I have often been critical of open spaces for learning, and for the record, that criticism has been grounded in research. That does not mean I have stopped following the evidence. Research evolves, findings become more nuanced, and sometimes, as in this study, qualitative research offers new insights into familiar debates.

Kreeta Niemi did not investigate whether students achieve better results in open learning environments. Instead, she examined something that may be even more fundamental: how do teachers actually move through these spaces, and what does that mean for their interactions with students? Given how different these environments are from a traditional classroom, you might expect very different patterns.

To answer this question, Niemi analysed video recordings of two experienced Finnish teachers working in open and flexible learning environments. Through detailed observations, she mapped where the teachers positioned themselves, how they moved through the space, and when they interacted with students.

The findings paint an interesting picture. Although the two teachers worked in similar environments, they used those spaces in very different ways. One tended to remain close to her desk and moved mainly when a practical issue needed attention. The other rarely stayed in one place and moved continuously between students and small groups.

These differences appeared to influence what happened in the classroom. Students treated the teacher’s proximity as a signal. When a teacher moved around the room, students saw more opportunities to ask questions, seek help, or simply make contact. When a teacher largely remained in one location, this happened far less often. In some lessons, certain students received very little individual attention.

Perhaps even more interestingly, Niemi shows that mobility alone is not enough. Brief interventions aimed at correcting behaviour, for example, taking away a tablet or making a quick remark, often had little impact on the learning process. The most meaningful moments occurred when teachers stayed with students, sat down beside them, asked questions, and encouraged discussion among peers. In those situations, support came not only from the teacher but also from fellow students.

This leads to a conclusion that is both surprising and unsurprising. Advocates of open learning environments sometimes suggest that changing a school’s physical layout will automatically change the nature of teaching and learning. This study offers little support for that assumption. Space creates opportunities, but it does not determine what happens. The same open environment produced very different patterns of interaction depending on the teacher.

That aligns with something we already know from other research: architecture is not pedagogy. Removing walls does not automatically change the way people teach. Ultimately, teachers determine how a space is used, what kinds of interactions emerge, and how many opportunities students have to receive support.

Now comes the traditional caveat section of my blog post, but it is too important to skip. This is a qualitative study involving only two teachers. It does not tell us whether students ultimately learn more. But precisely because Niemi examines so closely what actually happens in the classroom, the study offers a valuable insight. It is not the space that changes teaching. It is teaching practice, and more broadly pedagogy, that determines what happens within those spaces.