerman (2001) caution that teachers need to navigate those cultural resources effectively to determine the success of their practice.

In many western countries, schools can be racialised environments where EAL students from a range of cultures and ethnicities experience systematic exclusion. For example, in the US, Rodriguez et al. (2022) investigated the key role that school social workers can play in mitigating against these racialised contexts. They found that the racial attitudes of the school social workers were significant and shaped how they served the well-being of many EAL students. Furthermore, many school social workers were challenged to implement positive outcomes when the wider school and/or community environment impeded processes with a less than welcoming underlying context. Thus, attempts to reduce inequalities were thwarted by racial attitudes and processes within the schools. Similarly, in a comparative study of US and Danish Muslim students, it was evident the rhetoric of multiculturalism and a humanitarian welcome were over-ridden in several cases by recurring forms of Islamophobia (Shirazi & Jaffe-Walter, 2021). A significant EAL group in the US are students from Spanish speaking family backgrounds. However, Lowenhaupt (2016) found that there was a lack of culturally inclusive resources and practitioner expertise in schools aimed at supporting such Latino-background learners. This led to major variations in learning experiences of these EAL students within the mainly Eurocentric classroom environment. Not only is resourcing within schooling a key ingredient in providing culturally inclusive schooling environments, but the attitudes and ways of being and acting of teachers and their school leaders are critical.

Innovative learning environments

Innovative learning environments in New Zealand schools range from those that are newly built, often with teachers and principals having considerable input into the design, to traditional single teacher classrooms being restructured so there are substantive openings from one classroom to another (Byers et al., 2018; Ministry of Education, 2017). A newly built innovative learning space school may have six or more studios, each comprising students from two to three year-levels, be in the region of the square metres of four or five traditional classrooms, and include up to 160 students and five to six teachers. Inside there may be one very large area and two or three smaller areas that are able to be closed off by sliding glass doors, for smaller sized grouping (Fletcher et al., 2017; Mackey et al., 2018). Often, there is a flow-off area to an outdoor sheltered space where school bags are stored and some outdoor seating is available. Conversely, for several New Zealand schools, the actuality has been retro-fitting of traditional school buildings to create improvised innovative learning environments. Frequently in such cases, matters such as acoustics, ventilation, adequate lighting and space limitations may hinder effective innovative learning practices. In these adapted innovative learning environment schools, where there has been limited funding for retro-fitting, teachers’ daily realities of working in an innovative learning environment can differ markedly from their counterparts in new, purposively designed, acoustically enhanced innovative learning environments (Fletcher et al., 2020). Thus, in these “makeshift” innovative learning spaces, teachers may have differing perceptions of innovative learning environments to those who are situated in new, purposively built learning environments where acoustics, lighting and ventilation are maximised for student and teacher well-being. What appears to be missing in the literature on innovative learning environments is how these architectural changes to school buildings might align to culturally responsive teaching and learning for the milieu of multicultural students within the Eurocentric schooling system. The study by French et al. (2020) in New Zealand and Australia on innovative learning environments identified a critical disconnection to culture. However, this reference to the culture of a school embodied the pedagogical practices where teacher reflection and allowing teachers and students to take risks in their learning were encouraged, rather than any reference to how architectural changes in building design might equate to culturally responsive pedagogy. It is of concern that although education policy has advocated culturally inclusive practices, particularly for Māori and Pasifika (Ministry of Education, 2011, 2013), the huge and extensive investment in changes to school buildings does not appear to be aligned with how this may improve and enhance culturally responsive schooling.

Culturally responsive practices

This article uses a culturally relevant practices lens to interpret the data. Culturally responsive teaching is a crucial component in today’s classrooms. By understanding students’ cultural background and expectations, teachers are able to increase student motivation and engagement through meaningful instruction (Saifer, 2011). For example, for many students from Asian backgrounds, conserving knowledge is more important to learning than constructing knowledge (Dixon, 2005). Such students may prefer to read widely and trust expert knowledge whereas students from a more European education background may prefer to question knowledge and form their own opinions. Research on culturally responsive teaching continues to emphasise that knowing how certain groups of people construct knowledge is no longer an option but a necessity in classrooms in order to provide the appropriate pedagogy (Liu, 2016; Neuman & Bekerman, 2001).

Culturally relevant pedagogy has come to the fore in many areas of improving schooling for marginalised students, but how that is enacted and to what depth requires critical analysis by teachers. Merely selecting books about culturally diverse groups, or providing a cultural celebration does not equate to culturally relevant pedagogies. For example, in the US, Ladson-Billings (2014) was discouraged by the distortion of the central ideas she promulgated around culturally relevant pedagogies. Often superficial attention to culture is enacted. Meaningful pedagogies are underpinned by teachers who are connected with their students, their families and communities, teachers who help students celebrate and appreciate their cultural backgrounds, and teachers who contextually relate learning and develop skills and strategies to critically recognise, analyse and provide solutions for real world issues. As Lowenhaupt (2016) indicates, bilingualism, which draws on and develops the home languages of EAL students as they learn in English speaking schools, requires not just policy, but mechanisms and resourcing to put this rhetoric into place. The complexity for teachers can be the range of different first languages the students within their classrooms speak. Trying to acknowledge and incorporate all of these, within what is often a very curriculum mandated learning and teaching environment, requires professional development opportunities and resourcing support. The lever for change is culturally responsive schooling which acts as a key driver in encouraging and enhancing learning for all students, particularly those from marginalised EAL groups.

To enhance students’ achievement through culturally responsive pedagogy, the socio-economic status of students’ families also needs to be considered. Time and again EAL students are frequently situated in lower socio-economic homes. When the socio-economic status of students has been separated in research studies in New Zealand and the US, students from low-income families have a tendency to be more likely to show a decreasing growth in achievement (McNaughton et al., 2004; Stockard, 2010). A causal dynamic recognised in McNaughton et al.’s (2004) New Zealand study of students in low socio-economic schools was that notwithstanding explicit interventions at a younger age level, decreasing achievement continued.

Method

Design

The study collected two sets of qualitative data. One set of data was collected via a questionnaire sent to a large number of primary school teachers and principals across New Zealand. The second was based on interviews with a group of primary school teachers working in one city in New Zealand who were specifically selected as they were teaching EAL students within an innovative learning setting. Both sets of data were qualitative, with the questionnaire providing typed responses to open-ended questions and the interview spoken responses to verbal questions. The questionnaire data provided personal perspectives from a range of potential teacher and principal respondents, though responses were relatively short (one or two typed sentences) and the focus of the overall questionnaire was on general aspects related to innovative learning environments. These data were collected first. The interview data were collected after the questionnaire data to provide more focused perspectives from a targeted, small group of teachers, with responses giving more depth to perceptions as the interviewee can discuss concepts at length.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire was anonymous but provided brief information on the background of the respondent, along with series of statements about innovative learning environments, and open-ended items that allowed respondents to present their own views about the use of flexible learning spaces. The focus of the current paper is on the latter open-ended perceptions. The questionnaire was distributed with a cover note, which included the link to the Qualtrics questionnaire, to national web-sites and society/group email addresses across New Zealand. The Qualtrics site was open for one month during which time 264 respondents completed and submitted the questionnaire.

Details from the respondents indicated that 115 were principals and 90 teachers, with a further 59 in middle management or other roles within the school (the vast majority were also teachers who had head of department responsibilities or deputy principals). The majority of respondents were female (186, or 70%) and from New Zealand European background (221, or 84%; a further 22 were from New Zealand Māori backgrounds, with 21 from other backgrounds). The majority had worked at their current school for more than five years (161 respondents; 61%). Most schools were state schools (93%), and in cities (50%) or towns (26%). There were more respondents from higher decile schools (deciles are an indication of the socio-economic status, SES, of the schools population): 21% of respondents were from decile 10 schools (more likely higher SES backgrounds), but only 5% from decile 1 schools (lower SES backgrounds). However, schools were relatively multicultural. Only 20% (53) considered their school to comprise 90% or more students from New Zealand European backgrounds, with 43% (113) considering that their school comprised 70%–89% of students from New Zealand European backgrounds, and 37% (97) of respondents considering that their school was even more multicultural in terms of the ethnicity of the students.

Items also asked participants about the type of classrooms in the school in which they were working. Twenty indicated that they were working in a recently built school with all innovative learning space (about 8%). A further 47 indicated that they were in a school with recently built innovative learning space, but also with classrooms adapted to innovative learning space (about 18%), and 39 stated they were in a school with recently built innovative learning space and traditional classroom spaces (about 15%). Seventy participants indicated that they were in a school with classrooms adapted to be innovative learning space (about 26%) and 86 were in a school with mainly traditional classrooms (about 33%). Overall, Likert-based responses to items about experiences of innovative learning environments were consistent with data reported previously (see Everatt & Fletcher, 2019; Everatt et al., 2019), hence the focus here on the more qualitative responses provided in the open-ended questions that asked the respondents for their views about noise/concentration, student management and self-regulated learning, students’ ability to work with peers, and teacher collaboration. Open-ended questions also asked respondents to comments about whether they felt EAL students would find learning in an innovative learning classroom difficult, but whether such environments provided opportunities to better understand each student’s cultures, languages and identities, and learning needs. Not all participants completed these open-ended questions (about 10% to 25% of participants responded to each open-ended question), and responses were generally one or two sentences, making them less useful for qualitative analyses aimed at identifying themes (themes were developed using the interview data). However, the sample from which these data are drawn was relatively large for a qualitative study (some 60 + participants produced responses to the open-ended items), and these responses can be used to supplement the more in-depth views expressed in the semi-structured interview. Note that this questionnaire sample cannot be considered as representative of all New Zealand teachers/principals. The sample was self-selecting and not all use the national web-sites and society/group email addresses on which the study was advertised, so any sampling strategy was purely opportunistic, and comprised only a fraction of the teachers/principals compared to those working in New Zealand. These data, therefore, need to be treated in the same way as any set of qualitative data; as indicative purely of the views of the respondents. However, combining these data with that derived from interviews provides a larger set of data on which to determine themes that may be important to such participants, and using an anonymous questionnaire may provide respondents the opportunity to make statements that they might otherwise prefer not to in front of a researcher.

Interviews

Eight semi-structured interviews were conducted with primary teachers from four schools. The schools were purposively selected based on researcher knowledge that they comprised higher proportions of EAL students than most other schools in the New Zealand city where the research occurred. More schools than four were initially approached, but the principals in these four schools consented to the researchers approaching staff to ask them to volunteer to take part in the interview. The schools were also targeted because they comprised either purpose-built or refurbished innovative learning classrooms: refurbished means that previous single-teacher classrooms had been converted to bigger spaces for more multiple-teacher classes. The researchers sent out information sheets and requests to teachers in the schools (via the school internal mailing systems) to take part in the study and two teachers from each school agreed to take part. These teachers, therefore, also comprise mainly an opportunity sample, though with initial approach targeted at schools with specific features. The teachers at the time of the interview were in innovative learning environments, but four of the teachers had previously taught in traditional single teacher classrooms. The interviews included questions such as: What are the pedagogical practices in place that support students who speak English as a second (additional) language in a flexible learning space in comparison to a traditional classroom? and What are the barriers for students who speak English as a second (additional) language in a flexible learning space in comparison to a traditional classroom? The interviews were approximately 45 min in length, audio recorded and later transcribed. Pseudonyms are used for the participants.

Data analysis

Data from the open-ended items in the questionnaire and the semi-structured interviews were processed separately. A culturally relevant practices lens was used to interpret the data, based on the position of the researchers as academics teaching primarily into teacher education courses and conducting research that aims to inform general teaching practice as well as work with EAL learners. Two of the authors are from a background where English is not their first language – both are from Asian countries and are now living and working in New Zealand. Another author was born in a European country, but has worked in several countries across Asia and Europe, as well as in New Zealand. The final author was born in New Zealand and has worked extensively with colleagues from Pasifika backgrounds. All authors have conducted research on EAL learners and been involved in the teaching of EAL students.

Initial analysis of the interview data by one researcher led to emerging themes being identified and filtered into coding categories (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). Links between these coding categories were ascertained based on analysis by the researcher (see, Strauss & Corbin, 1990). This involved considering the concepts and themes in the data which related with one another and/or established clusters to convey a deeper net for arising main ideas. Lastly, selective coding scanned the data and prior codes to structure the entire analysis around a reduced set of core ideas (Charmaz, 2003; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). During this process of selective coding the significant codes that reappeared frequently guided the interpretation of the findings reported in this article (Charmaz, 2003). For example, codes of “noise”, “disruption”, “distraction”, “quiet space/zones”, “break out spaces/areas” were noted many times in the transcripts leading to the theme of “Classroom noise” being discussed in the following results. Themes were developed from the semi-structured interview data, with the questionnaire responses being used to further interrogate perspectives within these themes. Examples in the results below are taken from both the typed questionnaire responses and the verbal interview responses. To delineate the two, questionnaire examples are coded with a Q in brackets after the quote, and the interview examples are presented with a pseudonym.

Results and findings

Four key themes were derived from the analysis of the interviews. These were (i) peer teaching and student collaboration, (ii) teacher support for EAL students, (iii) classroom noise, and (iv) teachers’ perceptions of EAL students’ personality/cultural traits. Each will be covered below with examples of interview and questionnaire responses (with a brief background to the quote – note that ILE is used to refer to innovative learning environment in these backgrounds). These will then be discussed in the subsequent sub-section of the paper.

Peer teaching and student collaboration

The majority, though by no means all, of the respondents working in innovative learning environments felt that these classrooms can be beneficial for students. This included EAL students, who a number of teachers felt would have more students from which to choose for peer teaching. For example, Sue believed that by having an open class, students who speak the same language are able to help one another. She stated that the two teachers in her space would not be able to cope with the needs of all the students and, therefore, peer teaching is an important strategy especially for EAL students who are struggling. Sue capitalised on the diversity within the classroom as an essential resource.

Kids are able to group themselves and can sit and talk with others who speak the same language. Kids who speak the same language can help them in English.

(Sue: Purpose-built ILEs, 15 + years teaching, 6 years in ILEs)

This suggests that Sue considered that innovative learning environments may be beneficial particularly for EAL students who had limited English as they can interact with others from a similar language background. Similarly, Jill believed that the large number of students from various nationalities is an advantage in assisting the teacher. Within the large number of students in innovative learning environments, teachers are always able to find another student of the same nationality who speaks the same native language to assist the EAL student in the teaching.

You’ve got so many kids there. I mean, these days, in our classrooms, we’ve got a huge variety of nationalities. There’s always a kid through our whole block who can speak the language. “Can you come and help out for a bit”, you know. We always grab them down and say, “Can you come and spend half a day?” It’s total immersion and do the best they can.

(Jill: Purpose-built ILEs, 15 + years teaching, 4 years in ILEs)

The need for peer support was also recognised in responses to questionnaire statements.

We have a very divergent cultural mix within our school community. ESOL students fit in well, in fact we often have another student in that group who speak their first language, which makes it easier to form these connections.

(Q: Principal, Refurbished ILEs, 5 + years at current school)

Though some were less confident about innovative learning environments (or flexible learning spaces, the term used by the respondent) they felt that peer assistance was vital in any classroom context.

Students for whom English is a second language find learning in a flexible learning space difficult. ESOL learning would be hard in any environment, unless other students assisted the process.

(Q: Teacher, Refurbished ILEs, 5 + years at current school)

This teacher clearly felt that the EAL students found learning in the large open innovative learning environments challenging – though, again, the point about other students maybe helping is recognised. Perhaps, such difficulties may have been related to the change from a very traditional teacher-centred school environment in an EAL student’s home country to the student-centred approach found in innovative learning environments.

In contrast, Debra stated that the EAL students benefitted from having a large number of students around them, as they are constantly exposed to the English language even when they are not working with the teacher directly.

I think it’s good because they are exposed to the other language all the time. You know, even if they’re not working with the teacher, they’ve still got other children working with them or talking to them. And I think it helps them learn a lot quicker the oral language.

(Debra: Purpose-built ILEs, 15 + years teaching, 5 years in ILEs)

Such observations can be found in the questionnaire responses too. For example, one respondent referred to the improvements shown by an EAL student in the following way.

If anything the open environment has exposed him to more opportunities to use language and understand context of language. … He finished the 2016 year above standard in Reading, Writing & Mathematics.

(Q: Principal, Refurbished ILEs, 3–5 years at current school)

The more open-classroom environment is suggested as a potential way to increase the EAL students’ exposure to English. Similarly, Sharon indicated that the mixed ability groupings in their classrooms helped. For example, students who are proficient in reading can help EAL students who require support.

A lot of them will find that there’s other students in the class that speak that additional language because we, for example, we have got a lot of children that speak Mandarin and so some children that do speak Mandarin, their English is quite strong as well. So, it helps with our more … I suppose, more ESOL learners, like we use them to help translate. And then we also do things like read aloud, so read with expression, with the children, as well.

(Sharon: Refurbished ILEs, < 5 years teaching, 3 years in ILEs)

Overall, the teachers found the larger numbers of students, with a range of language and cultural backgrounds, provided a rich and fertile language learning environment to accommodate the growing number of EAL students in New Zealand schools.

Teacher support for EAL students

However, not all teachers were convinced about the specific benefits of innovative learning environments. For example, a number of questionnaire respondents stressed that the teaching methods or support utilised are what is important, not the type of building.

It is practice not learning environment that determines the quality … It is too simplistic to say that one factor … determines the quality of teaching, learning or inclusive practice.

(Q: Principal, Minimal use of ILEs, 5 + years at current school)

For the students who are second language, it depends whether they will find it difficult depending on the programmes that are being run and the support that the learning centre has.

(Q: Teacher, Purpose-built ILEs, 1–2 years at current school)

Such comments emphasise the importance of the teaching practices used, particularly with EAL students – though the comments could apply equally to other groups of students. For example, other teachers had concerns about the inclusion of low progress students (a group that includes those with limited English) and the expectation that they are self-regulated learners in innovative learning environments. Statements about students getting “lost and confused” were evidenced in a number of questionnaire responses.

If priority learners can be “lost & confused” in a single cell classroom. How much more in a room with even more children unless the school has funding for extra staff.

(Q: Teacher, Purpose-built ILEs, 1–2 years at current school)

Planning for inclusion is easy. It [is in] the implementing of ideas and activities that teachers get overwhelmed by … Flexible learning spaces require students to be able to work independently and to self-manage. Many of our students are not able to do this and teachers spend a lot of time on student management rather than teaching.

(Q: Teacher, Refurbished ILEs, 5 + years at school)

Strategies for student management, as well as student self-management/self-regulation, seem to be an important area for further study (both research and professional development) based on these teachers’ perspectives. In contrast, the creation of larger classrooms has given rise to the availability of more than one teacher per classroom, which at times can allow targeted support through multiple teacher availability. For example, Jill indicated that having more than one teacher in the classroom does allow them to rely on each other to assist EAL students. The teacher is able to step away from a larger group of students to focus on assisting the student in need of extra help.

So having that time, if you were the only one in the classroom with your 30 kids, then you can't be pulled away that quickly. Because there are a couple of teachers available, you can call someone out for 5, 10 min and have the conversations or the teaching or set them up and then slot back in.

(Jill: Purpose-built ILEs, 15 + years teaching, 4 years in ILEs)

The possibility of a one-on-one session with the teacher, or a small group interaction with the teacher, is a potential advantage of having more than one teacher in a learning space. The ability to work with a teacher in a more individualised way, or within a selected group of peers, may be particularly important for some EAL students. This can also lead to support across year groups – as one questionnaire respondent indicated:

Working collaboratively allows teachers to make better relationships with a wider group of children which allows transitions for the following year much easier for children especially if they remain in the same team.

(Q: Teacher, Refurbished ILEs, 5 + years at current school)

Collaboration amongst teachers to meet the needs of a wide range of learners requires teachers to have a positive working relationship with the other team members and a joint awareness of the explicit needs of the many students in the innovative learning environment. This will require time to plan collaboratively how best to implement the daily programme of teaching and learning, but also building designs that can facilitate a range of learning spaces.

Classroom noise

Noise can be a consequence of large multi-group classrooms, and many teachers identified noise as a particular issue when working in innovative learning environments. This may be particularly problematic for language learners (see Nelson et al., 2005). Wendy, for example, indicated that noise can be a problem for EAL students, especially for students who have recently arrived from overseas. She also believed that the disparity between their classroom in their home country and adapting to the innovative learning environment in New Zealand can be challenging.

I think the noise is probably an issue because like, I've talked to a couple of them. And they’ll go like … .so loud, you know, just because they have obviously just come from overseas and their classrooms were quiet, and everyone was seated and was all very well from their point of view, very structured compared to what we have here. Because it’s very loose … And I think that’s a struggle for them a lot of the time.

(Wendy: Refurbished ILEs, 5–10 years teaching, 4 years in ILEs)

Debra has also indicated that she worried about the effects of noise on her students, including EAL students. She found that classroom noise interfered with her guided reading lessons and chose to deal with this by working in one of the break-out rooms within the innovative learning classroom with the door shut.

You can hear that I haven’t got the door shut so you can hear the noise. You know, when you got so many children, that's a factor.

(Debra: Purpose-built ILEs, 15 + years teaching, 5 years in ILEs)

In contrast, Jill appeared less sure that noise was a particular challenge for EAL students in an innovative learning environment.

Maybe just the noise, you know, because there are so many extra kids, you know. Trying to pick up new words that they've never learned before. Yeah, but I don’t believe it would affect them. I don’t know, they might have a different opinion!

(Jill: Purpose-built ILEs, 15 + years teaching, 4 years in ILEs)

Although noise is clearly an issue that teachers were taking into account, views varied about the impact of noise within such spaces. For example, as discussed above, greater exposure to English through conversations that are occurring around them may be a positive for some EAL students. Hence, the type of noise and the goals of the classroom activity may be key to interpreting impact.

Similar points were made in the questionnaire responses. For example, respondents indicated that they felt that the strategic use of the space was key to avoiding problems associated with noise.

Breakout spaces that are quieter can be used to address the needs of second language learners or those with specific learning needs while still being able to be seen by the rest of the Hub. Teachers need to learn how to “Step in and Step Out” of the learning space while students discover and drive their own learning paths.

(Q: Principal, Minimal use of ILEs, 5 + years at current school)

Although noise was recognised as a potential distraction for EAL learners, the strategic use of quieter areas within innovative learning spaces was found to be one way to mitigate the problem. However, this solution may not be always possible depending on the building design of the innovative learning environment and/or the strategic planning of the team of teachers.

Teachers’ perceptions of EAL students’ experiences and cultural traits

Negative consequences due to noise may also relate to previous experiences (as suggested by Wendy in the previous sub-section). If you are used to a noisy learning environment, then it may be less of a problem than if you come from a context where learning spaces are quiet and formal. The change in teaching/learning style and culture was proposed by a number of respondents.

The greatest difficulty for ESOL students is the change from formal traditional education to our more collaborative, thinking culture. Any change is difficult for them.

(Q: Principal, Minimal use of ILEs, 5 + years at current school)

Participants also described traits that they considered were related to EAL students in their classrooms and which they perceived as influencing learning. For example, Sharon indicated that EAL students are quieter in class and prefer to talk in smaller groups.

English as an additional language … . they’re a little bit quieter with asking questions, they’re not going to be the first to put their hand up, if they’re struggling. They will normally just sit there until the teacher approaches them or ask their peers. They’re more inclined to talk to their friends as opposed to coming up to a teacher. Yeah, I think maybe that's the fact that they are able to ask a friend that speaks the same language as them.

(Sharon: Refurbished ILEs, < 5 years teaching, 3 years in ILEs)

Similarly, Wendy also felt that EAL students do not interact much during lessons and have to be prompted more in comparison to her other students.

I’m sitting here with a group around my table and we’re reading a book … And I think I find that EAL students or second language learners, like, they don’t interact as much, and they have to be prompted a lot more. So to say … because most of the kids will go, “yeah I did that or blah, blah, blah, I did that or yeah I like this”. But a lot of them just sit back, and they’re just kind of watching. And they’ll do what they’re being asked to do. And they’ll know what to do. But they just are quite introverted.

(Wendy: Refurbished ILEs, 5–10 years teaching, 4 years in ILEs)

Jill has also indicated that her EAL students are slightly more reserved than her English only speaking students and is uncertain if this trait is attributed by the Western teaching styles.

Slightly more reserved initially. And I think that until you build up that relationship, but also, I don’t know whether it’s our Kiwi way of teaching and that’s more relaxed reading group thing. It’s not so structured so they don’t know how to possibly be really open about what they’re talking about. Yeah, so there is a little bit slightly more reserved, but they get better as the year goes on.

(Jill: Purpose-built ILEs, 15 + years teaching, 4 years in ILEs)

Indeed, a number of teachers mentioned that EAL students may take longer to build relationships with their teachers. However, Debra indicated that although it takes them longer, these relationships can be strong once established.

Often, it takes them a bit longer to establish relationships with, when you’ve got three different people, they are sort of a bit hesitant. But we find once they’ve got a relationship with one teacher, then it's a very strong, very firm relationship.

(Debra: Purpose-built ILEs, 15 + years teaching, 5 years in ILEs)

Debra also mentioned that EAL students are very determined and strong willed to learn.

We mostly have EAL students. They are very determined, very strong on the learning and they really, really focus really, really hard. And they certainly I would think they certainly progress the fastest and even in this environment, they still progress more.

(Debra: Purpose-built ILEs, 15 + years teaching, 5 years in ILEs)

When prompted further on why she thinks that the EAL students are very focused and hardworking, Debra attributed their determination to their parents’ educational background. Debra acknowledged that the students’ home environment and background has an impact on their learning attitudes.

I think the historical background, they come from very strong academic backgrounds, and often both parents are here on scholarships. Or often one parent will be studying, one parent will be teaching or lecturing, or one parent will be studying and one parent will be, you know, working other jobs and things like that. And they have a very, very strong academic, you know, focus for them.

(Debra: Purpose-built ILEs, 15 + years teaching, 5 years in ILEs)

Overall, the teachers presented slightly different perspectives about the EAL students in their classes, and how the background and motivations of such students may relate to working within an innovative environment. We will discuss these views in the following section.

Discussion

Innovative learning environments have been considered as effective catalysts for harmonising physical, social and pedagogical contexts for holistic learning to take place. This has led schools in New Zealand to build innovative learning environments in their existing school buildings and to new schools being built with a focus on flexible classrooms spaces that can accommodate large numbers of students and multiple teachers. Concurrently, the ethnic demographics of New Zealand schools have become more diverse where the number of students who speak English as a second or additional language has rapidly increased. In this rapidly changing environment, teachers need to employ more effective pedagogies to enhance the achievement of EAL students, particularly for those EAL students who may be struggling to adapt to unfamiliar languages and educational environments. The findings from this study identified four themes (peer teaching and student collaboration, teacher support for EAL students, classroom noise, and teachers’ perceptions of EAL students’ personality/cultural traits) that primary school staff (teachers and principals) referred to when considering innovative learning environments and the potential impact on students from English as an additional language backgrounds.

Several positive features were identified in both the interview and questionnaire data. One is that respondents felt that EAL students have more opportunities to be exposed to the target language (English in this case) in open-plan spaces, and to interact with students who speak English through peer collaboration. Equally, larger numbers of students within one space were reported as a useful source of support for new EAL students as there was likely to be someone from a similar language background in the cohort who could be involved in peer support. Students from different educational or cultural backgrounds may feel more positive about the new learning context when working with others from a similar background to themselves – they can see how others deal with the differences, and what is appropriate/inappropriate in the new context, from a perspective more consistent with their past experiences. Additionally, multi-teacher classrooms were seen as an advantage by many respondents as they allowed for the opportunity of one teacher focusing on those who may be struggling, or need extra support, while the remaining teachers deal with the main body of learners. Developing tools and procedures for effective peer support and team teaching procedures would seem to be a useful way forward for preparing new teachers for working within such environments (see also Alterator & Deed, 2013; Fletcher et al., 2022).

In contrast, the study found that many respondents felt that noise, and to some extent concentration, could be areas of difficulty for those in large innovative learning classrooms, particularly for those from non-English language backgrounds. Noise may hinder EAL students’ ability to follow communications and to respond accurately to verbal discourse, which may interfere with language experience and hence acquisition. This is not a new perception about such large-group classrooms. Nelson et al. (2005) investigated the effects of classroom noise on the attention and speech perception of students using their first or a second language. Their findings indicated that response accuracy for both English only speaking students and students who speak English as a second language was lower in noisy surrounding; however, the average decline for English as a second language students was four times greater than for their first language peers. Their research recommends that noise sources are identified and kept at a minimum during teacher led instructions especially in classrooms with English as a second language students. This may be particularly important during key points in language acquisition of such students, and those recently arrived in a country may be particularly prone to the effects of noise. Further research studying changes in measures of language skills (e.g. vocabulary or listening comprehension) among children for whom English is not a first language when taught in innovative learning classrooms would be particularly valuable to assess the worries and solutions discussed by the teachers.

Similarly, Wall (2016), in a report on the impact of classroom design and its effect on student outcomes, stated that poor acoustics has a negative impact on both teachers and students, and that students in noisy classes will have the tendency to tune out or misinterpret teachers’ instructions. Teachers in the present study also worried about students “getting lost” in such classrooms, which may reflect the tendency to “tune out” in noisy environments. Clearly, well-constructed/designed classrooms are part of the solution, but a number of respondents also noted strategies to deal with noise through appropriate planning and use of break-out spaces (see also Cardno et al., 2018). Supporting future teachers in ways to plan and use the flexible spaces offered may be of particular importance for those developing teacher education courses. However, once teachers are able to use such environments effectively, there is no reason to assume negative impacts on learning of such environments, even for those from an EAL background (see Bala Subramaniam, 2021).

A further point noted by respondents was more specific to EAL students. Some felt that cultural and pedagogical differences between past educational experiences and innovative learning classrooms in New Zealand schools may discourage EAL students from voluntarily participating in class activities. This may be particularly important in innovative educational environments where group learning may be experienced differently by EAL students compared to their non-EAL peers (see Campbell & Li, 2008; Lee & Bang, 2011). Teachers’ awareness of an EAL student’s cultural traits/background may play a key role in that student being engaged with teachers and the student’s peers, and hence becoming motivated to learn and participate. Within the structure of innovative educational environments, teachers can support EAL students in need through one-on-one or small group conversations in break-out groups and partially separated rooms. For EAL students, such teacher availability may give them the confidence that they are learning from the expert (Loh & Teo, 2017). Indeed, access to a teacher may be essential for some EAL students (see also Wursten & Jacobs, 2013). Hofstede (2001) stated that power is distributed unequally within different cultures. In many Asian countries, from India to Vietnam and China, the teacher holds a highly respected position in society (see, for example, Lee, 2011; Nguyen et al., 2006). Such children may be used to a teacher-centred approach, where being quiet is a sign of respect. Students from countries strongly influenced by Confucianism may not ask questions in the open, as they believe that the teachers’ knowledge should not be questioned in front of the whole class, or do not want to risk “losing face” in front of the whole class (Lee, 2011; Loh & Teo, 2017). From the responses, it seems that many teachers recognise that there are differences in cultural traits and learning preferences between EAL students and the mainly European-background students that have formed the majority of children in New Zealand schools. Approaches to deal with the increasingly widely varied backgrounds of students in New Zealand classes would, therefore, also be worthwhile.

Conclusions, limitations and future work

Overall, the interview and survey responses of teachers and principals suggest that innovative learning environments, appropriately used, can bring benefits for EAL students to better integrate into English medium instruction, though the influence of noise and distraction are areas of major concern for the respondents in this study. Teachers experienced in using such environments, and with the strategies to support students from different backgrounds who may have varying understandings of how to behave in educational settings, should be able to make the most of these benefits. Dissemination of such experiences and strategies, both in formal teacher education contexts, as well as through communities of practice, should provide most teachers with such opportunities.

A limitation of the current research was that we did not collect more detailed information on respondents. For the teacher-interviewees, who provided the data on which themes were developed, we avoided detailed information to ensure that a teacher giving a specific response could not be identified. This was a requirement of ethical approval and was agreed in consent forms to school principals and teachers. However, future research may want to consider including more participant details in order to determine if teachers with certain characteristics are likely to be associated with certain perspectives. Again, this may provide information on how to target dissemination among teachers in schools.

Obviously, any research that focuses on data collected via “self-report” methods needs to consider response bias in the data set. We aimed to reduce this by making responses as anonymous as possible. The more detailed interview data were not anonymous as a researcher asked the interview questions and recorded responses. These responses, therefore, could be open to response bias as a teacher may not want to appear too negative in their face-to-face interactions. The questionnaire data, however, were completely anonymous, and therefore may be less susceptible to such bias. That similar points were identified across the two data sets suggests some reliability in the perspectives discussed. However, it is always possible that responses were influenced more by social desirability of responses than actual behaviour in schools.

Furthermore, although this article focuses on the views of teachers and principals particularly in regard to EAL students, further research that focuses specifically on the views of the EAL students themselves, as well as their parents, would provide a wider range of lenses to better understand the influence of the type of learning environment within schooling and EAL students’ learning. Some caution is needed when considering teachers’ and principals’ responses without the views of the students and their parents. In our user-focused society, the experiences and opinions of the clients are critical. What was missing from the responses from the teachers and principals was acknowledgement of the teachers and/or school leadership team seeking feedback from the EAL students and/or their parents about ways to further enhance learning and how the innovative learning environments impacted on this group of students. Some comments suggest that teachers/principals view EAL students as having problems that need sorting. Discussing issues with students and/or parents may bring to light more positive perceptions and provide a basis for all students to benefit from the understandings of each other. With the growing cultural diversity of EAL students within our New Zealand schools, and parents from many diverse ethnic groups, there is a challenge for teachers to uncover appropriate ways to help all parents understand how they can support their children. Finally, although teachers may believe and articulate specific pedagogical and culturally inclusive practices, we contend that not all teachers may bridge the gap between “rhetoric” and “reality”.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).