*Corresponding author – patricia.samson@ucalgary.ca 

 

Samson, P. L. (2019). Participatory collaboration: Building partnerships in curriculum planning. Papers 

on Postsecondary Learning and Teaching: Proceedings of the University of Calgary Conference on 

Learning and Teaching, 3, 127-136. 

PARTICIPATORY COLLABORATION: BUILDING 

PARTNERSHIPS IN CURRICULUM PLANNING 
 

Patricia L. Samson* 

 

University of Calgary 

 

Participatory collaboration involving multi-stakeholder engagement generates 

opportunities for creativity and innovation in curriculum planning, building 

partnerships between students, teachers, institutions, and communities.  Integrating 

student voices at planning and design levels places students at the center of this 

process, where meaningful input can help shape the overall learning experience. A 

participatory culture aids in shifting the focus of education to a learning paradigm 

and enhances our capacity to support and promote critical thinking across the 

curriculum. It embraces a constructivist view of teaching and learning, promoting 

and supporting authentic learning spaces within and beyond the confines of the 

traditional classroom setting. 

 

Keywords: participatory collaboration, engagement, curriculum design, curriculum 

planning 

 

Participatory collaboration supports a learning paradigm as put forth by Barr and Tagg 

(1995), where the focus of education is placed on fostering student-centred educational practices. 

Engagement of multiple stakeholders in the academic milieu generates opportunities for 

creativity and innovation in curriculum planning that builds partnerships between students, 

teachers, institutions, and communities. Integrating the student voice at curriculum planning and 

design levels provides a forum to place students at the centre of this process and promotes a 

culture of learning in the postsecondary context.   

This paper emerges as a conceptual examination of this concept of participatory 

collaboration, based on a recommendation to foster more inclusive learning environments from a 

recent study on critical thinking in social work education. In this study, critical thinking is 

described as an iterative, holistic and multidimensional process (Samson, 2018), that pushes 

educators to reconceptualize the process of teaching and learning to promote critical thinking 

across the curriculum.  A student-centred approach to education that incorporates participatory 

collaboration is one way of supporting and promoting critical thinking in across the curriculum 

(Samson, 2018). As such, this is one way forward in the shifting context of higher education 

from the more traditional, instructor-focused environment to a learning-centred one (Barr & 

Tagg, 1995). This paper will contextualize this concept of participatory collaboration, highlight 

some key questions for consideration in terms of how to incorporate this into the curriculum 

design process, and connect the important role that scholarly, learner-centred teaching has in 

supporting more inclusive, connected, and collaborative learning spaces.  

 

 



Samson (2019) 

128 

PARTICIPATORY COLLABORATION: IN SUPPORT OF A LEARNING PARADIGM 

 

In understanding the concept of participatory collaboration, McLoughlin and Lee (2008) 

described a culture of participation that supports pedagogical approaches that allow for increased 

engagement of learners in molding the face of the education they receive via participatory 

choice, personal voice, and co-production (p. 10). A participatory culture is detailed as one that 

includes: minimal barriers to access and participation, support for sharing contributions, 

mentorship (novice to expert), connection to one another, a sense of ownership for creativity, and 

a sense of collectivism (Bass, 2012, p. 5). 

According to Barr and Tagg (1995), a learning paradigm helps create a learning space 

that supports knowledge creation via student creativity and innovation. Barr and Tagg (1995) 

propose that students need to be active participants in their journey of learning. Student input, 

then, is a key component of designing “holistic, complex, and meaningful environments” (Barr 

& Tagg, 1995, p. 22). As our society rapidly evolves and technological advances change the face 

of what we know and how we do things, so too have our educational institutions evolved. 

Organizational/institutional management and learning systems have transformed the very hub of 

our communication processes and serve to support the transition of institutions of higher 

education from instructional to learning centres. Ahead of their time perhaps, Bar and Tagg 

(1995) laid the foundation of ingredients necessary to foster and develop effective learning-

centred educational institutions. Increased technology expands our understanding of the concept 

of learning spaces - they extend well beyond physical boundaries of the classroom; tapping into 

this forum reinforces a collaborative approach to learning and teaching. Technological advances 

provide venues for stakeholders at distances, or unable to attend in-person, to have a voice in the 

planning/design process as well. The proliferation of modern technology has aided the shift 

toward a learning paradigm, that has spurred on rapid growth in both scholarly teaching and the 

scholarship of teaching and learning via enhanced knowledge acquisition and mobilization in this 

modern era.   

Curriculum design can involve instructional design specialists and teachers who use their 

expertise to create effective learning environments (Konings, Seidel & van Merrienboer, 2013).  

Konings, Seidel and van Merrienboer (2013) suggested that integrating the diverse expertise of 

multiple stakeholders in the education process can improve the quality of the curricular design 

process and the learning spaces they generate. Students’ interpretations and perspectives 

influence learning; hence, inclusion of students in the design process improves the alignment of 

students’ perspectives and those envisioning the learning spaces (Konings et al., 2013). 

In a curricular model that blends the perspectives of designers, teachers and students, 

Konings, Brand-Gruwel and van Merrienboer (2005) noted that while student perspectives are 

important, students cannot totally engage in self-determined learning; rather, involvement of 

other key stakeholders is paramount to creating effective learning spaces. There is some evidence 

to suggest that involving students in curricular/instructional design activities results in increased 

student engagement, an increased sense of individual responsibility to the learning process, and 

improved motivation and self-confidence (Bovill, 2013). This study by Bovill (2013) 

incorporated a qualitative case study methodology to examine participatory approaches to 

curriculum development and related outcomes of involving students and teachers in the design 

process in a higher education setting in the UK. Though findings from this research design will 

not be generalizable, they demonstrate some positive outcomes as a result of student engagement 

in the curriculum design process. 



Samson (2019) 

129 

Involving multiple stakeholders in curriculum planning aids in supporting a pedagogy of 

collaboration and connectivity. McLoughlin and Lee (2008) identified three Ps in relation to the 

concept of connectivity: personalization (learner choice, agency, customization, self-regulation 

and management), participation (communication, collaboration, connectivity, and community); 

and productivity (learner-centred content, contribution for knowledge, generativity, creativity 

and innovation) (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008, p. 16). It is noteworthy to highlight that many of 

these components are also identified as essential features to the promotion of critical thinking; 

hence, participatory collaboration is an important consideration in promoting student 

engagement and critical thinking. Educators across multiple disciplines have conducted 

extensive research on identifying effective pedagogies to support engaged learners, including 

critical, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based approaches to teaching and learning. 

Table 1.0 provides an example of effective learning and teaching activities that have been 

implemented to support and promote critical thinking.  

By extension, many of these strategies and activities incorporate salient features of a 

participatory culture. Educators can apply this focus to engaging students and other relevant 

stakeholders in the curricular design process. Engagement in the design process encourages 

students to think critically while being involved in reshaping the curriculum; it helps shift the 

focus of education toward student learning as a central driver, rather than being teacher-focused 

(Bass, 2012).  

 

  



Samson (2019) 

130 

Table 1 

 

Learning and Teaching Activities that Foster Critical Thinking 

Note. Table 1 adapted from “Critical Thinking in Social Work Education: A Delphi Study of Faculty 

Understanding,” by P. Samson, 2018. Retrieved from https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd/7395. 

 

EMBRACING A CONSTRUCTIVIST VIEW IN A COLLABORATIVE DESIGN 

PROCESS 

 

Incorporating the input of multiple stakeholders (students, teachers, community 

organizations/agencies, and industry) involved and interested in the educational milieu into the 

process of curriculum design serves to challenge that traditional view of education where 

Learning and Teaching Strategies to Foster Critical Thinking Across Disciplines: Concept mapping; 

Scaffolding learning via course content and assessment tasks; Problem-based learning; Inquiry-based 

learning; Use of real-life experiences to support critical thinking; Peer coaching; Online, asynchronous 

activities and assignments; Case study approaches; Experientially-based activities and assignments; 

Debates/controversies/argumentation activities; Open-ended & topic discussions; Portfolios; Critical 

incidents; Service learning; Senior thesis/project; Teaching explicit principles of critical thinking within 

courses; Promote transferring application of critical thinking to new contexts; Activities that incorporate 

key subject-area concepts to think deeply about; Creative problem solving; Clinical experience 

debriefing exercises and assignments; Reflective writing; Written assignments; Simulations & role 

playing; Strategic Management Simulations (SMS) found in nursing; Use of poems and literature; Online 

& asynchronous learning environments; Studying abroad; Co-teaching; team teaching; IPE 

Other Influencing Factors: Setting/Learning environment; Class size; Educator training, skills, and 

level of experience; Educator attitudes toward critical thinking; Students’ prior knowledge; Interactions 

between students and teachers; Emphasis on knowledge construction; Collaborative learning spaces; 

Safe spaces; Educator confidence and enthusiasm; Active & purposeful training of teachers in critical 

thinking; Explicit course objectives on critical thinking (infusion); Student-centred approach to teaching 

& learning; Assessing critical thinking development over successive assignments/longer intervention 

periods; Use of formative assessments; Intentional curriculum design to promote critical thinking; 

Embedding critical thinking objectives within subject-specific courses (emersion); Use of 

questions/Socratic question as teaching tools; Incorporating a variety of active learning activities, 

assignments, projects, etc., in the classroom and beyond across disciplines 

Learning and Teaching Strategies to Promote Critical Thinking in Social Work Education: Trigger 

events/critical incidents; Reflection/critical reflection; Sequential learning/scaffolded; Discussing & 

planning assignments with students; Ethical dilemmas; Use of controversial events; Discussion forums; 

Use of simulations; Learning diaries/biographies/portfolios; Case method teaching; case-based learning; 

Capstone projects; Integrative seminars and field practicums; Writing assignments/activities; Class 

discussions; Blended learning environments: in-class; virtual (synchronous/asynchronous); Debates; 

Multimodal learning that merges arts, writing and field experiences ; Role play scenarios; real life 

examples; Team-based learning via integration seminar experiences; Use of real-life experiences to 

support critical thinking in relation to decisions, discretion, and making professional judgements; 

Challenge student perspectives in meaningful contexts; studying abroad; A “theory mindedness 

approach” to learning course concepts; Teaching research skills; Logic modeling; Use of evidence and 

scientific principles in assignments; Collaborative/team teaching; Interprofessional education (IPE) 

 



Samson (2019) 

131 

academics are often seen and experts; it also supports student engagement and improved learning 

(Bovill, Cook-Sather, & Felton, 2011). Overall, there has been a lack of involvement of students 

in curriculum and course design efforts. Bovill, Cook-Sather and Felton (2011) contended that 

permitting students to become partners in the planning process supports diversity, develops a 

shared responsibility for teaching and learning via collaboration, enhances relationship-building 

between students and teachers, and serves as a relevant mechanism to improve student 

motivation and engagement in the process of learning. Extending this partnership building 

process to other interested stakeholders with a vested interest in educational outcomes, such as 

field/practicum/internship organizations can enhance this activity of collaboration. According to 

Wood and Kompare (2017), inclusion of participatory collaboration in curriculum design 

supports a democratic process that may well aid in integrating critical thinking across the 

curricula. 

In supporting participatory collaboration in the field of design, a constructivist view to 

teaching and learning comes to life. A constructivist view of teaching and learning captures 

components that are integral to a participatory culture and includes components such as: peer 

collaboration; hypothesis generation; cognitive structuring that organizes, evaluates and groups 

together perceptions, memories and actions; and provides a setting where students can be taught 

to be more self-regulated and self-directed in their learning (Devries, 2000; Mezirow, 1991; 

Schunk, 1996). This view supports peer collaboration and sees students as active participants in 

their learning, where teachers promote learning activities that challenge thinking, values and 

belief systems to promote deep learning. An example of this approach is incorporating case-

based activities that challenge students to engage in problem-solving processes to resolve 

scenarios or dilemmas. Case-based learning (highlighted in Table 1.0) aids students in 

collaborating with one another, which in turn contributes to critical and creative thinking (Schell 

& Kaufman, 2009; Tsui, 2002). Prominent features of constructivist learning environments 

include: multiple representations of reality; recognition of the complexity of real life; an 

emphasis on knowledge construction; an emphasis on authentic learning within 

relevant/meaningful contexts; case-based learning grounded in real life examples; and emphasis 

on collaboration in the construction of knowledge through the social interaction of learners and 

teachers (Jonassen, 1994; Loyens & Gijbels, 2008). These components support a shift in 

educational paradigms to a learning paradigm that focuses on supporting the learning process for 

students rather than on institutional outcomes/objectives (Barr & Tagg, 1995). In creating a 

learning paradigm, the goal is to foster collaborative learning spaces (between and among 

students and faculty) that encourage student success in multiple formats (classroom to virtual 

environments). Supporting collaborative learning in authentic environments is important. 

Participatory collaboration enables students to have a voice in the planning process, 

where they can claim ownership of their learning and generate more inclusive learning spaces 

(Tsui, 2002). These key features of participatory collaboration serve to strengthen students’ 

motivation to learn and engagement in the educational process overall, both of which enhance 

critical thinking (Samson, 2018). 

There are issues of contention with this concept of participatory collaboration. Some of 

these challenges include difficulties achieving consensus on what is deemed to be a priority 

among a group of interested stakeholders; power imbalances can occur; conflicting agendas and 

demands can create tension and resistance; and differing perspectives can pose barriers (Wood & 

Kompare, 2017). The notion of academic freedom for faculty members can generate tension in 

relation to this concept as well. Inclusion of partners from the community and industry can pose 



Samson (2019) 

132 

challenges in the academic environment given risks associated with shifting a university course 

or program into a job training endeavor. Hence, balances may need to be negotiated in this 

complex venue, that at times can present conflicting needs, priorities and values. In mitigating 

some of these trials, Wood and Kompare (2017) suggested developing shared goals, having 

agreement on the nature and scope of the work to be undertaken, being clear about decision-

making processes, and clearly defining roles, responsibilities and expectations of all involved. It 

should be acknowledged that there is limited research in this area. 

 

FOR CONSIDERATION… 

 

As educators spanning the breadth of academic disciplines, some important questions to 

consider as a starting point for conversation around this topic include: 

1. How do we create space for participatory collaboration in curriculum design and planning 
within our own disciplines? 

2. Who are the interested stakeholders in the educational design process in your 
discipline/field of practice? and How might they be leveraged to support engagement in 

this process? 

3. Can you think of one example of how to engage in participatory collaboration in 
designing a course or assignment in your field of study? 

In providing an example of how this concept of participatory collaboration might be 

operationalized in a specific field of practice, perhaps Schools of Social Work can invite students 

and community agencies/partners to curriculum planning days or retreats to allow for input, 

feedback, and collaboration on how to improve specific courses; this process could extend to 

small or large class sizes. If this was scheduled at the end of the spring term, there would be 

sufficient time for educators to incorporate feedback and suggestions into their syllabi for the 

upcoming Fall semester, well in advance of anticipated departmental deadlines for approval. 

Including other stakeholders within the educational milieu of social work education via a 

participatory, collaborative curriculum planning framework could enhance engagement on a 

broader scale, and further the integration of theory with practice for social work students. While 

not being the only driver for curriculum development, a planning day held during the spring or 

summer can be one way of expanding voice in the planning and design process. There is limited 

scholarship in this area, so it warrants further consideration.  

 

CONCLUSION 

 

Participatory collaboration is a concept that has value across the range of academic 

disciplines in supporting the creation of inclusive, diverse curriculum and supporting authentic 

teaching and learning environments for students. This paper has provided a brief overview of this 

topic, the relationship to a constructivist lens for teaching and learning and supporting a shift in 

educational focus to a learning paradigm as put forth by Barr and Tagg (1995) over two decades 

ago. The rapidly evolving and shifting contexts of education today provide an interesting forum 

to engage in new, bold partnerships to continue to drive quality education in the 21st century. A 

research agenda that more fully examines this concept in terms of efficacy and sustainability 

over time would be of value. 

 

 



Samson (2019) 

133 

REFERENCES 

 

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning-A new paradigm for undergraduate 

education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 12-26. 

doi:10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672 

Bass, R. (2012). Disrupting ourselves: The problem of learning in higher education. Educause 

Review, 47(2), 1-11. Retrieved from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 

Bovill, C. (2013). An investigation of co-created curricula within higher education in the UK, 

Ireland and USA. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(1), 15-25. 

doi:10.1080/14703297.2013.770264 

Bovill, C., Cook‐Sather, A., & Felton, P. (2011). Students as co‐creators of teaching approaches, 

course design, and curricula: implications for academic developers. International Journal 

for Academic Development, 16(2), 133-145. doi:10.1080/1360144X.2011.568690 

Devries, R. (2000). Vygotsky, Piaget, and education: A reciprocal assimilation of theories and 

educational practices. New Ideas in Psychology, 18, 187-213. doi:0.1016/S0732-

118X(00)00008-8 

Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational 

Technology, 34(4), 34-37. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ481852 

Konings, K. D., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merrienboer, J. J. (2005). Towards more powerful 

learning environments through combining the perspectives of designers, teachers and 

students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 645-660. 

doi:10./1348/000709905x43616 

Konings, K. D., Seidel, T., & van Merrienboer, J. J. (2013). Participatory design of learning 

environments: Integrating perspectives of students, teachers and designers. Instructional 

Science, 42(1), 1-9. doi:10.1007%2Fs11251-013-9305-2 

Loyens, S., & Gijbels, D. (2008). Understanding the effects of constructivist learning 

environments: introducing a multi-directional approach. Instructional Science, 36(5), 

351-357. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9059-4  

McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. (2008). The three P’s of Pedagogy for the networked society: 

Personalization, participation, and productivity. International Journal of Teaching and 

Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 10-27. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org.ijtlhe 

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass, 350 Sansome 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94104-1310. 

Samson, P. L. (2018). Critical thinking in social work education: A Delphi study of faculty 

understanding (doctoral dissertation). University of Windsor, Canada. Retrieved from 

https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd/7395 

Schell, R., & Kaufman, D. (2009). Critical thinking in a collaborative online PBL tutorial. 

Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41(2), 155-170. doi:10.2190/EC.41.2.b 

Schunk, D. H. (1996). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: 

Merrill. 

Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy: Evidence from four 

institutional case studies. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(6), 740-763. 

doi:10.1080/00221546.2002.11777179 

Wood, T. M., & Kompare, C. (2017). Participatory design methods for collaboration and 

communication. Code{4}Lib Journal, 35. Retrieved from 

http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/12127 



Samson (2019) 

134 

APPENDIX A  

Preliminary List of Supporting Literature for Learning and Teaching Strategies to Foster Critical 

Thinking, Including Participatory Collaboration  
 

A Preliminary List of Supporting Literature 

Abrami. P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamin, R., & Zhang, D. 

(2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 

meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102-1134. 

doi:10.3102/0034654308326084 

Altshuler, S. J., & Bosch, L. A. (2003). Problem-based learning in social work education. Journal of 

Teaching in Social Work, 23(1/2), 201-215. doi:10.1300J067v23n01_13 

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning-A new paradigm for undergraduate 

education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27(6), 12-26. 

doi:10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672 

Baviskar, S. N., Hartle, R. T., & Whitney, T. (2009). Essential criteria to characterize constructivist 

teaching: Derived from a review of the literature and applied to five constructivist-teaching 

method articles. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 541-550. 

doi:10.1080/09500690701731121 

Behar-Horenstein, L. S., & Lian, N. (2011). Teaching critical thinking skills in higher education: A 

review of the literature. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 8(2), 25-41. Retrieved from 

https://search-proquest-

com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/docview/857923396/fulltextPDF/E1861CA06DF3490FPQ/1?acco

untid=9838 

Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-

ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1., Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, 

School of Education and Human Development. 

Bovill, C., Cook‐Sather, A., & Felton, P. (2011). Students as co‐creators of teaching approaches, 

course design, and curricula: implications for academic developers. International Journal for 

Academic Development, 16(2), 133-145. doi:10.1080/1360144X.2011.568690 

Carvalho-Grevious, M. (2013). Breaking the cycle of shame: Socratic teaching methods to enhance 

critical thinking. The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 18, 77-94. doi: 

10.5555/basw.18.suppl-1.b17001w557j16785?code=cswe-site 

Chang, P., & Wang, D. (2011). Cultivating engineering ethics and critical thinking: A systematic and 

cross-cultural education approach using problem-based learning. European Journal of 

Engineering Education, 36(4), 377-390. doi:10.1080/03043797.2011.596928 

Chiang, A., & Fung, I. (2004). Redesigning chat forum for critical thinking in a problem-based learning 

environment. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 311-328. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.09.006 

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice. AAHE Bulletin 39 (3-

7). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED282491 

Delay, R. (1996). Forming knowledge: Constructivist learning and experiential education. The Journal 

of Experiential Education, 19(2), 76-81. doi:10.1177/105382599601900204 

Friedel, C., Irani, T., Rudd, R., Gallo, M., & Eckhardt, E. (2008). Overtly Teaching Critical Thinking 

and Inquiry-Based Learning: A Comparison of Two Undergraduate Biotechnology Classes. 

Journal of Agricultural Education, 49(1), 72-84. Retrieved from 

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ839873 

Friesen, H. I. L. (2010). Education in a Culturally Diverse Post-Secondary Classroom: A Space for 

Potential Transformative Learning for Sustainability.  International Education Journal, 4(45), 

75-85. Retrieved from http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/content/education-in-a-



Samson (2019) 

135 

culturally-diverse-post-secondary-classroom-a-space-for-potential-transformative-learning-for-

sustainability_2014_12/ 

Garcia, C. G., & Hooper, H. H. (2011). Exploring factors of a web-based seminar that influence 

Hispanic preservice teachers’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Journal of Hispanic 

Higher Education, 10(3), 200-211. doi:10.1177/1538192711402690 

Gibbons, J., & Gray, M. (2002). An integrated and experience-based approach to social work 

education: The Newcastle model. Social Work Education, 21(5), 529-549. 

doi:10.1080/0261547022000015221 

Golding, C. (2011). Educating for critical thinking: Thought-encouraging questions in a community of 

inquiry. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(3), 357-370. 

doi:10.1080/07294360.2010.499144 

Guiller, J., Durndell, A., & Ross, A. (2008). Peer interaction and critical thinking: Face-to-face or 

online discussion? Learning and Instruction, 18, 187-200. 

doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.001 

Harper, L., & Ross, J. (2011). An application of Knowles’ theories of adult education to an 

undergraduate interdisciplinary studies degree program. The Journal of Continuing Higher 

Education, 59, 161-166. doi:10.1080/07377363.2011.614887 

Harris, C., & Harvey, A. N. (2000). Team teaching in adult higher education classrooms: Toward 

collaborative knowledge construction. New directions for adult and continuing education, 

2000(87), 25-32. doi:10.1002/ace.8703 

Hayes, K. D., & Devitt, A. A. (2008). Classroom discussions with student-led feedback: A useful 

activity to enhance development of critical thinking skills. Journal of Food Science Education, 

7(4), 65-68. doi:10.1111/j.1541-4329.2008.00054.x 

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational 

Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266. 

Hoessler, C., Britnell, J., & Stockley, D. (2010). Assessing the impact of educational development 

through the lens of the scholarship of teaching and learning. New Directions for Teaching and 

Learning, 122, 81-89. doi:10.1002/tl.400 

Hoover, T. E., & Lyon, L. J. (2011). Collateral opportunity for increased faculty collaboration and 

development through a mentored critical thinking and writing exercise in a dental school 

curriculum. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(2), 52-63. Retrieved 

from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ932145 

Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational 

Technology, 34(4), 34-37. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ481852 

Letterman, M. R., & Dugan, K. B. (2004). Team teaching a cross-disciplinary honors course: 

Preparation and development. College teaching, 76-79. Retrieved from 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27559183 

Loyens, S., & Gijbels, D. (2008). Understanding the effects of constructivist learning environments: 

introducing a multi-directional approach. Instructional Science, 36(5), 351-357. 

doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9059-4  

Marquardt, M., & Waddill, D. (2004). The power of learning in action learning: a conceptual analysis 

of how the five schools of adult learning theories are incorporated within the practice of action 

learning. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 1(2), 185-202. 

doi:10.1080/1476733042000264146 

Neville, A. J., & Norman, G. R. (2007). PBL in the undergraduate MD program at McMaster 

University: three iterations in three decades. Academic Medicine, 82(4), 370-374. 

doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e318033385d 



Samson (2019) 

136 

 

 

 

Richardson, J. C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students’ level of critical thinking across instructional 

strategies in online discussions. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 52-59. 

doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.009 

Rowan, N., Mathis, L., Ellers, F., & Thompson, J. (2013). Creating learning opportunities for the 

enhancement of critical thinking skills in BSW education. The Journal of Baccalaureate Social 

Work, 18, 123-140. doi:10.5555/basw.18.1.h2607866p316164m 

Schell, R., & Kaufman, D. (2009). Critical thinking in a collaborative online PBL tutorial. Journal of 

Educational Computing Research, 41(2), 155-170. doi:10.2190/EC.41.2.b 

Schneller, D. P., & Brocato, J. (2011). Facilitating student learning and curricular improvement 

through a graduate social work integrative seminar. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 31, 

178-194. doi:10.1080/08841233.2011.560532 

Sendag, S., & Odabasi, H. F. (2009). Effects of an online problem-based learning course on content 

knowledge acquisition and critical thinking skills. Computers & Education, 53, 132-141. 

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.008 

Simpson, D., Mathews, I., Croft, A., McKinna, G., & Lee, M. (2010). Student views on good practice 

in social work education. Social Work Education, 7, 729-743. 

doi:10.1080/02615471003623192 

Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy: Evidence from four 

institutional case studies. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(6), 740-763. 

doi:10.1080/00221546.2002.11777179 

Vogel-Walcutt, J. J., Gebrim, J. B., Bowers, C., Carper, T. M., & Nicholson, D. (2011). Cognitive load 

theory vs. constructivist approaches: Which best leads to efficient, deep learning? Journal of 

Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 133-145. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00381.x 

Wolf, P. (2007). A model for facilitating curriculum development in higher education: A faculty 

driven, data informed, and educational developer supported approach. New Directions for 

Teaching and Learning, 2007(112), 15 – 20. doi:10.1002/tl.294 

Wood, T. M., & Kompare, C. (2017). Participatory design methods for collaboration and 

communication. Code{4}Lib Journal, 35. Retrieved from 

http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/12127 

Yeh, Yu-Chu. (2012). A co-creation blended KM model for cultivating critical thinking skills. 

Computers & Education, 59, 1317-1327. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.017