School Infrastructure as a Catalyst for Pedagogical and Collaborative Change: A Cultural-Historical Activity Theory Study

Abstract

This study examines how large-scale school infrastructure reforms shape teaching practice, using Australia’s Building the Education Revolution (BER) initiative as a case example. Guided by Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), the research explores how redesigned learning environments act as mediating tools that influence pedagogy, collaboration, and teacher wellbeing. An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was employed, combining survey data from 34 teachers with focus group interviews involving 13 participants in a redeveloped Victorian Primary School, Australia. Quantitative results showed that 70.5% of teachers reported changes in their teaching practices directly linked to the new infrastructure, with 100% affirming that they had enhanced collaboration opportunities. Qualitative findings revealed that features such as breakout rooms, shared learning zones, and transparent sightlines enabled differentiated instruction, co-teaching, and improved supervision, while also fostering professional pride and collegial support. Contradictions emerged around automated lighting systems, limited display space, and partial teacher consultation during the design process. CHAT analysis demonstrated how physical spaces interact with rules, community, and division of labour within the school activity system, producing both enabling conditions and systemic tensions. The study underscores the need for infrastructure planning to be pedagogically informed, inclusive of teacher voice, and designed to support adaptive, collaborative, and inclusive teaching practices.

1. Introduction

This study investigates the effectiveness of school infrastructure in supporting contemporary teaching practices, using Australia’s Building the Education Revolution (BER) programme as a case study. Initiated in 2009 with a $16.2 billion investment, the BER aimed to modernise educational facilities nationwide. Despite its scale, a 2017 report by the Victorian Auditor-General noted a lack of evaluation frameworks to assess how school infrastructure aligns with pedagogical needs. Globally, the disconnect between educational investment and student outcomes has raised questions about infrastructure’s impact on learning (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2008; Hong & Zimmer, 2016; Serdyukov, 2017; Yangambi, 2023).

The framing of infrastructure in this study aligns with Star and Ruhleder’s (1996) definition, which presents it as a sociotechnical system shaped not only by technological tools but also by organisational arrangements and social practices. Within educational contexts, this perspective highlights that infrastructure extends beyond physical buildings and digital platforms to include the institutional routines and professional relationships that condition their use. Guribye (2015) further develops this understanding by emphasising the need to incorporate pedagogical dimensions, recognising that the design of teaching, the structuring of learning activities, and the ways in which educators interact with students are central to how infrastructures are enacted in practice. These perspectives have deepened the researchers’ understanding of how technological, organisational, social, and pedagogical factors intersect in shaping teachers’ experiences and practices. It also informs why the effectiveness of school infrastructure is increasingly understood through its influence on teaching practices, given the substantial role teachers play in student achievement (Hattie, 2003; Goddard et al., 2007; Grabarek & Kallemeyn, 2020). Research suggests that well-designed environments enhance pedagogy and support diverse learning needs (Barrett et al., 2018). Yet, infrastructure is often evaluated solely through cost-efficiency, rather than its educational utility, overlooking its role in enabling teacher effectiveness and innovation.

This study also draws on historical and societal contexts that have shaped the development of school infrastructure. From 19th-century factory-style schooling to the progressive education reforms of the 20th century, shifts in architectural design have mirrored societal, economic, and pedagogical transformations (Powell, 2021). Educational reformers like Dewey, Montessori, Kerschensteiner, and Petersen advocated for environments responsive to children’s developmental needs and active learning. These legacies underscore the importance of aligning infrastructure with contemporary teaching philosophies (Dewey, 1997; Sojka et al., 2025). As governments increasingly link funding to educational outcomes (Department of Education, Skills and Employment [DESE], 2017), evaluating the pedagogical functionality of infrastructure is crucial. This research contributes to that conversation by exploring how school design influences teacher practice, drawing implications for future investment and policy.

1.1. Statement of the Problem

Despite substantial investments in educational infrastructure, there remains limited empirical research on how school design influences teacher practice—a key driver of student achievement (Hattie, 2003; Goddard et al., 2007; Grabarek & Kallemeyn, 2020). While studies have shown that improved infrastructure can enhance test scores and support active pedagogy (Fisher, 2005; Taylor, 2008; Barrett et al., 2013), most research has focused on physical attributes such as lighting, acoustics, and space efficiency, often neglecting pedagogical impacts. Critically, teachers—the primary agents of educational delivery—are rarely consulted in infrastructure planning, and students have minimal input in shaping their learning environments (Wood, 2007). Reviews, such as that by Blackmore et al. (2011), highlight a persistent gap in understanding how infrastructure shapes the teaching process itself. This study addresses that gap by investigating how changes in school infrastructure affect teacher pedagogy, offering evidence to inform more educationally responsive infrastructure design.

1.2. Research Question

The two research questions that guided the study were

• How do teachers in Victoria schools perceive the impact of the changes brought about by the Building the Education Revolution (BER) infrastructure on their pedagogy?
• To what extent does the new school infrastructure support pedagogy?

1.3. Research Objectives

This study examines the impact of school infrastructure on teacher pedagogy and collaboration within the context of a redeveloped Victorian school under the Building the Education Revolution (BER) initiative. Effective pedagogy is shaped by a range of factors, including research evidence, professional experience, and community expectations, but its implementation is also closely tied to the functionality and flexibility of physical learning environments. Infrastructure that supports varied teaching approaches and fosters interaction can enhance teachers’ ability to orchestrate learning effectively (Miller, 2008; Paniagua & Istance, 2018; Perisic et al., 2023).

In addition, the study examines how the new infrastructure supports teacher collaboration, as research shows that collaborative environments contribute to innovative practice, increased job satisfaction, and stronger professional relationships (Kalra, 2020; OECD, 2020). The study also considers the role of infrastructure in promoting teacher wellbeing, noting global concerns about teacher stress and attrition, and the positive impact of supportive environments on morale and instructional quality (Turner & Thielking, 2019).

Finally, it investigates how the design of learning spaces affects teacher–student relationships, which are known to influence student engagement, motivation, and achievement (Kalra, 2020). By addressing these interconnected dimensions, the research highlights the critical importance of aligning school infrastructure with the pedagogical and relational needs of teachers.

1.4. Significance of the Study

This study addresses a critical gap in educational research by exploring how school infrastructure impacts teacher practice—a topic often overlooked despite its potential influence on student learning outcomes. By focusing on a BER-funded school redevelopment, the study offers context-specific insights that may inform broader educational and architectural planning. Its findings aim to contribute to the limited literature on the pedagogical value of infrastructure and provide practical implications for teachers, policymakers, and school designers alike.

1.5. Theoretical Framework: Activity Theory

This study adopts Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) as its guiding theoretical framework. Rooted in Vygotskian socio-cultural principles, CHAT is concerned with how human activity is mediated by tools, artefacts, rules, and community, and how these elements shape and are shaped by practice over time (Meyers, 2007). It is particularly suited for understanding the complexity of teaching and learning as socially situated, historically informed, and contextually bound. Given the study’s focus on how infrastructure influences teacher pedagogy and collaboration, CHAT offers a robust lens through which to examine the dynamic interplay between teachers (subjects), their teaching practices (activities), the school infrastructure (mediating artefacts), and institutional and community factors (rules, division of labour, and community) (Engestrom, 1987; Vygotsky, 1978).

The strengths of activity theory are informed by its holistic and systemic approach to human activity, its emphasis on context and cultural mediation, and its ability to account for contradictions and change within an activity system (Foot, 2014; Wilson, 2005). These qualities make it ideal for examining how changes in physical infrastructure reshape pedagogical practices over time. However, a key weakness lies in its complexity: mapping activity systems can become cumbersome, and interpreting the interactions among system elements requires careful navigation to avoid oversimplification or overgeneralisation (Yamagata-Lynch, 2010).

Despite this criticism, CHAT is well-justified as the most appropriate framework for this study because it captures the multifaceted, context-dependent nature of teaching and learning within school environments (Mtika, 2008). It enables an analysis that extends beyond individual behaviour to consider the collective, tool-mediated practices that infrastructure both enables and constrains.

1.6. Gap in the Literature

The relationship between educational infrastructure and teaching practice remains underexplored despite significant global investment in school facilities. Much of the existing literature has focused on the impact of infrastructure improvements on student academic performance, highlighting factors such as lighting, air quality, noise reduction, and classroom layout (Barrett et al., 2013; Ulug et al., 2011; Schneider, 2002). However, these studies often prioritise physical and environmental attributes over pedagogical utility, leaving a gap in understanding how school design affects teachers’ instructional practices and professional experiences. This oversight is critical given the central role teachers play in facilitating student learning and educational innovation (Hattie, 2003; Paniagua & Istance, 2018). Infrastructure is often evaluated based on cost-efficiency or performance benchmarks, but rarely from the standpoint of how effectively it supports teaching itself.

A persistent limitation in the literature is the fragmented treatment of teaching-related outcomes. For instance, studies may examine how flexible learning spaces support collaboration (Deed & Lesko, 2015) or how design affects classroom acoustics, but few take a holistic view that integrates pedagogy, teacher collaboration, wellbeing, and teacher–student relationships. Blackmore et al. (2011) argue that this narrow lens results in missed opportunities to understand the complex, interconnected ways in which infrastructure shapes the teaching process. Moreover, the voices of teachers—the primary users of educational space—are often absent from research and policy discourse. Empirical work rarely investigates how teachers perceive and adapt to new learning environments, nor how these spaces influence their instructional autonomy, self-efficacy, or professional identity (Wood, 2007; Cleveland & Woodman, 2009).

The Australian government’s Building the Education Revolution (BER) initiative, which invested $16.2 billion to modernise school infrastructure, presents a unique opportunity to evaluate infrastructure through the lens of teacher practice. Yet, as the Victorian Auditor-General [VAG] (2017) noted, there was no systematic framework for assessing whether the BER facilities supported contemporary pedagogical approaches. This is especially concerning given that the long-term success of such investments hinges on how well they enable effective teaching. While a few studies have examined BER projects in terms of architectural design or implementation outcomes, there remains a lack of research that specifically explores teachers’ lived experiences and the extent to which these redeveloped spaces support or hinder their pedagogical work (Deed et al., 2019; Blackmore et al., 2011).

A further gap in the literature is the lack of theoretically grounded empirical studies that examine the relationship between infrastructure and pedagogy. Although Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) has been applied in educational settings to understand systems of practice (Engestrom, 1987; Holland, 2011), its application to infrastructure-driven changes in schools is limited. CHAT offers a valuable lens through which to explore how tools (e.g., classrooms), rules, roles, and community structures shape teaching activities over time. Its focus on contradictions and systemic change is especially relevant when evaluating the impact of major infrastructure investments like BER. However, CHAT remains underutilised in studies of this kind, and there is a need for more research that uses such frameworks to map the dynamic interactions between teachers, infrastructure, and broader institutional contexts.

In addition, research has not sufficiently addressed how school infrastructure contributes to teacher wellbeing and professional sustainability. While studies increasingly acknowledge the pressures teachers face—from workload to burnout (Turner & Thielking, 2019; Viac & Fraser, 2020)—few have investigated how the design and functionality of physical spaces can alleviate or exacerbate these issues. Teacher wellbeing, collaboration, and pedagogical confidence are critical to maintaining a high-quality workforce, yet the spatial dimensions that support these outcomes are often overlooked in infrastructure planning.

It is acknowledged that there is a noticeable lack of methodologically integrated studies, particularly within Australian public schools, that draw on both qualitative and quantitative data to evaluate infrastructure’s impact. Research that combines teacher interviews, observational data, and survey findings is rare, and where such work exists, it often lacks a regional or context-specific focus. This study responds to those gaps by adopting a mixed-methods approach, guided by CHAT, to examine how one BER-funded school redevelopment in Victoria influences teacher pedagogy, collaboration, and wellbeing. In doing so, it builds on prior critiques while offering fresh insights into how educational infrastructure can be more purposefully aligned with teaching practice.

1.7. Conceptual Framework

This study applies Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) (Figure 1) to examine how school infrastructure mediates teaching practice in a redeveloped Victorian primary school funded by the Building the Education Revolution (BER) initiative. In this activity system, the subjects are teachers, the object is the pursuit of pedagogical goals—such as effective, flexible, and inclusive teaching, collaboration, and wellbeing—and the mediating artefacts are the BER facilities, including flexible classrooms, breakout spaces, shared zones, movable furniture, and transparent sightlines. The system is further shaped by rules (e.g., curriculum policies, high-impact teaching strategies), the community (students, colleagues, school leadership, parents), and the division of labour (co-teaching, peer observation, collaborative planning). The first research question explores how subjects, artefacts, and objects interact, while the second examines how artefacts, rules, community, and division of labour enable or constrain pedagogy. An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design (survey, n = 34; focus groups, n = 13) was guided by CHAT in both instrument design and thematic coding. The analysis identified enabling conditions (e.g., differentiation, co-teaching), systemic contradictions (e.g., automated lighting, limited consultation), and shifts in professional relationships. The conceptual framework, therefore, integrates theory, research questions, methodology, and findings, with contradictions and learning loops highlighting the dynamic nature of the activity system. Together, the model generates actionable insights for educational policy and future school design (Figure 1).

2. Methodology

Educational research often draws on both quantitative and qualitative approaches to gain a comprehensive understanding of complex phenomena (Ifarajimi et al., 2025). Quantitative research emphasises measurement, numerical data, and statistical analysis to identify patterns, relationships, and trends (Cohen et al., 2018). In contrast, qualitative research seeks to explore participants’ lived experiences, perceptions, and meanings through in-depth, descriptive data (Tisdell et al., 2025). Each method offers distinct strengths: quantitative approaches provide breadth and generalisability, while qualitative approaches offer depth and contextual richness. However, relying solely on one method may limit the scope of inquiry, either by missing the nuance behind numerical trends or by lacking empirical breadth to support broader claims (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004).

Mixed methods research intentionally combines quantitative and qualitative approaches in a single study to capitalise on the strengths of both and offset their respective limitations (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). This integration is particularly valuable in education, where understanding outcomes often requires both statistical evidence and rich narrative insights. In this study, an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was selected to investigate how the Building the Education Revolution (BER) infrastructure influenced teacher pedagogy, collaboration, and wellbeing. The initial quantitative survey (n = 34) provided measurable evidence of teacher perceptions, while the subsequent qualitative focus groups (n = 13) allowed for a deeper exploration of the underlying experiences and contextual factors. This design was appropriate because it allowed the researcher to first identify general patterns in teacher responses, then use qualitative data to explain why those patterns occurred, thereby producing a more holistic understanding of how infrastructure mediates teaching practice.

2.1. Research Design

This study used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design within the pragmatist paradigm. In line with Creswell and Plano Clark (2018), this design prioritised the quantitative phase, which provided an overview of teachers’ perceptions of the Building the Education Revolution (BER) infrastructure programme, followed by a qualitative phase to explore emerging themes in greater depth through focus group interviews and document analysis. The explanatory sequential approach was chosen because it allows researchers to use initial quantitative findings to guide the focus of subsequent qualitative inquiry, thereby strengthening the interpretation of results (Ivankova et al., 2006). This design enabled both breadth and depth of understanding and provided opportunities for triangulation and integration of findings across multiple data sources. The choice of a mixed-methods approach was informed by the complexity of the research problem, which examined how teachers perceived the impact of BER-funded infrastructure on pedagogy, collaboration, wellbeing, and student interactions—issues that cannot be fully captured by a single methodological lens (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). The pragmatic paradigm was appropriate for this inquiry because it values both objective data and the subjective experiences of participants, emphasising the practical use of multiple forms of knowledge to address real-world educational challenges (Biesta, 2010; Morgan, 2014).

2.2. Participants and Sampling

The study was conducted at a Victorian primary school in Australia that had undergone substantial infrastructure reform under the BER programme. The site was selected using a combination of convenience and purposive sampling, which is commonly employed in educational research where access and specific contextual features are central to the research question (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Palinkas et al., 2015). A minimum inclusion criterion of at least 50% infrastructure replacement was established to ensure a significant impact from the BER reforms. Out of 38 teachers at the school, 34 voluntarily participated in the online survey, while 13 of these teachers later joined the focus group interviews. Volunteer (self-selecting) sampling was used for both phases, an approach that can enhance engagement by including participants motivated to reflect on their practice (Etikan et al., 2016). In addition, school documents related to the BER infrastructure project were accessed with site permission and ethical clearance. Document analysis served both to contextualise the research setting and to inform the development of data collection instruments, consistent with best practice in case study and mixed-methods designs (Bowen, 2009).

2.3. Data Collection

Data collection took place in three distinct phases: document analysis, online survey, and focus group interviews. In the first phase, relevant documents—including staff meeting minutes, correspondence with education authorities, and architectural plans—were reviewed to gain contextual knowledge of the school’s participation in the BER programme. Document analysis provided a valuable means of triangulating findings and informing instrument development (Bowen, 2009). The second phase involved the administration of a 61-item online questionnaire, designed to capture teacher demographics and perceptions regarding the influence of the new infrastructure on teaching practices, collaboration, wellbeing, and teacher–student interactions. Surveys are a well-established tool for gathering broad insights into teacher perceptions and professional practice (Cohen et al., 2018). The third phase entailed semi-structured focus group interviews with selected staff members to further elaborate on themes that emerged from the survey. Focus groups enabled in-depth exploration of teacher perspectives and fostered collaborative meaning-making through group discussion (Krueger & Casey, 2015). Collectively, these phases were structured to ensure coherence across data sources and allowed for integration at the interpretation stage, consistent with explanatory sequential mixed-methods designs (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).

2.4. Ethical Considerations

Ethical conduct was central to all aspects of the study. Approval was obtained from the Federation University Human Research Ethics Committee and the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD). Participants were provided with clear information regarding the purpose and scope of the study and signed informed consent forms prior to participation. Participation was entirely voluntary, with the option to withdraw at any stage without consequence, in line with recognised ethical standards for educational research (National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC], 2018). To minimise potential conflicts of interest, the researchers established clear role boundaries and ensured that no participants were in a direct reporting or supervisory relationship with the researcher. Data collection was conducted in group formats (online survey, focus groups) rather than one-to-one evaluation to further reduce power imbalances. All responses were anonymised, and pseudonyms were used in reporting. These measures align with established guidance on managing dual roles and insider research, which emphasises transparency, role clarification, and safeguarding participant autonomy (Asselin, 2003; Greene, 2014).

2.5. Procedure

Following ethics approval from both Federation University’s Human Research Ethics Committee and the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD), the researchers initiated the fieldwork by identifying and securing participation from a school that met the inclusion criteria. After preliminary visits and document analysis, the study was introduced to staff at a school meeting, plain language information statements were distributed, and informed consent was obtained, consistent with recognised ethical standards for human research (National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC], 2018). The online survey was administered via an anonymous link sent to participants’ email addresses, ensuring privacy and confidentiality. After analysing the survey data, the researchers returned to the school to provide feedback and to recruit volunteers for focus group interviews. These sessions were scheduled at times convenient for staff and conducted on school grounds, with minimal disruption to teaching responsibilities. Data from interviews were transcribed and returned to participants for member checking, a recognised strategy for enhancing credibility and trustworthiness in qualitative research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). All contributions were anonymised using pseudonyms to further protect participant identity.

2.6. Data Analysis

Data analysis followed a sequential and integrative process. Quantitative data from the online survey were analysed using descriptive statistics (frequencies and means) to provide a general overview of teachers’ perceptions of the BER infrastructure, consistent with recommendations for analysing survey data in educational research (Cohen et al., 2018). These findings informed the development of a semi-structured interview guide for the focus group discussions. The qualitative data—transcripts from focus group interviews—were analysed thematically using open and axial coding techniques, following Saldaña’s (2016) approach to coding. The codes were subsequently categorised within the domains of Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT), which served as the study’s conceptual framework. Document analysis complemented these findings by providing contextual evidence and was examined using content analysis to identify patterns and themes relevant to the research questions (Bowen, 2009). In presenting the findings, excerpts from different participants were sometimes grouped within the same paragraph to illustrate shared perspectives on a theme; however, each quotation was kept intact and attributed to its original source, and the researcher’s interpretation was reported outside of the quotation text to maintain a clear distinction between participant voice and analysis. Integration of findings occurred at the interpretation stage, where quantitative trends were both elaborated upon and, in some cases, extended by qualitative insights. For example, while the survey highlighted broad changes in pedagogy, collaboration, and wellbeing, the focus groups revealed additional concerns not captured in the survey, such as automated lighting, insufficient storage, and limited display surfaces. These emergent themes pointed to systemic contradictions between infrastructure design and pedagogical needs, demonstrating the value of the qualitative phase in extending and deepening the interpretation of results, consistent with explanatory sequential mixed-methods design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).

2.7. Reliability and Validity

The study employed multiple strategies to ensure trustworthiness and methodological rigour. Credibility was supported through prolonged engagement with the research site, member checking of interview transcripts, and the triangulation of survey, interview, and document data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Shenton, 2004). Dependability and confirmability were enhanced by maintaining detailed documentation of the research process and data analysis procedures, creating an audit trail that would allow for external review if required (Nowell et al., 2017). Although the study was limited to a single school and its findings may not be generalisable, transferability was addressed through rich contextual descriptions, clear sampling rationale, and the inclusion of participant quotations (Tisdell et al., 2025). The use of multiple sources of data and the integration of both quantitative and qualitative findings contributed to the overall validity and robustness of the results (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).

2.8. Research Findings

This section presents the findings of the study in response to the two guiding research questions: (1) How do teachers in Victorian schools perceive the impact of the changes brought about by the Building the Education Revolution (BER) infrastructure on their pedagogy? and (2) To what extent does the new school infrastructure support pedagogy? The findings are organised thematically and interpreted through the lens of Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT). The themes were developed primarily from the focus group interviews, with supporting evidence drawn from survey responses and document analysis. This structure foregrounds the lived experiences of teachers, while also triangulating their perspectives with quantitative patterns and contextual evidence.

The section first presents the thematic findings, which integrate interview excerpts with survey data and relevant documents, before concluding with a descriptive statistical overview (Figure 2). Placing the table at the end provides a consolidated summary of the survey results and avoids unnecessary repetition of figures already referenced throughout the thematic sections.

2.9. Perceived Impact of BER Infrastructure on Pedagogy

Teachers overwhelmingly reported that the new school infrastructure had a positive and transformative impact on their pedagogical practice. Quantitative survey results indicated that 70.5% of teachers either agreed or strongly agreed that their teaching had changed as a direct result of the BER-funded infrastructure upgrades. The built environment was seen to facilitate the use of a broader repertoire of teaching methods, particularly student-centred and flexible approaches. As one teacher explained,

“It has changed what we’ve been able to do and has certainly made our job easier to offer the things that we want to offer”.

(Focus Group 2, Participant 1)

The availability of breakout rooms, shared spaces, and outdoor learning areas provided teachers with new possibilities for differentiated instruction, small group activities, and independent learning. These spaces were particularly valued for enabling teachers to observe and supervise students while allowing them autonomy to engage with tasks. As Tammy noted, “I can be working with a student reading to me in the breakaway room and still be able to see what the rest of the class is doing” (Focus Group 1). The design of the infrastructure allowed for more seamless implementation of contemporary pedagogical strategies, with one teacher summarising,

“The change in the pedagogy, I suppose, has matched the change in the building structure really well”.

(Focus Group 2, Participant 5)

Document analysis of the BER architectural plans and school planning reports confirmed that flexibility and visibility were built into the design brief, showing that the pedagogical shifts reported by teachers were anticipated as intended outcomes of the redevelopment.

2.10. Support for Varied Pedagogical Approaches

The BER infrastructure was also perceived to strongly support a wide range of pedagogical approaches, including those aligned with High-Impact Teaching Strategies (HITS). Teachers reported that flexible furniture and reconfigurable spaces allowed them to switch between whole-class instruction, collaborative learning, and individualised teaching more easily. In the survey, 100% of participants agreed that they used a variety of teaching methods, and 76.6% indicated that the new buildings made them more inclined to expand their pedagogical toolkit.

Teachers also observed that the improved layout and increased spatial flexibility supported the implementation of specific pedagogical activities such as explaining, applying, and decision-making. Morning circle sessions, inquiry-based group work, and quiet reflection activities were all facilitated by the adaptability of the new classroom design. Visual contact between teachers and students across spaces contributed to more effective supervision and greater student accountability. Staff meeting notes also demonstrated that inquiry-based and collaborative learning approaches were discussed during planning stages, suggesting that the infrastructure was deliberately aligned with these pedagogical priorities.

“If a kid can’t see a teacher, then they are less likely to be on task,” explained…highlighting the behavioural affordances of spatial visibility.

(Focus Group 3; Participants)

2.11. Enhanced Collaboration and Peer Learning

A significant theme emerging from the data was the enhancement of teacher collaboration as a result of the BER infrastructure. All survey respondents (100%) strongly agreed that the new buildings made it easier to coordinate instructional programmes with colleagues. Focus group discussions revealed that shared spaces and collapsible walls enabled co-teaching, spontaneous peer observation, and informal professional dialogue.

“It’s easy to move in and out of each other’s spaces and rooms,” said (Focus Group 1, Participant 1), while another teacher reflected, “What that does, it opens up teachers experiencing other teachers teaching”.

(Focus Group 3, Participant 6)

Teachers noted that the physical proximity and open layout facilitated joint lesson planning and fostered a greater willingness to share resources, take pedagogical risks, and trial new methods. One teacher stated,

“The staff have learned to share, take risks, try new things—really lots of professional dialogue happening”.

(Focus Group 2, Participant 8)

This transformation in professional culture reflects a reconfiguration of the division of labour and community within the activity system of teaching. Document records of team planning and timetabling showed that collaborative teaching arrangements were formally encouraged following the redevelopment, supporting the teachers’ accounts of increased professional dialogue and joint practice.

2.12. Teacher Wellbeing and Morale

The findings also demonstrated a strong link between improved infrastructure and teacher wellbeing. A majority of teachers (94.1%) reported feeling more motivated to work in the new environment, and 100% indicated that they felt prouder to belong to the school. Focus group participants described how the design and aesthetics of the buildings contributed to a more positive workplace culture. Teachers appreciated having staff areas that were not only functional but also comfortable, with couches and informal meeting zones that supported social connection and post-class debriefing.

“At the end of a busy day, teachers can sit on the couches and debrief. This positive attitude contributes to their overall wellbeing”.

(Focus Group 1, Participant 5)

Several teachers commented that their sense of professional identity and personal self-worth had been enhanced by the environment.

“You suddenly have pride in your building and your surroundings—it flows on and creates a positive effect across everything”.

(Focus Group 2, Participant 4)

These observations highlight how infrastructure can serve as a tool for emotional regulation, identity construction, and cultural change within the school. Also, school facility documents highlighted the inclusion of informal staff spaces as part of the redevelopment, reinforcing teachers’ observations that these areas contributed to morale and collegial support.

2.13. Improved Teacher–Student Relationships and Supervision

The redesign of the school layout was found to significantly improve teacher–student relationships, primarily by enabling better supervision and reducing behavioural issues. Teachers reported that prior to the BER upgrades, poor layout and blind corners made it difficult to monitor students, especially during transitions and recess. Post-BER, the open layout and clear sightlines allowed for real-time observation and faster response to student needs.

“We’re open, and we can see the children in all the playing spaces,” noted (Focus Group 3, Participant 6). …the resulting decline in behavioural incidents was widely acknowledged…. that’s virtually non-existent now, referring to post-recess behavioural issues.

(Focus Group 2, Participant 8)

The improved play areas, now interconnected and easily observable, contributed to a more cohesive and positive relational environment. From the staffroom, teachers could view outdoor spaces and offer backup to those on yard duty.

“You’ve got a good view from the staffroom. You can see right down to the oval without any obstructions,” said.

(Focus Group 1, Participant 2)

These enhancements fostered stronger rapport, more consistent behavioural expectations, and a calmer school climate. The duty rosters and yard supervision plans reviewed in the document analysis confirmed that the open layout of play spaces allowed staff to be more effectively deployed, supporting teachers’ accounts of improved visibility and student safety.

2.14. Constraints and Unintended Consequences

Despite these overwhelmingly positive impacts, teachers also identified a number of infrastructure constraints that impeded teaching. These included insufficient display surfaces due to large windows and lockers, a lack of adequate storage space, and technology-related challenges with lighting and IWBs. The automated lighting systems often interfered with visibility during instruction, and the inability to independently control light switches between rooms hindered differentiated pedagogy.

“The lights would never go off… at midnight it all turns on automatically,” explained (Focus Group 2, Participant 6), while another teacher added, “If you want to turn off light for improved viewing, you have to black out the double room”.

(Focus Group 2; Participant 5)

Further frustration stemmed from teachers’ perceived lack of influence over the design process. While 53% of teachers felt they were consulted during the planning stages, only 20.6% believed their views significantly shaped the final design. “You don’t have that wall there,” commented (Focus Group 1, Participant 3), referring to the challenge of displaying student work. These findings underscore the importance of practitioner input in infrastructure planning to ensure that architectural choices align with pedagogical needs. The reviewed documents revealed that while staff were invited to provide input during the design process, final decisions were largely made by external architects and planners, explaining why many teachers felt their influence was limited.

Figure 2. Quantitative phase of the study.

Figure 2. Quantitative phase of the study.

2.15. Summary of Statistical Analysis

The survey data presented in Figure 2 provide a consolidated view of teachers’ responses (n = 34) regarding the impact of the BER infrastructure. The descriptive analysis highlights patterns that were elaborated through interviews and supported by document analysis. The highest levels of agreement were recorded for varied teaching methods (100%), ease of coordination with colleagues (100%), and increased professional pride (100%), reflecting the themes of pedagogical flexibility, collaboration, and wellbeing discussed earlier. A strong majority also reported higher motivation (94.1%) and changes in pedagogy (70.5%), consistent with teachers’ qualitative accounts of shifting practice and identity. Lower levels of agreement were observed in relation to consultation (53%) and influence on final design decisions (20.6%), which aligns with the frustrations and contradictions expressed in the focus groups and confirmed in consultation records. In summary, the quantitative data reinforce the thematic findings by demonstrating broad staff agreement on the positive pedagogical and professional impacts of the BER redevelopment, while also corroborating the qualitative evidence of tensions around design consultation and infrastructure constraints.

2.16. Scope of Limitation

The limitation of this study is that it is grounded in the findings from a single Victorian primary school that underwent BER redevelopment. While these findings provide valuable insights into the relationship between infrastructure and teaching practice, their applicability may be limited in other educational contexts (e.g., Blackmore et al., 2011; Cleveland & Woodman, 2009; Fisher, 2005; Johnson & Christensen, 2024). The emphasis on flexible and collaborative spaces, for example, reflects not only the architectural features of the BER design but also the professional culture of the participating school. In settings with different resource levels, policy priorities, or cultural expectations, similar patterns may not emerge. This highlights the need for caution when generalising these findings beyond the immediate research context.

With this limitation acknowledged, the following discussion explores the broader implications of the findings, situating them within the activity system and examining how they contribute to understanding the interplay between infrastructure, pedagogy, and teacher practice.

3. Discussion

This study sought to examine how the Building the Education Revolution (BER) infrastructure influenced teacher pedagogy, collaboration, wellbeing, and teacher–student relationships in a redeveloped Victorian primary school. The findings provide empirical support for the assertion that well-designed school infrastructure is not a passive backdrop but an active mediating tool that can enable or constrain teaching practices, as articulated through Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT). The discussion below synthesises key findings with the CHAT framework, aligns them with the study’s research questions, and integrates them with existing literature.

3.1. Infrastructure as a Mediating Tool in Teaching Practice

The first research question explored how teachers perceived the impact of BER infrastructure on their pedagogy. The results reveal that teachers experienced a significant pedagogical transformation due to the physical learning environment. Over 70% of survey respondents agreed that their teaching practice had changed because of the new infrastructure. Qualitative data further emphasised that spaces such as breakout rooms and open-plan layouts enabled more flexible, student-centred approaches to teaching. These findings confirm the role of infrastructure as a mediating artefact within the activity system, facilitating interaction between teachers (subjects) and their pedagogical goals (objects) (Engestrom, 1987).

Teachers highlighted how the BER facilities allowed them to implement High-Impact Teaching Strategies, such as differentiation, group work, and student-led learning. These pedagogical moves were supported by movable furniture, transparent partitions, and breakout rooms that allowed for seamless transitions between instructional modes. Such practices exemplify how artefacts (infrastructure) interact dynamically with activity (pedagogy) to transform classroom operations. This aligns with CHAT’s emphasis on tool-mediated activity (Vygotsky, 1978; Yamagata-Lynch, 2010).

While teachers in this study reported that the BER spaces enabled more flexible and student-centred pedagogy, they also indicated that such practices required adaptation and confidence. Previous research has shown that teachers benefit from targeted professional learning to effectively use new or flexible learning environments (Cleveland & Fisher, 2014; Imms et al., 2017). Without this support, there is a risk that innovative infrastructure may be underutilised or even constrain practice, underscoring the importance of aligning infrastructure investment with ongoing professional development so that teachers are equipped to maximise the pedagogical potential of redesigned spaces.

3.2. Collaborative Practice and Division of Labour

The second research question investigated the extent to which the new infrastructure supported pedagogy. A major theme that emerged was enhanced teacher collaboration. All surveyed teachers reported that the BER infrastructure made instructional coordination with colleagues easier. Focus group participants elaborated on how shared teaching spaces, collapsible walls, and transparent classroom boundaries fostered a culture of spontaneous peer observation, joint planning, and co-teaching. These practices signal a reconfiguration of the division of labour—a key CHAT element—where teaching responsibilities became more distributed and team-based.

The findings suggest that infrastructure can act as both a physical and symbolic facilitator of professional culture. By encouraging proximity and visibility among teachers, the BER buildings promoted interdependence and a shift from isolated to collective practice. These observations reinforce prior research by Goddard et al. (2007) and Kalra (2020), who link teacher collaboration to increased job satisfaction, innovation, and instructional quality. CHAT allows us to interpret these changes not merely as behavioural adaptations but as systemic transformations in the structure and logic of the teaching activity itself.

3.3. Infrastructure, Wellbeing, and Cultural Identity

Infrastructure was also found to support teacher wellbeing, identity, and morale. Ninety-four percent of teachers reported increased motivation, and all expressed a stronger sense of pride in their professional environment. The design of informal meeting spaces—such as staff couches and collaborative zones—was cited as vital for fostering social connection and emotional decompression. These findings align with CHAT’s recognition that human activity is shaped not only by tools but also by community and rules (Engestrom, 1987). The infrastructure helped build a school culture that valued collegiality, self-care, and shared responsibility.

The new infrastructure also contributed to the emotional landscape of teaching, helping educators manage stress and enhance their professional self-concept. The data supports global calls for infrastructure planning to consider not only functionality but also the psychological needs of teachers (Turner & Thielking, 2019). Within the CHAT framework, this highlights the interconnectedness of material conditions, cultural norms, and emotional experience in shaping teacher agency.

3.4. Teacher–Student Relationships and Supervision

The redesign of the school environment was reported by teachers to have significantly improved their relationships with students, particularly through enhanced supervision and interaction. Open layouts, strategic sightlines, and accessible outdoor areas were said to enable more effective monitoring and faster response to student needs. Teachers described a noticeable reduction in behavioural issues, attributing this to improved visibility and real-time engagement. These accounts suggest that infrastructure mediates the relationship between teacher and student by shaping behavioural norms and interactional opportunities (Dong et al., 2021; Serdyukov, 2017; Sigurdardottir & Hjartarson, 2011).

It is important to acknowledge, however, that these findings are derived exclusively from teacher perspectives. Students were not directly included in this study, which means that the results reflect teachers’ interpretations of relational change rather than students’ own experiences. This limitation may affect the comprehensiveness of the findings, as previous research indicates that students sometimes interpret architectural affordances differently from teachers (Woolner et al., 2007). Nevertheless, teachers’ perceptions are a vital part of the activity system because they shape pedagogical practice, classroom management, and supervision strategies.

CHAT provides a useful lens for interpreting these teacher-reported changes as shifts in the rules and community components of the activity system. Teachers felt better able to enforce expectations, build rapport, and maintain emotional proximity to students across varied learning contexts. These observations align with broader literature linking spatial design, visibility, and behaviour to strengthened classroom climates and teacher–student relationships (Barrett & Zhang, 2009; Barrett et al., 2013; Blackmore et al., 2011).

3.5. Limitations and Contradictions Within the Activity System

Despite the positive transformations, teachers also identified several infrastructure-related constraints. Issues with lighting automation, insufficient storage, and a lack of wall display space revealed contradictions between pedagogical intentions and architectural execution. These contradictions—such as the inability to independently control classroom lighting or effectively showcase student work—are emblematic of the systemic tensions that CHAT identifies as precursors to change (Engestrom, 1987). They also point to the partial misalignment between the infrastructure’s design (tools) and its intended pedagogical use (object).

A significant source of frustration stemmed from teachers’ limited input into the planning and design stages. Only a minority felt their feedback meaningfully influenced final outcomes. This lack of consultation not only undermines the practical utility of the infrastructure but also represents a breakdown in the rules and community elements of the activity system. It echoes concerns in the literature that infrastructure planning too often excludes the voices of its primary users—teachers (Wood, 2007; Blackmore et al., 2011).

3.6. Implications for Pedagogical Infrastructure

The study’s findings underscore the importance of aligning educational infrastructure with contemporary pedagogical needs and involving teachers in the planning process. Infrastructure is not merely a backdrop to learning but a dynamic participant in shaping professional culture, instructional strategy, and student engagement. Policies that fund school upgrades must therefore include mechanisms to evaluate not only structural quality but also pedagogical functionality.

CHAT offers a compelling framework for understanding how infrastructure reforms unfold as transformations in collective activity systems. It highlights the need to consider how mediating tools (e.g., classrooms), division of labour, community, and institutional rules interact to either enable or constrain change. This study supports the view that infrastructure reforms must be pedagogically grounded, theoretically informed, and locally responsive to produce meaningful outcomes.

This research contributes to an emerging understanding of school infrastructure as a powerful mediator of educational practice. By integrating teacher perspectives with CHAT analysis, it advances a more holistic view of how architecture, culture, and pedagogy coalesce to shape the lived experience of teaching.

4. Conclusions and Policy Implications

This study explored how the Building the Education Revolution (BER) school infrastructure influenced teaching practice in a Victorian primary school. Using Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) as a conceptual lens, the research illuminated how infrastructure functions as a mediating artefact within the teaching activity system. Drawing on both quantitative and qualitative data, the findings reveal that teachers perceive the redesigned school spaces as enabling greater pedagogical flexibility, collaboration, wellbeing, and improved teacher–student relationships.

The study’s findings confirm that school infrastructure is not merely a backdrop but a powerful tool in shaping pedagogy. Infrastructure enabled teachers to use differentiated strategies, team teaching, and project-based learning more effectively. Collaborative teaching practices were made more viable through transparent and connected learning spaces. Teachers also experienced elevated morale and motivation, attributing these to the conducive, aesthetically pleasing, and functionally supportive built environment.

Increased self-efficacy and job satisfaction among teachers further underscore the role of infrastructure in supporting teacher wellbeing—a factor closely tied to retention and instructional effectiveness. Improved teacher–student relationships, made possible through better line-of-sight supervision and flexible classroom arrangements, point to a school culture more conducive to engagement, behaviour management, and relational trust.

The broader implications of this study lie in its contribution to policy, planning, and professional practice. Education policymakers and school infrastructure planners are encouraged to treat teachers not just as recipients of new infrastructure but as key stakeholders in its design and implementation. Inclusion of teacher voice at the planning stages may improve both functionality and teacher ownership of the spaces they use daily.

Policy Recommendations

• Embed Teacher Consultation into Infrastructure Planning: Teachers should be actively consulted during all phases of school design to ensure spaces support pedagogical intent.
• Design for Pedagogical Flexibility: Classrooms should include movable furniture, breakout areas, and adaptable layouts that allow teachers to implement diverse teaching methods, including differentiation, small-group work, and co-teaching.
• Prioritise Collaborative Spaces: Investment in shared planning areas, collapsible walls, and common learning zones can promote team teaching, reflective practice, and knowledge exchange among teachers.
• Support Teacher Wellbeing Through Design: Physical environments should include staff lounges, informal meeting areas, and spaces that promote collegiality and reduce professional isolation.
• Ensure Proximity and Supervision: Libraries, labs, and support spaces should be strategically located to facilitate accessibility and line-of-sight supervision, thereby enhancing duty of care and student engagement.
• Align Infrastructure with Professional Development: Educators working in flexible learning environments should be provided with ongoing training on how to maximise space usage for student-centred, inclusive, and adaptive pedagogies.

These recommendations not only highlight the significance of infrastructure in supporting teaching quality but also offer actionable pathways for enhancing teacher agency, wellbeing, and student outcomes through purposeful school design. By recognising infrastructure as a co-participant in pedagogical activity systems, education systems can better align investment in physical spaces with broader goals for educational improvement and equity.