As educational settings evolve beyond traditional classrooms, Latvian schools are gradually transitioning toward technology-enhanced, learner-centered environments that emphasize collaboration, creativity, and inclusivity. Yet, systematic evidence on how technologies and spatial design interact to shape these environments in Latvia remains limited. This study addresses that gap by examining the availability of technologies in Latvian schools and exploring how Archetypal Attributes for Knowledge Environments (Scott-Webber, 2004) support technology-enhanced learning.

The central research question guiding this inquiry is: What technologies are available in Latvian schools, and how do Archetypal Attributes for Knowledge Environments facilitate their effective use for technology-enhanced learning?

A mixed-methods approach combined a nationwide survey with in-depth teacher interviews. The survey, distributed electronically to all 610 general education schools in Latvia, received responses from 114 schools. Each school was asked to provide a single institutional response. Nine were selected to ensure regional diversity and representation of both urban and rural contexts.

Interview questions were grounded in Archetypal Attributes for Knowledge Environments and pedagogical perspectives on technology-enhanced learning (Daniela, 2020). The framework emphasizes flexibility, mobility, adaptability, and the alignment of space with human cognitive and behavioral needs to foster collaboration, creativity, and effective knowledge transfer. Interview topics were organized into five areas: (1) Pedagogical Flexibility; (2) Delivering Knowledge; (3) Communicating Knowledge; (4) Applying Knowledge; (5) Creating Knowledge.

Survey results revealed broad adoption of digital tools, platforms, and problem-based learning practices. Teachers highlighted progress in communication and assessment technologies but also identified persistent challenges: (1) Fixed classroom layouts that restrict collaboration; (2) Limited professional development, particularly in subject-specific technology use; (3) Lack of informal learning spaces for brainstorming and peer interaction.

Smaller schools reported relatively better per-student access to technology, while urban schools benefitted from stronger infrastructure and systemic support. Yet both contexts fell short of creating adaptable, collaborative environments aligned with archetypal attributes.
Teachers emphasized that meaningful technology-enhanced learning requires more than the provision of digital tools. Success depends on aligning technological infrastructure with flexible spatial design, sustained professional development, and reliable institutional support. Without these conditions, technology risks being used as an add-on rather than as a driver of pedagogical innovation.

Acknowledgement:
Project “Scientific school culture for sustainable society”, No. lzp-2021/1-0135

Keywords: Technology-Enhanced Learning, Educational Technologies, Schools of Latvia, Adaptable Spaces.