In this theoretical paper, the notion of space in the mathematics classroom is re-visited. The ongoing pandemic has violently imposed transformations across different aspects of the teaching and learning phenomena with respect to the broad implementation of digital, synchronous and asynchronous, teaching and learning means, thus creating digital or hybrid learning environments. Educational research has attempted to identify the implications of those transformations with respect to the students’ learning in general and specifically about mathematics. In this paper, I concentrate on the notion of space of such hybrid learning environments (in diverse digital/analog configurations), with a particular focus on the opportunities for interdisciplinary mathematics teaching and learning, which seems to be at the crux of official reports of various organisations (e.g. UNESCO, OECD etc). Hybrid learning environments appear to be a strong choice in the current educational era, realised through diverse online platforms. One radical transformation concerned the core of what constitutes the official classroom and who is spatially present. In a traditional format, the mathematics classroom is geographically defined by a type of walls, while its functional affordances are the result of the intentional, unintentional, or emerging organization of diverse elements, including the various architectural and technological fixtures (2D & 3D shape and dimensions, windows, doors, lighting, Wi-Fi, etc), of the various pieces of furniture and equipment (desks, whiteboard, smartboard, projector, audio systems etc), the used materials and their sensory/embodied experience (across time, use etc), the broader physical environment (the school building, the school yard, the surrounding environments etc) etc. Within the traditional mathematics classroom, the immediate presence of two protagonists is usually acknowledged: the teacher(s) and the student(s). Following a systemic perspective, the space of the traditional mathematics classroom is expanded to include the mediated spatial presence of various protagonists, which may or may not be officially documented to be included in the school unit system. For example, the mediated presence of various protagonists is acknowledged: the fellow teachers, the school principal, members of the school board, the parents, members of the family, peers, the shadow education system etc. However, the employment of both online and offline teaching and learning interactions transforms the spatial characteristics of this novel hybrid learning environment: the mathematics classroom is not defined and restricted by the physically constructed walls. The educational protagonists interact in virtual rooms that are geographically defined by the affordances of the application/software within which they exist. Such transformations radically re-define crucial topological and geometrical aspects of the learning environment: inside/outside, proximity, distance etc. Importantly, the topological and geometrical characteristics of the space within which the educational protagonists interact affects their conceptualization of the affordances of this space: movement, sitting, entrance, exit etc. Furthermore, the broader embodied experience and construction of the space of the mathematics classroom is socially negotiated, in a communication space with expanded, altered, sometimes non officially prescribed power relationships. At the same time, the spatial characteristics of the hybrid mathematics classroom may render the system boundaries permeable to communicational interactions with the learning environments of courses of other disciplines. Thus, it is posited that such hybrid learning environments may constitute the communicational space that may act as the learning bridge that is essential for the interdisciplinary thinking/teaching/learning of the various protagonists to emerge. Following these, in this paper, I discuss the spatial characteristics of the hybrid mathematics classroom that may be exploited to facilitate interdisciplinary teaching and learning, as well a set of principles for the architectural and educational planning of such hybrid mathematics classroom.

Bibliography (indicative)
Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. EDU Working paper no. 41. Retrieved from http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2009doc.nsf/linkto/edu-wkp(2009)20.
Chen, D., & Stroup, W. (1993). General system theory: toward a conceptual framework for science and technology education for all. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(3), 447-459.
Davis, B., & Simmt, E. (2003). Understanding learning systems: Mathematics education and complexity science. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 137-167.
Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2008). Engaging minds: Changing teaching in complex ways. New York, Taylor & Francis.
De Freitas, E., Rousell, D., & Jäger, N. (2020). Relational architectures and wearable space: Smart schools and the politics of ubiquitous sensation. Research in Education, 107(1), 10-32.
Dudek, M. (2012). Architecture of schools: The new learning environments. Routledge.
English, L. (2008). Introducing complex systems into the mathematics curriculum. Teaching Children Mathematics, 15(1), 38-47.
Giberti, C., Arzarello, F., Bolondi, G., & Demo, H. (2022). Exploring students’ mathematical discussions in a multi-level hybrid learning environment. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 1-16.
Gil, E., Mor, Y., Dimitriadis, Y., Köppe, C. (Eds.). Hybrid Learning Spaces. Understanding Teaching-Learning Practice. Springer.
Gislason, N. (2010). Architectural design and the learning environment: A framework for school design research. Learning Environments Research, 13(2), 127-145.
Holley, K. (2022). New Geographies of Space in Virtual and Hybrid Performance Classrooms. In J. Higgins & E. C. Halpin (Eds.), Teaching Performance Practices in Remote and Hybrid Spaces (pp. 69-77). Routledge.
Jacobson, M., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11-34.
Lim, F. V., O’Halloran, K. L., & Podlasov, A. (2012). Spatial pedagogy: Mapping meanings in the use of classroom space. Cambridge journal of education, 42(2), 235-251.
Moutsios-Rentzos, Α., & Kalavasis, F. (2016). Systemic approaches to the complexity in mathematics education research. International Journal for Mathematics in Education (HMS-i-jme), 7, 97–119.
Moutsios-Rentzos, A., Kalavasis, F., & Sofos, E. (2017). Learning paths and teaching bridges: The emergent mathematics classroom within the open system of a globalised virtual social network. In G. Aldon, F. Hitt, L. Bazzini, & U. Gellert. Mathematics and technology (pp. 371-393). Springer.
Renninger, K. A., & Shumar, W. (2002). Building Virtual Communities Learning and Change in Cyberspace. CUP.
Shapiro, B. R., & Garner, B. (2021). Classroom interaction geography: visualizing space & time in classroom interaction. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 1-15.
Wittmann, E. C. (2001). Developing mathematics education in a systemic process. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48(1), 1-20.