View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Literacy Learning among Primary School Children in Innovative Learning Environments versus Traditional Classrooms

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Literacy Learning among Primary School Children in Innovative Learning Environments versus Traditional Classrooms
Language: English
Authors: John Everatt, Jo Fletcher, Ting Ma, Yogeetha Devi Bala Subramaniam
Source: Educational Review. 2026 78(3):297-314.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Grade 5
Intermediate Grades
Middle Schools
Grade 6
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Elementary School Students, Grade 5, Grade 6, Educational Environment, English Learners, Asians, Literacy, Vocabulary Development, Reading Comprehension, Listening Comprehension, Team Teaching, Teacher Collaboration, Self Contained Classrooms, Class Size, Class Organization
Geographic Terms: New Zealand
DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2025.2485451
ISSN: 0013-1911
1465-3397
Abstract: This study on literacy learning in innovative learning environments (ILEs) and traditional one teacher classrooms, focused on Asian English-as-an-additional-language (EAL) students, contrasting them with English-only speaking students. There were 147 Years 5/6 primary school children in the study. Of these, 71 were Asian-EAL children, with 43 in ILEs and 28 in traditional classrooms. English-only students comprised 36 in ILEs and 40 in traditional classrooms. Parallel measures of vocabulary size, listening comprehension and reading comprehension were given to all students at two time points during one school year, about six months apart. Few studies have used quantitative measures to determine if ILEs influence academic literacy outcomes. The Asian-EAL students in ILEs performed similarly on the study measures as their peers in more traditional classrooms. The English-only students in ILEs performed worse than their peers in traditional classrooms, but there was no increase in this difference over the course of the study.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1503420
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHADk6DS8jlSc4ky5jaQkzZAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIkzVGCdcYzLYSsjzAIBEICBmz_Uby39FYIVm65_H6NbNLVAAdh3o8J2gCJyagJ5gYtGFFGUu97DOhB8PuY1gmSoDQywj3fDXw0gB4iydWqAiSe88oSBBXev7xP3mh93qN1UkuwDTUu6iItFeqwDaQrj54iCqGYb2zYkPpD3B3iCcQ3Z_26AhvF2a6KLft28KX9Rx2__NeKWPHBUbLWMZ5UPGnNKkfKvpC5V4obU
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0193123636;edi01mar.26;2026Apr22.06:43;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0193123636-1">Literacy learning among primary school children in innovative learning environments versus traditional classrooms </title> <p>This study on literacy learning in innovative learning environments (ILEs) and traditional one teacher classrooms, focused on Asian English-as-an-additional-language (EAL) students, contrasting them with English-only speaking students. There were 147 Years 5/6 primary school children in the study. Of these, 71 were Asian-EAL children, with 43 in ILEs and 28 in traditional classrooms. English-only students comprised 36 in ILEs and 40 in traditional classrooms. Parallel measures of vocabulary size, listening comprehension and reading comprehension were given to all students at two time points during one school year, about six months apart. Few studies have used quantitative measures to determine if ILEs influence academic literacy outcomes. The Asian-EAL students in ILEs performed similarly on the study measures as their peers in more traditional classrooms. The English-only students in ILEs performed worse than their peers in traditional classrooms, but there was no increase in this difference over the course of the study.</p> <p>Keywords: Large-class innovative learning environments; New Zealand primary schools; vocabulary comprehension; listening comprehension; reading comprehension</p> <hd id="AN0193123636-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The architectural spaces and physical resources provided for literacy learning and effective teaching to take place are some of the key elements of effective schooling (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref1">35</reflink>]). Traditional classroom structures in New Zealand, and similarly internationally, have focused on a single teacher per classroom. However, in other countries such as Australia, Italy, New Zealand and Germany, there has been a move away from single teacher classrooms to what may be termed as innovative learning environments, modern learning environments, new generation learning environments, superblocks, and flexible learning spaces (Byers, Imms, & Hartnell-Young, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref2">5</reflink>]; Charteris & Smardon, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref3">8</reflink>]). They involve multiple teachers supporting a larger cohort of students. Such multi-class teaching has raised concerns about their effects on student learning especially in curriculum areas such as literacy. Such concerns have also been raised in terms of equity, particularly for those who may be considered as experiencing difficulties with learning or as being at risk of falling behind in their learning (see Everatt & Fletcher, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref4">13</reflink>]). For example, larger class sizes may lead to problems related to noise and distraction, which can then have an impact on the effectiveness of teaching and literacy learning outcomes, such as reading and listening comprehension.</p> <p>In recent years in New Zealand, a number of new school buildings in State primary schools have been built as ILEs in order to create multi-class flexible learning spaces (Ministry of Education, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref5">33</reflink>]). These teaching spaces accommodate between two to six teachers, with cohorts from approximately 40–160 students, and can be created to be flexibly reconfigured with break-out teaching areas for small and large groups (Shank, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref6">40</reflink>]). This policy has also meant the restructuring of existing school buildings to develop makeshift flexible learning spaces. Less successful modifications can lead to acoustics, lighting and space restrictions inhibiting teacher practices and possibly interfering with learning. Similarly, experiences of using these different types of spaces may lead to very different perspectives on the usefulness of flexible or innovative classrooms for teaching. Foundational to the pedagogical motivation for ILEs is to provide more opportunities for self-regulated learning and student agency. This then allows students to take ownership of their learning, which at the same time is scaffolded by their teachers. Rose-Munro ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref7">37</reflink>]) defined "student agency" as the ability to act, make decisions about one's learning, and leverage the environmental opportunities that support success. She emphasised the importance of students taking responsibility for their "actions, learning, and relationships" (p. 156), fostering a sense of pride in their identities and achievements. In Rose-Munro's research, when students were given agency in ILEs, they naturally chose spaces with good acoustics and clear speech accessibility. The use of semi-structured interviews and photo-elicitation demonstrated that when students had the freedom to choose, they preferred these types of areas in ILEs, especially during autonomous learning times. However, when noise levels intensified, student agency reduced, leading to a shift from student-centered learning to more didactic instructive teacher-led teaching. During these noisier times, students tended to lose the opportunity to collaboratively work with their learning buddies, couldn't move to quieter areas, and often were unable to use technology effectively. Thus, the higher noise levels seemed to trigger a return to traditional teacher-led methods. When students were given agency, they demonstrated self-advocacy and self-regulation by exploring their environment and utilising diverse learning spaces and multi-modal technology which enhanced their learning. This approach allowed them to develop skills relevant in today's world as together with their peers they co-constructed knowledge through text, pictures, models, and technology, rather than being dependent on "quieter teacher-directed learning activities" (Rose-Munro, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref8">37</reflink>], p. 160).</p> <p>From a pedagogical perspective, teachers working alongside colleagues in ILEs are able to have conversations and make decisions in real-time and receive support through collegial feedback and critique. The spatial and physical elements of ILEs and their affordance for collaborative teaching aim to provide teachers and students with a flexible, self-directed learning atmosphere (Benade, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref9">3</reflink>]). Nevertheless, this can also attach a considerable layer of complexity to teaching processes, as teachers must spend time together to plan, evaluate, discuss information from across the large cohort of students, review logistics, and discuss and seek agreement on teaching strategies (Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref10">24</reflink>]). Such activities may take time out of teaching time with students. In contrast, collaborative teaching methods may provide a way of increasing the support of children with different learning needs, given that different teachers within a cohort will have different practical and professional development experiences. However, a survey of New Zealand teachers and principals about the implications of ILEs in their school context found that there was a lack of clarity about the fundamental rationales for co-teaching in such environments, and a number raised concerns around the high noise levels in ILEs that would not be conducive to learning (Smardon et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref11">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>Problems with open-plan classrooms related to noise and distraction have been an on-going concern related to such school spaces for many years. For example, research has suggested that the speech perception of young children was less efficient in open-plan classrooms (Mealings et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref12">29</reflink>]; Shield et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref13">41</reflink>]) unless appropriate measures are taken to reduce background noise – and better acoustics typically result from purpose-built environments or carefully restructured buildings. These difficulties may be perceived as a particular problem for those learning an additional language. For example, students from an English as an additional language (EAL) background may not be exposed to English at home as much as at school. Such noisy environments may, therefore, lead to fewer chances for the development of language skills and related literacy acquisition. As Peelle ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref14">36</reflink>]) points out, it is difficult to understand what is being said in an environment that presents acoustic challenges such as background noise, competing speeches and speech with a foreign (or unfamiliar) accent. Students with less experience of a New Zealand English accent may be particularly susceptible to such challenges. Similarly, an utterance by a teacher that the student cannot hear clearly may lead to poor learning of the connection between written letters and speech, and such connections have often been seen as a vital part of the development of reading strategies (e.g. Gillon, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref15">19</reflink>]). Evans and Maxwell ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref16">12</reflink>]) found from their study of reading ability in noisy schools that loud noise levels interfered with the children's speech perceptions, which in turn had a negative impact on their reading ability. Because these are possible scenarios in an ILE, the current study aimed to examine if students from an EAL background are affected in their development of language and literacy: specifically, the study looked for evidence of restricted growth in vocabulary, understanding spoken information, and comprehending written text among EAL students compared to their counterparts in more traditional classrooms.</p> <hd id="AN0193123636-3">New Zealand Asian-EAL students and literacy learning</hd> <p>The present study focused on students in New Zealand from Asian-EAL and from English-only speaking backgrounds. There were several reasons for focusing on Asian-EAL learners. The main one is that these are the largest group of EAL students in New Zealand. In 2022, Asian students accounted for 15% of all enrolled primary and secondary school children in comparison to those from European (46%), Māori (25%), Pacific (10%), and Middle East/Latin American/African backgrounds (3%) (Ministry of Education, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref17">32</reflink>]). Non-New Zealand born students from a European background tend to be mainly from English-speaking countries, and hence do not fit the criteria of EAL. Students from other continents such as Africa and South America are relatively rare in New Zealand (Ministry of Education, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref18">32</reflink>]), which may lead to feelings of isolation that interfere with the learning effects that are the focus of the research. Finally, those from Pacific Island community backgrounds, who comprise a large number in New Zealand (Ministry of Education, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref19">32</reflink>]), may use English at home, which makes their EAL status difficult to assess without assessment at home. Also, they have a history of colonisation which may lead to additional cultural influences that are not the focus of the current study. In addition, Asian students overall are achieving well in literacy in New Zealand (Fletcher & Parkhill, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref20">17</reflink>]; Ministry of Education, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref21">31</reflink>]). In the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) of 2016, the Asian Year 5 children from New Zealand scored the second highest (<reflink idref="bib544" id="ref22">544</reflink>) across a variety of ethnic groups, and very similar to the New Zealand European children who are primarily monolingual English speakers (<reflink idref="bib545" id="ref23">545</reflink>) (Ministry of Education, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref24">31</reflink>]). It would thus be interesting to investigate whether Asian-EAL students are affected in their development of language and literacy in ILEs.</p> <p>Literacy learning is a key aspect of schooling, and being able to comprehend written as well as spoken language is integral to this. Understanding why some students are good at comprehending, and why others encounter difficulties, helps reflective practitioners to develop strategies and programmes to support the development of comprehension skills. For example, Aaron et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref25">1</reflink>]) argue that some of the reasons why students encounter reading comprehension difficulties include poor vocabulary knowledge, inadequate background knowledge, and poor use of strategies that optimise comprehending. Furthermore, Ruan et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref26">38</reflink>]) meta-analysis of 64 studies looking at the role of linguistic skills, such as phonological awareness and morphological awareness, suggested that processing sounds and meaning play important roles in reading. Models of reading comprehension (e.g. the Cognitive Foundations Framework of Tunmer & Hoover, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref27">47</reflink>]) also show the connections between vocabulary knowledge, understanding spoken language and the ability to comprehend written text, along with skills related to written word recognition and alphabetic knowledge. Being able to comprehend differing text types, having a good knowledge of vocabulary, and the ability to understand and critique oral communication provide foundational skills for success in education and society.</p> <p>In New Zealand, like many English-speaking countries globally, there is an increase in the percentages of culturally diverse students for whom English is an additional language in schools. These learners have prior knowledge and experiences that differ from New Zealand's typically Eurocentric classrooms (see discussion on acculturalisation by Maehler et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref28">27</reflink>]). By understanding students' cultural background and expectations, teachers are able to increase student motivation and engagement through meaningful instructions (Saifer et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref29">39</reflink>]). The age of arrival to the resident country is associated with stronger identification with the resident country. Primary-age school children may settle more readily and develop a stronger identification with their new country of schooling (Hou et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref30">22</reflink>]). Furthermore, students' socio-economic background can impact on achievement, with those from higher socio-economic backgrounds more likely to succeed (see, for example, the discussion by Vandevelde et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref31">49</reflink>]). In many eastern Asian cultures that form the majority of immigrants to New Zealand, respect, obedience, conserving knowledge, and following instructions can be seen as more important than constructing knowledge in learning (Bear et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref32">2</reflink>]; Dixon, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref33">11</reflink>]). Research on culturally responsive teaching continues to emphasise that knowing how certain groups of people construct knowledge is a necessity in classrooms to provide the appropriate pedagogy (Liu, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref34">26</reflink>]; Neuman & Bekerman, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref35">34</reflink>]). In addition, Everatt et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref36">14</reflink>]) found that New Zealand teachers in ILEs were particularly worried that the noise occurring in such classrooms may interfere with learning, specifically for EAL students. This finding is consistent with international data arguing that noise can be a particular issue for language learners (Nelson et al., 2005). Therefore, it is timely to undertake research that assesses the learning experiences of students who speak English as an additional language in ILEs versus traditional classrooms in order to build a strong sense of bicultural/multilingual success.</p> <p>Fearon ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref37">15</reflink>]), after a year-long investigation in elementary English as an additional language classroom, found that the key to successful second language teaching was determined by the quality of collaboration between teachers, rather than the different types of models used to deliver English language lessons in the classroom. ILEs' collaborative environment, therefore, may create a way for teachers to work flexibly together. Furthermore, the rationale behind ILEs has been to encourage student-led learning and self-regulated learning (Cardno et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref38">7</reflink>]; Deed et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref39">10</reflink>]). As Trask et al. ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref40">46</reflink>]) argue, these skills are central in relation to contemporary learning in ILEs. Students are important entities within the classroom and what students bring into the classroom in the way of cultural norms, values, skills are all crucial to the way students learn (Snook et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref41">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>The development of reading skills benefits from teacher support and scaffolding of literacy acquisition. Collaborative and productive discussions can support this development (Soter et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref42">44</reflink>]), with teachers providing opportunities for groups of learners to work together to construct and discuss their differing understandings of text (Cullen, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref43">9</reflink>]; McKeown, et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref44">28</reflink>]). During small group reading, teachers can move discussion to deeper levels, encouraging students to draw on prior experiences and knowledge (Soter et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref45">44</reflink>]). When teaching in large-classroom ILEs, developing efficient small group reading and discussion opportunities may be particularly problematic, however. Similarly, the noise and distractions associated with ILEs can make discussion between teacher and students equally challenging. Therefore, the key strategies for supporting the development of verbal and written comprehension skills may be compromised within ILEs. Such concerns may be focused on those who may be at risk of difficulties due to lower levels of experience of a language, which may relate to lower vocabulary levels, for example. Hence, children from a background where English is an additional language may be impacted specifically by these problems associated with learning and teaching in ILEs.</p> <p>This research responds to the dearth of quantitative data comparing students' literacy achievement in traditional classrooms compared to ILEs, particularly among Asian students. Thus, the focus of the research presented in this paper is on students in New Zealand schools who are in Years 5 and 6 (approximately 9–10 years of age). This is towards the end of primary schooling and during a period when reading for learning becomes vital. This means that processing language for understanding, both spoken and written, are key developmental skills at these school year levels. Similarly, there are reciprocal relationships between spoken and written language skills. Good spoken language understanding will support text comprehension, and increased experience with text can support the development of vocabulary. Therefore, this research aims to investigate vocabulary, reading performance, and listening performance of Year 5 and 6 Asian and English-only speaking students.</p> <hd id="AN0193123636-4">Methods</hd> <p>The study involved testing students on measures of vocabulary, reading comprehension and listening comprehension twice during one school year. The aim was to identify differences in these basic language understanding skills between EAL children learning in an ILE context versus those learning in a traditional one-teacher classroom. Parallel measures of vocabulary, reading and listening comprehension were administered at least six months apart to determine any difference between these two groups over part of a year: one measure of vocabulary, reading and listening comprehension was given in the first half of the year, with the second related measure used in the second half of the school year. English-only speaking children were also included in the study to provide a contrast with any effects identified with the Asian-EAL students.</p> <hd id="AN0193123636-5">Participants</hd> <p>The study was conducted in primary schools in one city in New Zealand. All schools were from urban areas. Ethics approval was granted from the authors' institution prior to data collection. Students were from schools with traditional classrooms or schools with ILEs. Schools were selected based on New Zealand data indicating that they were likely to contain a large percentage of students with English as an additional language. The exact proportion of Asian students in these schools ranged from 11% to 52%. Letters/emails were sent to principals in these schools detailing the project and asking if they would be willing to participate in the research. The eight schools in the current data set were those that volunteered to take part: both principals and teachers agreed to support the research following informed consent procedures. There were four schools using traditional classrooms and four schools with innovative learning environments in the sample. All students in Years 5 and 6 in the schools were asked to participate. Both students and their parents/guardians were provided with information about the research, and students were included in the study if both completed the consent forms agreeing for the student to be a participant in the study.</p> <p>There were 157 students in the study at the start of the year. However, due to attrition during the school year, only 150 students participated in the second set of assessments. A further three students were deleted from the data set. One English-only student was born in France and did not fit the English-only criteria for the study despite the student indicating that they spoke English at home in New Zealand. A second English-only student was receiving additional language support (due to spoken language difficulties requiring special needs support from a Speech and Language Therapist), and their results may not be representative of typical English language performance of the English-only students in the study. A third child's data was not included in these analyses because their pre-test and post-test performance varied greatly (from scores in the 20s in one assessment period to scores less than 10 in the second), suggesting a specific problem in the assessment period for this Australian-background English-only student. The remaining 147 students comprised 93 Year 5 students and 54 Year 6 students. There were fewer Year 6 volunteers in the sample, but this was to be expected given that this year is often seen as an important study year by New Zealand parents. Students are normally tested prior to entry to the intermediate school system (Years 7–8) where they are often streamed according to the test outcomes. Given the importance of the Year 6 testing, parents may have wanted to avoid distractions from their children's schoolwork.</p> <p>Student participants provided information on their age, gender, languages spoken and number of years they had lived in New Zealand (see Table 1).</p> <p>Table 1. Demographics of participants.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td /><td><p>Traditional Classroom</p></td><td><p>Innovative Learning Environment</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td /><td><p>Asian-EAL</p></td><td><p>English-only</p></td><td><p>Asian-EAL</p></td><td><p>English-only</p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>School decile</p></td><td><p>4–6</p></td><td char="."><p>13</p></td><td char="."><p>13</p></td><td char="."><p>15</p></td><td char="."><p>3</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>7–10</p></td><td char="."><p>15</p></td><td char="."><p>27</p></td><td char="."><p>28</p></td><td char="."><p>33</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>School year</p></td><td><p>Year 5</p></td><td char="."><p>22</p></td><td char="."><p>29</p></td><td char="."><p>21</p></td><td char="."><p>21</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Year 6</p></td><td char="."><p>6</p></td><td char="."><p>11</p></td><td char="."><p>22</p></td><td char="."><p>15</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Gender</p></td><td><p>Male</p></td><td char="."><p>12</p></td><td char="."><p>16</p></td><td char="."><p>18</p></td><td char="."><p>21</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Female</p></td><td char="."><p>16</p></td><td char="."><p>24</p></td><td char="."><p>25</p></td><td char="."><p>15</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Age (years)</p></td><td><p>Mean</p></td><td char="."><p>9.43</p></td><td char="."><p>9.45</p></td><td char="."><p>9.65</p></td><td char="."><p>9.50</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>SD</p></td><td char="."><p>0.69</p></td><td char="."><p>0.68</p></td><td char="."><p>0.61</p></td><td char="."><p>0.56</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Born in NZ</p></td><td><p>Yes</p></td><td char="."><p>12</p></td><td char="."><p>38</p></td><td char="."><p>21</p></td><td char="."><p>33</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>No before 5</p></td><td char="."><p>7</p></td><td><p>-</p></td><td char="."><p>5</p></td><td char="."><p>2</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>No after 5</p></td><td char="."><p>9</p></td><td char="."><p>2</p></td><td char="."><p>17</p></td><td char="."><p>1</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>Total</p></td><td /><td char="."><p>28</p></td><td char="."><p>40</p></td><td char="."><p>43</p></td><td char="."><p>36</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The students from the Asian backgrounds (Asian-EAL) confirmed they spoke an Asian language at home and spoke English when in school. The Asian languages spoken comprised Chinese (mostly Mandarin), Japanese, Hindi, Kannada, Tamil, Urdu, Malayalam, Sinhala, Malay, Thai, Korean, Vietnamese, Bisaya and Tagalog. These students had lived in New Zealand for, on average, about 76 months for the Year 5 students and 83 months for the Year 6 students. This varied greatly, though, from a few months to all their lives; though note that only one student had been in NZ for four months, with the remaining having lived in New Zealand for more than a year. About half of the English additional language group were born in New Zealand (see Table 1). Of those who were not born in New Zealand, a smaller proportion arrived in New Zealand before they were aged 5 (the age when children start school in New Zealand): this sub-group comprised 5 of the 22 ILE students and 7 of the 16 traditional classroom students. A small number of the English-only students were not born in New Zealand, but these were included in the data set as they were born in English-speaking countries (i.e. Australia, the UK, and the USA).</p> <p>A number of the Asian-EAL students in both types of classrooms were receiving English-language support in addition to curriculum-based teaching. These students were primarily those who had arrived in New Zealand after the age of five years old. Students given such support received the assistance of teacher-aides and specialised English-language teachers who helped them with their English language development. The support for the Asian students in the traditional classrooms took place for 30 min a day in a room separate from their usual class. Support for the Asian students in ILEs was for a similar duration of time, but took place in break-out spaces to the side of the main classroom.</p> <hd id="AN0193123636-6">Measures and procedures</hd> <p>Measures were administered during the first half of the school year and at the end of the same year, with at least six months between the first test session and the second. All measures were piloted with students independent of those included in the current study, but in the same school years as the students in the current study: these pilot students were in previous year cohorts of the same schools included in the current study, or they were from different schools. One of the reasons for piloting the measures was to ensure that the difficulty levels of the two sets of measures used in the main study were comparable; e.g. the level of performance of the pilot students on one reading comprehension test was similar to that on the second reading comprehension test, but both tests showed evidence of variability in performance within each group of students suggesting that the tests are assessing a range of ability. Additionally, these pilot data indicated little difference between students in an ILE context and a traditional single-teacher classroom context, as well as between Asian EAL and English-only students, suggesting that the tests were assessing similar skills across the groups. As the Asian-EAL students in the pilot study were performing at the same level as their English-only students overall, therefore these sets of measures were used in the main study. Reliability scores (Cronbach's alpha) were also calculated for all measures (the two vocabulary measures, the two reading comprehension measures, and the two listening comprehension measures), and all reliability scores were 0.8 or above for the students in the current data set.</p> <p>Similar to the pilot study, in the main study, EAL and English-only students in the traditional schools were tested in a room away from the main classroom but where there still may be some noise/distraction coming from the outdoor area. EAL and English-only students in the innovative learning environments were tested in break-out, temporary enclosed spaces within the larger classrooms: in these break-out spaces, students could still see their classmates, but there was less noise disruption from the main classroom. Measures were administered after either the morning break or the lunch break. The students completed the reading comprehension and vocabulary assessments on the same day, with a 15-minute break between the two. The listening comprehension test was completed within two days of the first test session. Those students who were absent during any of the tests were asked to complete the missing test within two weeks of the originally scheduled test time. If the time lapse was longer than this, their data were removed from the analyses. Instructions were read to the students before each test began, and practice questions were used to assist understanding.</p> <p>The vocabulary tests used in this study aimed to assess the students' receptive vocabulary and were based on the vocabulary size test developed by Van Hees and Nation ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref46">48</reflink>]) and used in New Zealand schools. Items were selected from the first 1000–9500 most frequent words. Two versions were developed, with set A being used for the first half of the school year and set B for the second. Different items were used in set A and set B to avoid any carry-over/learning effects between the two test sessions. In both set A and set B, the students were required to answer 30 multiple-choice questions. Each item comprised a target word (e.g. JUMP) and a sentence containing the target word (e.g. She tried to jump) so that the student understood the form of the word, but it did not constrain (i.e. give clues to) its meaning. This was followed by four sentences, and the student circled the alternative that they felt best defined the target word (e.g. Get off the ground suddenly). The students were given 15 min to complete as many of the 30 items as they could.</p> <p>The reading comprehension measures were developed for this study in accordance with the literacy learning progression for Years 5 and Year 6 stated in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref47">30</reflink>]). The measures were designed to assess the student's ability to read written texts and answer literal and inferential comprehension questions about the text. Literal comprehension questions focused on information explicitly stated in the text. Inferential comprehension questions required students to go beyond the written words to discern the intended underlying meaning not explicitly stated in the text by combining ideas, identifying and interpreting key ideas, drawing conclusions about events and characters, making predictions and drawing from real-world experiences. Again, two versions were developed: set A for the first half of the school year and set B for the second. Five narrative passages (short stories) were used in set A and a different five in set B. Students were asked to read these stories and then answer the questions about them. There were 35 questions in both set A and set B. Questions were multiple-choice, with four answer alternatives per question, only one of which was correct. Students were required to circle the answer they thought was correct. They could still see the passage when they answered the questions, and they could read the passage again after reading the questions, though they were also told that there was a 35-minute time limit to complete the task, so multiple re-readings would not be an advantage. The length of the passages, and the number of questions, were determined through pilot work to provide variance in performance across participants but also keep the amount of test time to a manageable level. Passages were kept to an average length of 150 words to allow students enough time to read each passage and answer the comprehension questions. The suitability of the passages for Years 5 and 6 was confirmed by the teachers in the schools in which the study was conducted.</p> <p>The listening comprehension measures assessed students' ability to use their receptive skills to process new incoming information while simultaneously keeping older information in mind so they could answer questions about what they had heard. The texts for the listening comprehension measures came from an online resource produced by Ward et al. ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref48">50</reflink>]). The texts were modernised versions of Aesop's fables: semantically meaningful stories but with interesting twists in the stories or a key theme/message. Texts were audio-recorded and played to students to ensure consistency in the presentation. A native New Zealander read the texts so that intonation and pronunciation, and accent, should be familiar to the students. Two sets of stories were produced: set A containing six stories and 30 questions (approximately five questions per story), which was given in the first half of the school year, and set B comprising seven stories and 28 questions (approximately four questions per story) presented in the second half of the year. There were originally 30 questions in set B, but two items proved to have low item-total correlations during pilot work and were deleted. Students heard each passage once only and were asked to answer a set of questions about that passage. Questions were four-option multiple-choice, with only one correct option. These were presented on paper, and students were required to circle the correct answer. They were given approximately two minutes to answer the four to five questions before the next audio story was played. The whole task took approximately 20 min to complete.</p> <hd id="AN0193123636-7">Results</hd> <p>Table 2 presents the basic descriptive statistics for the groups of participants in the study on all six measures administered: the three in set A in the first half of the year and the three in set B in the second half of the year.</p> <p>Table 2. Results of the vocabulary, reading, and listening measures.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td><p>English-only students</p></td><td><p>Asian-EAL students</p></td></tr><tr><td /><td><p>Traditional</p></td><td><p>ILE</p></td><td><p><italic>p</italic></p></td><td><p>Traditional</p></td><td><p>ILE*</p></td><td><p><italic>p</italic></p></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><p>Vocabulary A</p></td><td char="."><p>21.20</p></td><td char="."><p>20.67</p></td><td char=" "><p>.63</p></td><td char="."><p>18.11</p></td><td char="."><p>18.19</p></td><td char=" "><p>.95</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>(30 items)</p></td><td char="."><p>(4.25)</p></td><td char="."><p>(5.46)</p></td><td char=" " /><td char="."><p>(4.92)</p></td><td char="."><p>(4.73)</p></td><td char=" " /></tr><tr><td><p>Vocabulary B</p></td><td char="."><p>19.90</p></td><td char="."><p>18.42</p></td><td char=" "><p>.21</p></td><td char="."><p>16.96</p></td><td char="."><p>17.53</p></td><td char=" "><p>.64</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>(30 items)</p></td><td char="."><p>(4.50)</p></td><td char="."><p>(5.78)</p></td><td char=" " /><td char="."><p>(5.81)</p></td><td char="."><p>(4.36)</p></td><td char=" " /></tr><tr><td><p>Reading A</p></td><td char="."><p>25.98</p></td><td char="."><p>23.28</p></td><td char=" "><p>.04</p></td><td char="."><p>23.61</p></td><td char="."><p>24.49</p></td><td char=" "><p>.41</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>(35 items)</p></td><td char="."><p>(4.82)</p></td><td char="."><p>(6.49)</p></td><td char=" " /><td char="."><p>(5.04)</p></td><td char="."><p>(3.97)</p></td><td char=" " /></tr><tr><td /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=" " /><td char="." /><td char="." /><td char=" " /></tr><tr><td><p>Reading B</p></td><td char="."><p>27.25</p></td><td char="."><p>24.72</p></td><td char=" "><p>.02</p></td><td char="."><p>24.86</p></td><td char="."><p>26.58</p></td><td char=" "><p>.21</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>(35 items)</p></td><td char="."><p>(3.04)</p></td><td char="."><p>(5.62)</p></td><td char=" " /><td char="."><p>(5.90)</p></td><td char="."><p>(5.43)</p></td><td char=" " /></tr><tr><td><p>Listening A</p></td><td char="."><p>25.55</p></td><td char="."><p>23.17</p></td><td char=" "><p>.32</p></td><td char="."><p>22.86</p></td><td char="."><p>24.05</p></td><td char=" "><p>.32</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>(30 items)</p></td><td char="."><p>(3.05)</p></td><td char="."><p>(6.29)</p></td><td char=" " /><td char="."><p>(5.81)</p></td><td char="."><p>(4.24)</p></td><td char=" " /></tr><tr><td><p>Listening B</p></td><td char="."><p>24.95</p></td><td char="."><p>22.47</p></td><td char=" "><p>.01</p></td><td char="."><p>23.07</p></td><td char="."><p>23.05</p></td><td char=" "><p>.98</p></td></tr><tr><td><p>(28 items)</p></td><td char="."><p>(2.49)</p></td><td char="."><p>(4.79)</p></td><td char=" " /><td char="."><p>(4.31)</p></td><td char="."><p>(3.90)</p></td><td char=" " /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Note: Standard deviations are in brackets below means.</p> <p>2 *One Asian ILE student had been in New Zealand for only four months. All the rest had lived in New Zealand for more than one year. When we reanalysed the data without the four-month student, the results were identical. No significant differences were found.</p> <p>Table 2 also includes the probability values of <emph>t</emph>-tests specifically contrasting the performance on all the measures of those students in ILEs with those in traditional classrooms. The focus of these analyses was the difference between the Asian background students in these two contexts – the right-hand side of Table 2. Such <emph>t</emph>-tests were the most powerful test of any potential differences between the two groups, and none produced a probability value lower than <emph>p </emph>=.2 for the Asian background comparisons, suggesting little evidence of differences between these two groups. However, there were effects for the English-only students (the left-hand side of Table 2), with those in ILEs generally performing worse on the measures than their traditional classroom peers. Whether this is simply due to differences independent of the classroom type or the difference indicates an influence of classroom type over time (i.e. before the start of this research) cannot be determined from these analyses as differences are evident in set A measures as well as set B measures.</p> <p>Additional three-way analyses of variance were used to determine any evidence for interaction effects between classroom type (ILE versus traditional), student group (Asian-EAL versus English-only), and time of testing (sets A versus B). For the vocabulary measures, the only significant effect was that the English-only students outperformed the Asian-EAL students, (F<subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref49">1</reflink>, 143)</subs> = 6.8, <emph>p</emph> =.01). For both reading and listening comprehension, there were significant interaction effects between school type and student group (reading: F<subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref50">1</reflink>, 143)</subs> = 7.1, <emph>p</emph> <.01; listening: F<subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>, 143)</subs> = 6.2, <emph>p</emph> =.01). These analyses were also performed separately for Years 5 and 6. These showed the same effects except that the reading comprehension interaction was significant only for the Year 5 analysis (F<subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref52">1</reflink>, 89)</subs> = 8.2, <emph>p</emph> <.01), and the listening comprehension interaction approached significance only for the Year 6 cohort (F<subs>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref53">1</reflink>, 50)</subs> = 3.6, <emph>p</emph> =.07). As can be seen in Figure 1, the interaction effect suggests that the English-only students performed better in traditional classrooms than their English only peers in the innovative learning environments, whereas Asian-EAL students were similar in performance in either classroom environment; and, if anything, Asian-EAL students showed slightly better performance in the ILE context. However, these effects did not show evidence of changing over time: although the main effect of time was significant for both the reading and listening measures (Set B showing higher scores than set A in both cases: <emph>p </emph><.005), the three-way interactions were non-significant (<emph>p</emph> >.6). This suggests that any influence of classroom type on the English-only students did not increase over the period of the study and, therefore, cannot be attributed to classroom type having an incremental influence on these students. Additional analyses of covariance were performed controlling school decile and gender of the participant, but these additional analyses did not lead to different effects to those outlined. These results suggest little evidence of a difference in the performance of Asian-EAL students when learning in a traditional or ILE context. However, among the Asian background students, roughly half were born in New Zealand, and these students may not show effects of environments as much as those who had arrived in New Zealand more recently. Figure 2 presents the average scores on the measures of those Asian-EAL students born in New Zealand and those who arrived in New Zealand before or after the age of five: five years of age is when children in New Zealand start school. As can be seen in the figure, although those who arrived after their fifth birthday showed poorer vocabulary levels compared to the other Asian-EAL students, there was no evidence of a specific effect of learning within an innovative learning classroom.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Percentage scores for vocabulary, reading and listening comprehension (sets A and B combined) produced by English-only (English) and Asian-EAL (EAL) groups in traditional classrooms or innovative learning environments.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Percentage scores for (a) vocabulary, (b) reading and (c) listening among Asian-EAL students born in NZ, or arriving in NZ before 5 years old, or arriving in NZ after 5 years old.</p> <p>Overall, the results indicated that the Asian background students with English as an additional language were not at a specific disadvantage in an innovative learning environment compared to their counterparts in traditional classrooms. If anything, these data suggest that the test scores produced by the English-only students in innovative learning environments (particularly the Year 5 reading comprehension scores) may be of more concern.</p> <hd id="AN0193123636-8">Discussion</hd> <p>The current study explored the effects of ILEs on Asian EAL students in literacy. The focus was on growth in language understanding skills (vocabulary, listening comprehension and reading comprehension) over most of one school year in upper primary school years in New Zealand schools. This focus was based on the hypothesis that aspects of ILEs, such as noise and distraction, would impact on growth in English language skills among those who may be experiencing English language primarily within the school context. Reducing the positive impact of language experience within a classroom may slow the development of language. For instance, Rose-Munro ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref54">37</reflink>]) found that when the noise levels in innovative learning environments intensified, students exhibited lower agency and discontinued collaboration with peers, both of which were critical for the cultivation of independent learning. However, the current data show no evidence for this hypothesis. Those Asian EAL students in the ILE contexts showed as much growth in the language areas assessed as their peers in more traditional single teacher classrooms. There are several aspects of this finding that warrant discussion.</p> <p>First, the findings may suggest that the noise and distraction often attributed to multi-teacher, large student classrooms are not as detrimental to language learning as hypothesised at the start of this research. Although there is some evidence that noise can impact on hearing, and hence the processing of verbal information (see Peelle, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref55">36</reflink>]), this may have limited impact on day-to-day language acquisition. Other sources of language around the individual may compensate. This may be particularly the case in larger groups where multiple sources of inputs are available, and where it may be possible to find a peer who can help with interpretation of information. For example, some evidence suggests that teachers see large groups as particularly useful in pairing students up with others who can help with understanding, such as pairing students with more and less language experience who are from similar backgrounds (Everatt et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref56">14</reflink>]). This may be easier in large groups of 100 or more students compared to single-teacher classrooms of 30 students or less. Similarly, talking to other students from a range of backgrounds, and via a range of interactions, may provide assorted inputs that can compensate for any fuzziness of a single source produced in a noisy classroom. Innovative learning environments can encourage students to experiment and learn with and from each other, and in this way motivate learning (Hornstra et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref57">21</reflink>]). Some students may even see such classrooms as more interesting and providing opportunities for discussion, which has the potential to support literacy acquisition (Fletcher et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref58">16</reflink>]; Hornstra et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref59">21</reflink>]). Indeed, Fletcher et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref60">16</reflink>]) found that Asian students in ILEs did not perceive noise and distraction as an issue. However, a reduction in the ability to follow information or instructions from a teacher may lead to specific impacts on learning in contrast to the general language skills assessed in this study, for instance, compromising collaborative small-group reading and discussion opportunities that are key to developing foundational literacy skills (see Soter et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref61">44</reflink>]). Such ILEs may not show an impact on general vocabulary growth but may on the development of English for specific academic purposes: i.e. the language used primarily by a teacher within a specific area of the curriculum. In an Australian study, Byers et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref62">4</reflink>]) implemented a between group comparison between traditional classrooms and ILEs, which controlled for the influence of cognitive ability. They found that students in technology rich ILEs surpassed their cognitively matched peers who were in traditional classrooms in curriculum areas of English and mathematics school-based tests. In comparison, our quantitative study controlled for ethnicity which brings fresh empirical insights to the dearth of research on the influence of spatiality in ILEs compared to traditional classrooms. Further empirical research, therefore, looking at a range of language tasks, some general and some specific to a curriculum area, may be useful.</p> <p>Equally, teacher strategies may be the reason for the lack of difference between ILE and traditional classroom students. Teachers may recognise that students with English as an additional language are at risk of poor language experience in larger classroom spaces and implement strategies to overcome these effects. This may be pairing students, as outlined above, or providing quiet time for reading and language studies, or bringing together EAL students in a separate learning area and with a dedicated teacher who manages noise and distraction specifically for these students. Again, in discussions with teachers (Everatt et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref63">14</reflink>]), there is some evidence of teachers using these sorts of targeted strategies, though many are used with the whole class rather than just those from an Asian EAL background.</p> <p>However, if teacher strategies are specific to EAL students, this may in part explain the findings that there were differences for the English-only groups between ILE and traditional classrooms. This difference was not identified in terms of growth over the period of the study but was evident at the start of the study. This may suggest a long-term effect of ILEs on language development that was not assessed in the current single-school-year data; though why this does not influence language development among the EAL cohort still warrants further scrutiny. Alternatively, the difference in English-only students may suggest a specific school effect. For example, the current research was conducted in a city in New Zealand that experienced major disruption caused by earthquakes that occurred at the time when most of the participants in the current study were about one year old. The impact of the earthquakes was variable across the city, but many schools suffering major damage were rebuilt as ILEs. This may mean that ILE schools are focused in areas of the city most impacted by earthquake damage, which was over a period of early language learning for the students born in New Zealand. The impact on cognitive development of such events has been noted by researchers (e.g. Gillon et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref64">18</reflink>]; Gomez & Yoshikawa, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref65">20</reflink>]; Liberty et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref66">25</reflink>]), though the specific effects on the children in the current study have not been determined. Although this may not be the reason for the differences identified in the current data, they suggest the need for additional, and longer term, studies of English-only students than that undertaken in the current research that focused on EAL students.</p> <p>However, there are other differences between the EAL and English-only groups apart from the number in each group potentially impacted by earthquake disruption. The EAL-Asian students came from a range of cultural and language backgrounds. Although many were brought up in New Zealand, a number came from countries (Indian sub-continent countries, the Philippines, etc.) where it may be the case that they have already experienced large classroom sizes. However, at the time of data collection, we did not ask individuals about their past experiences of classroom sizes. Similarly, many came from what might be referred to as a Confucian heritage culture (see, for example, Tran, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref67">45</reflink>]), and may be seen as passive and less interactive in class. Whether they will benefit from the more interactive and experiential elements of ILEs, therefore, may be questioned. However, the impact of this background is debated (Tran, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref68">45</reflink>]). Indeed, it may lead to a tendency for more considered learning among the EAL group, which again may overcome some of the impact of noise and distraction in a large classroom; there may be a tendency among such students to move into quieter spaces. Equally, the importance given to learning outcomes by many Asian parents may lead to such children taking part in extra tuition outside of the school (see Fletcher & Parkhill, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref69">17</reflink>]). This was not formally assessed in the current study as the focus was on the impact in the classroom types, and there was no reason to assume differences in level of additional tuition among students in ILEs and more traditional classrooms. However, it may have mitigated some of the negative elements of noise in an ILE as Asian students overall are achieving well in literacy (Ministry of Education, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref70">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>A final point worth considering from the present findings is that there was no evidence in this study of a positive impact of ILEs in outcomes in reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge and listening comprehension. In a study of achievement in Dutch upper primary schools, Hornstra et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref71">21</reflink>]) found that the effectiveness of innovative learning environments was also influenced by ethnic backgrounds, gender and socio-economic backgrounds. Similar to our study, they found that there was no impact of type of learning environments on reading comprehension. Furthermore, Byers, Mahat, et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref72">6</reflink>]) in their systematic review of the effects of ILEs on student learning outcomes report that only a small number of empirical research studies internationally have used quantitative measures to ascertain the impact of ILEs on academic learning outcomes. They emphasised that within both ILEs and traditional classrooms there are a range of variables that can impact on effectiveness, such as the cognitive abilities of the classroom cohort, the composition of the class and the pedagogical practices implemented by the teachers.</p> <p>If schools are to undergo major restructuring, and teachers need a high level of pedagogical skills with additional professional development to work in those schools, then there should be evidence for the benefits of these changes to learning outcomes (Hornstra et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref73">21</reflink>]). Although there have been arguments for positive benefits of innovative learning contexts, empirical quantitative data for the use of large-space classrooms are rare (see, Byers, Mahat, et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref74">6</reflink>]; Hornstra et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref75">21</reflink>]). The lack of positive impacts in the current quantitative data may be due to the focus on general language understanding skills in the current study. These foundational skills (vocabulary, listening and reading comprehension) may not be those areas most likely to show the positive effects of ILEs and may be more related to social economic background, language abilities and parenting styles (see, Hornstra et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref76">21</reflink>], for discussion on the multifaceted nature of learning environments and how the learning environment cannot be viewed as a single concept in educational achievement). A limitation in the current research is the constrained range of measures used with a sample of 147 students. Evidence for positive effects of ILEs may be better determined by assessments of collaborative, or more creative and experiential learning. How these areas of learning are assessed quantitatively, though, may be a field of research in itself.</p> <hd id="AN0193123636-9">Conclusions</hd> <p>The current study did not find evidence of a negative impact of ILEs on foundational language understanding skills (vocabulary, listening and reading comprehension) of EAL-Asian students in later primary schools in New Zealand. Although noise and distraction in ILEs are issues that have been discussed in different parts of the world, for example, UK, Australia, USA, Denmark, Germany, and Italy (Imms & Kvan, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref77">23</reflink>]), and therefore need to be considered when designing school classrooms with an innovative learning focus, the impact of both may be more complex. In the current study, there was no evidence of adverse effects among the sample of EAL students who might be expected to show an impact from greater noise and distraction. However, there are additional areas that need to be considered in future research on EAL students in ILEs versus traditional single teacher classrooms. These include the EAL students' proficiency in their native languages, perceived discrimination due to their EAL status, and the socio-economic status of the EAL students' families (see discussion in Maehler et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref78">27</reflink>]). Additionally, the teacher is an important part of learning within any type of classroom environment. The experience and effectiveness of teachers in pre-planning and formulating strategies together to capitalise on the positive features of a learning space, and reduce the negative, needs to be considered. Further research determining growth in key learning areas when implementing different teaching strategies across learning environments may help identify best practice.</p> <hd id="AN0193123636-10">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0193123636-11"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref25" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aaron, P., Joshi, M., & Quatroche, D. (2008). Becoming a professional reading teacher. Paul H. Brookes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref32" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bear, G. G., Yang, C., Chen, D., He, X., Xie, J. S., & Huang, X. (2018). Differences in school climate and student engagement in China and the United States. School Psychology Quarterly, 33 (2), 323 – 335. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000247</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref9" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Benade, L. (2017). Being a teacher in the 21st century: A critical New Zealand research study. Springer Nature.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref62" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Byers, T., Imms, W., & Hartnell-Young, E. (2014). Making the case for spaces on teaching and learning: The effect of learning spaces on teaching and learning. Curriculum and Teaching, 29 (1), 5 – 19. https://doi.org/10.7459/ct/29.1.02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref2" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Byers, T., Imms, W., & Hartnell-Young, E. (2018). Comparative analysis of the impact of traditional versus innovative learning environment on student attitudes and learning outcomes. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 58, 167 – 177.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref72" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Byers, T., Mahat, M., Liu, K., Knock, A., & Imms, W. (2018). Systematic review of the effects of learning environments on student learning outcomes. University of Melbourne, LEaRN. <ulink href="http://www.iletc.com.au/publications/report">http://www.iletc.com.au/publications/report</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref38" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cardno, C., Tolmie, E., & Howse, J. (2017). New spaces – new pedagogies: Implementing personalised learning in primary school innovative learning environments. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 32 (1), 111 – 124.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref3" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Charteris, J., & Smardon, D. (2018). Professional learning on "steroids": implications for teacher learning through spatialised practice in new generation learning environments. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (12), 12 – 29. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n12.2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref43" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cullen, J. (2002). The social and cultural contexts of early literacy: Making the links between homes, centres and schools. In P. Adams & H. Ryan (Eds.), Learning to read in Aotearoa New Zealand: A collaboration between early childhood educators, families and schools (pp. 66 – 81). Dunmore.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deed, C., Cox, P., Dorman, J., Edwards, D., Farrelly, C., Keeffe, M., & Yager, Z. (2014). Personalised learning in the open classroom: The mutuality of teacher and student agency. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 9 (1), 66 – 75. https://search.informit.org/doi/pdf/10.3316informit.892156479982820.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dixon, M. (2005). Classroom shock: Your guide to teaching Asian students. Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans, G. W., & Maxwell, L. (1997). Chronic noise exposure and Reading deficits. Environment and Behavior, 29 (5), 638 – 656. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916597295003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Everatt, J., & Fletcher, J. (2019). Children with learning difficulties and the move to innovative learning environments. Asia Pacific Journal of Developmental Differences, 6 (1), 49 – 73. https://doi.org/10.3850/S2345734119000189</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Everatt, J., Fletcher, J., Kim, J., & Subramaniam, Y. (2023). 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? Educational Review, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2023.2263662</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fearon, K. (2008). A team teaching approach to ESL: An evaluative case study [Master's thesis, Kean University, New Jersey, USA]. https://<ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/docview/304819061?pq-origsite">www.proquest.com/docview/304819061?pq-origsite</ulink> = gscholar.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fletcher, J., Everatt, J., Subramaniam, Y., & Ma, T. (2023). Perceptions about innovative and traditional learning spaces: Teachers and students in New Zealand primary schools. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies 58, 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-023-00280-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fletcher, J., & Parkhill, F. (2007). What supports Reading achievement? What doesn't? The views of Asian students. The Journal of Reading, Writing and Literacy, 2 (3), 105 – 137.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillon, G., McNeill, B., Scott, A., Denston, A., Wilson, L., Carson, K., & Macfarlane, A. H. (2019). A better start to literacy learning: Findings from a teacher-implemented intervention in children's first year at school. Reading and Writing, 32 (8), 1989 – 2012.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillon, G. T. (2018). Phonological awareness: From research to practice. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gomez, C. J., & Yoshikawa, H. (2017). Earthquake effects: Estimating the relationship between exposure to the 2010 Chilean earthquake and preschool children's early cognitive and executive function skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 38, 127 – 136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.08.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hornstra, L., van der Veen, I., Peetsma, T., & Volman, M. (2015). Innovative learning and developments in motivation and achievement in upper primary school. Educational Psychology, 35 (5), 598 – 533. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.922164</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hou, F., Schellenberg, G., & Berry, J. (2017). Patterns and determinants of immigrants' sense of belonging to Canada and their source country. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41 (9), 1612 – 1631. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2017.1295162</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Imms, W., & Kvan, T. (2021). Teacher transition into innovative learning environments: A global perspective. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7497-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, B. (2003). Teacher collaboration: Good for some, not so good for others. Educational Studies, 29 (4), 337 – 350. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569032000159651</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liberty, K., Tarren-Sweeney, M., Macfarlane, S., Basu, A., & Reid, J. (2016). Behavior problems and post-traumatic stress symptoms in children beginning school: A comparison of pre- and post-earthquake groups. PLOS Currents Disasters, 82fbc 27d0c2aa9e 00cff 532b4 02. https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.dis.2821c</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, C. (2016). Cultivation of intercultural awareness in EFL teaching. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7 (1), 226 – 232. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0701.26</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maehler, D. B., Daikeler, J., Ramos, H., Husson, C., & Nguyen, T. A. (2021). The cultural identity of first-generation immigrant children and youth: Insights from a meta-analysis. Self and Identity, 20 (6), 715 – 740. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2020.1765857</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKeown, M., Beck, I., & Blake, R. (2009). Rethinking Reading comprehension instruction: A comparison of instruction of instruction strategies and content approaches. Reading Research Quarterly, 44 (3), 218 – 253. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.3.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mealings, K. T., Demuth, K., Buchholz, J. M., & Dillon, H. (2015). The effect of different open plan and enclosed classroom acoustic conditions on speech perception in kindergarten children. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 138 (4), 2458 – 2469. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4931903</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Education. (2010). The literacy learning progressions. Literacy Online. <ulink href="http://www.literacyprogressions.tki.org.nz/The-Structure-of-the-Progressions/By-the-end-of-year-6">http://www.literacyprogressions.tki.org.nz/The-Structure-of-the-Progressions/By-the-end-of-year-6</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Education. (2017). PIRLS 2016: New Zealand's Achievement. https://<ulink href="http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/%5f%5fdata/assets/pdf%5ffile/0007/183697/PIRLS-2016-NZs-Achievement%5fREV.pdf">www.educationcounts.govt.nz/%5f%5fdata/assets/pdf%5ffile/0007/183697/PIRLS-2016-NZs-Achievement%5fREV.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Education. (2022). School rolls. https://<ulink href="http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/school-rolls">www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/school-rolls</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Education. (n.d.). Shaping Education - Future Direction (Te Tāreinga Mātauranga). Retrieved March 10, 2023, from <ulink href="http://shapingeducation.govt.nz/recovery-programme/background-2">http://shapingeducation.govt.nz/recovery-programme/background-2</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neuman, Y., & Bekerman, Z. (2001). Cultural resources and the gap between educational theory and practice. Teachers College Record, 103 (3), 471 – 484. https://<ulink href="http://www.academia.edu/6329233/Cultural%5fResources%5fand%5fthe%5fGap%5fBetween%5fEducational%5fTheory%5fand%5fPractice">www.academia.edu/6329233/Cultural%5fResources%5fand%5fthe%5fGap%5fBetween%5fEducational%5fTheory%5fand%5fPractice</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. (2013). Innovative learning environments, educational research and innovation. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264203488-en</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peelle, J. E. (2018). Listening effort: How the cognitive consequences of acoustic challenge are reflected in brain and behaviour. Ear and Hearing, 39 (2), 204 – 214. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000494</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose-Munro, L. (2021). Innovative learning environments, are they inclusive? Why evaluating the speaking, and acoustic potential of the space matters. In W. Imms & T. Kvan (Eds.), Teacher transition into innovative learning environments: A global perspective (pp. 151 – 165). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7497-9_13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruan, Y., Georgiou, G. K., Song, S., Li, Y., & Shu, H. (2018). Does writing system influence the associations between phonological awareness, morphological awareness, and Reading? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110 (2), 180 – 202. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000216</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saifer, S., Edwards, K., Ellis, D., Ko, L., & Stuczynski, A. (2010). Culturally responsive standards-based teaching: Classroom to community and back. Corwin Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shank, M. J. (2005). Common space, common time, common work. Educational Leadership, 62 (8), 16 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shield, B., Greenland, E., & Dockrell, J. (2010). Noise in open plan classrooms in primary schools: A review. Noise and Health, 12 (49), 225 – 234. https://doi.org/10.4103/1463-1741.70501</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smardon, D., Charteris, J., & Nelson, E. (2015). Shifts to learning eco-systems: Principals' and teachers' perceptions of innovative learning environments. New Zealand Journal of Teachers' Work, 12 (2), 149 – 171.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snook, I., O'Neill, J., Birks, S., Church, J., Rawlins, P., & Richards, S. M. (2013). The assessment of teacher quality: An investigation into current issues in evaluating and rewarding teachers. Education Policy Response Group: Institute of Education, Massey University. <ulink href="http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Massey%20News/2013/9/docs/EPRG2013%5fTreasury.pdf">http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Massey%20News/2013/9/docs/EPRG2013%5fTreasury.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soter, A. O., Wilkinson, I. A., Murphy, P. K., Rudge, L., Reninger, K., & Edwards, M. (2008). What the discourse tells us: Talk and indicators of high-level comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 372 – 391.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tran, T. T. (2013). Is the learning approach of students from the confucian heritage culture problematic? Education Research for Policy and Practice, 12 (1), 57 – 65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-012-9131-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trask, S., Charteris, J., Edwards, F., Cowie, B., & Anderson, J. (2023). Innovative learning environments and student orientation to learning: A kaleidoscopic framework. Learning Environments Research, 26 (3), 727 – 741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-022-09449-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tunmer, W., & Hoover, W. (2019). The cognitive foundations of learning to read: A framework for preventing and remediating Reading difficulties. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 24 (1), 75 – 93. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2019.1614081</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Hees, J., & Nation, I. S. P. (2017). What every primary school teacher should know about vocabulary. New Zealand Council for Educational Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vandevelde, S., Van Keer, H., & Merchie, E. (2017). The challenge of promoting self-regulated learning among primary school children with a low socioeconomic and immigrant background. The Journal of Educational Research, 110 (2), 113 – 139. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2014.999363</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, C., Rogers, C., Van Engen, K., & Peelle, J. (2016). Effects of age, acoustic challenge, and verbal working memory on recall of narrative speech. Experimental Aging Research, 42 (1), 126 – 144. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2016.1108785</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By John Everatt; Jo Fletcher; Ting Ma and Yogeetha Devi Bala Subramaniam</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib544" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib545" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref77"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1503420
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Literacy Learning among Primary School Children in Innovative Learning Environments versus Traditional Classrooms
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22John+Everatt%22">John Everatt</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jo+Fletcher%22">Jo Fletcher</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ting+Ma%22">Ting Ma</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yogeetha+Devi+Bala+Subramaniam%22">Yogeetha Devi Bala Subramaniam</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Review%22"><i>Educational Review</i></searchLink>. 2026 78(3):297-314.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– 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="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+6%22">Grade 6</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+6%22">Grade 6</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Environment%22">Educational Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+Learners%22">English Learners</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Asians%22">Asians</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literacy%22">Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary+Development%22">Vocabulary Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Listening+Comprehension%22">Listening Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Team+Teaching%22">Team Teaching</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Collaboration%22">Teacher Collaboration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Contained+Classrooms%22">Self Contained Classrooms</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Class+Size%22">Class Size</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Class+Organization%22">Class Organization</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22New+Zealand%22">New Zealand</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/00131911.2025.2485451
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0013-1911<br />1465-3397
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study on literacy learning in innovative learning environments (ILEs) and traditional one teacher classrooms, focused on Asian English-as-an-additional-language (EAL) students, contrasting them with English-only speaking students. There were 147 Years 5/6 primary school children in the study. Of these, 71 were Asian-EAL children, with 43 in ILEs and 28 in traditional classrooms. English-only students comprised 36 in ILEs and 40 in traditional classrooms. Parallel measures of vocabulary size, listening comprehension and reading comprehension were given to all students at two time points during one school year, about six months apart. Few studies have used quantitative measures to determine if ILEs influence academic literacy outcomes. The Asian-EAL students in ILEs performed similarly on the study measures as their peers in more traditional classrooms. The English-only students in ILEs performed worse than their peers in traditional classrooms, but there was no increase in this difference over the course of the study.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1503420
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1503420
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/00131911.2025.2485451
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 297
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 5
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 6
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English Learners
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Asians
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Listening Comprehension
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Team Teaching
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Collaboration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Contained Classrooms
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Class Size
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Class Organization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: New Zealand
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Literacy Learning among Primary School Children in Innovative Learning Environments versus Traditional Classrooms
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: John Everatt
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jo Fletcher
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ting Ma
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yogeetha Devi Bala Subramaniam
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0013-1911
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1465-3397
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 78
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Review
              Type: main
ResultId 1