Summary

This chapter introduces the Critical Team Coaching Model (CTcM) as a transformative approach to active learning that fosters higher order thinking, collaboration, and accountability in undergraduate students. Through structured coaching sessions, students learn to challenge assumptions, reflect critically, and co-create knowledge. Drawing from action research, the chapter provides practical strategies for educators to implement CTcM across disciplines, ensuring sustainable learning and inclusive engagement. Concrete examples in questioning illustrate how coaching enhances teamwork, problem-solving, and real-world application, equipping students with essential skills for navigating complex challenges. The subsequent applied sections demonstrate how CTcM equips students with the capacity for active learning and the skills needed to sustain it: critical reflection, collaboration, and self-directed problem-solving.

Introduction

Evidence-based research across disciplines demonstrates that active learning outperforms traditional lecturing in higher education, particularly in enhancing student performance and retention (Freeman et al., 2014). According to the Cornell College Center for Teaching Innovation (Active Learning, 2024), active learning refers to approaches that encourage students to actively participate in their learning through activities like ‘thinking, discussing, investigating, and creating’ (para. 1). The Active Learning Network webpage clearly emphasizes the teacher’s role:

rather than the teacher ‘transmitting’ knowledge through lectures or reading, learners engage in a series of activities which require them to produce observable evidence of their learning. Where possible, these individual, pair and group tasks should aim to develop higher order thinking skills, emotional connection with content and tactile or physical engagement with the environment. (How do we define Active Learning, para. 2, n.d.)

Despite the adoption of active learning (Thang, 2025), empirical studies that directly investigate the integration of active learning strategies with real-world problem-solving objectives remain relatively scarce. Much of the current literature offers descriptive accounts of isolated pedagogical interventions within specific institutional contexts (e.g., Chang et al., 2024; Nemakhavhani, 2024; Sakulthai, 2024). Notably, Figueiró and Raufflet’s (2015) systematic review of management education identifies a persistent disconnect between ‘teaching, program design, and learning’ (p. 22). These findings suggest that although active learning approaches are increasingly embedded in university teaching, their real-world impact depends on intentional curriculum design, authentic community engagement, and contextual relevance.

This limitation highlights the need for strategies that link critical engagement to global issues, as outlined in the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (2015). Despite their urgency, only 3.83% of universities have integrated the Principles of Responsible Management Education (PRME) (Kostoulias, 2024, p. 4283), highlighting the gap between need and implementation.

The purpose of higher education extends beyond preparing students for assessments; it also plays a pivotal role in shaping tomorrow’s citizens and active contributors to solving the SDGs and creating a hopeful, sustainable future. An active citizen is not merely one who votes or fulfills civic duties, as Glastris (2021) notes in the Washington Monthly. Instead, active citizenship involves addressing social issues, problem-solving, ensuring equity and tolerance, and engaging in civic discourse to uphold, scrutinise, and reconstruct democratic flagships gone astray. John Dewey (2001/1916) viewed democracy and education as inseparable. One can deduce that within this context, active learning in the undergraduate classroom should involve coursework intentionally designed to connect academic material with the complex global or local challenges we face. Freire (2014) in The Pedagogy of the Oppressed highlights:

the dialogical character of education as the practice of freedom does not begin when the teacher-student meets with the students-teachers in a pedagogical situation, but rather when the former first asks herself what she or he will dialogue with the latter about. And preoccupation with the content of dialogue is really preoccupation with the program content of education (p. 93).

Creating a conducive environment for this approach requires a pedagogy that is dialogic and collaborative. Team coaching for students is one such method. An action research doctoral study spanning two semesters demonstrated its effectiveness as a pedagogical tool that transforms active learning into active problem-solving. Critical coaching enables students to engage deeply with course material, develop higher-order thinking skills, and apply their knowledge to real-world problems.

The chapter begins with a presentation of the theoretical foundations of team coaching, followed by a description of its objectives, structure, and techniques. It examines how team coaching fosters an environment where students actively engage, critically reflect, and develop communication, leadership, and teamwork skills. Practical examples illustrate how team coaching can be implemented successfully, supported by findings from the two-semester study. Finally, the chapter explores feedback mechanisms within the team coaching process, demonstrating how formative feedback supports student growth and coach development. It addresses challenges encountered during implementation and offers solutions and recommendations for future research. The chapter concludes with the implications of dialogic learning, collaborative pedagogy, and team coaching as transformative tools for higher education. As Kostoulias et al. (2011) have argued, ‘transformative learning is not a fait accompli; it is an organic theory and stance of pedagogical learning within which transformative approaches to learning can foster and grow’ (p. 668).

Section I: Theoretical Foundations of Critical Team Coaching

A. Dialogic Learning

The significance of dialogic learning cannot be overstated. Freire’s (2014) concept of dialogue highlights education as a space for freedom and collaboration, where students learn through open, critical engagement. Wegerif (2008) notes that dialogue is a dynamic, evolving process, where meaning is shaped through its ties to past discourse and its potential to inform future interactions. Dialogue, he contends, is not static but a negotiation of meaning that enhances cognitive flexibility. Meanwhile, Bohm and Nichol (2013) specify what dialogue is not: it is not a debate where participants seek to ‘win the game’ (p. 7). Rather, genuine dialogue demands openness to questioning one’s own core beliefs (p. 7), promoting a discovery process that leads to ‘something creative’ (p. 6). Ultimately, dialogue facilitates the creation of ‘shared meaning,’ acting as the cohesive force – the ‘glue’ or ‘cement’ – that unites individuals and societies (p. 6). For Barros (2025), dialogue ‘advocates for problem-posing education, positioning students as co-creators of knowledge involved in the learning process’ (p. 117). Such dialogue exposes oppression, challenges it, and fosters creative problem-solving. Dialogic learning thus encourages students to actively shape understanding through discussion and reflection.

Freire (2014) provides insight into the principles of effective dialogue. In Chapter 3 of The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, he emphasizes that dialogue is not just a teaching method, but a fundamental element of learning and human interaction. He presents five key ideas that are critical to meaningful dialogue and that are relevant not only in the context of teacher-student relationships but also in the context of team coaching.

Freire calls the first idea love, which represents a commitment to others and a deep respect for their humanity. Love drives the desire to engage in authentic interactions and to understand the value of others’ perspectives. As he underscores: ‘Love is at the same time the foundation of dialogue and dialogue itself’ (2014, p. 89). Such is the coach’s responsibility: to create an environment of care, respect, and ‘unconditional positive regard’ (Kemp, 2008, p. 42), an environment that requires equality between coach and student-teams (Kostoulias, 2019).

Freire’s (2014) second idea includes humility for all involved. This includes recognizing that no one has all the answers and that everyone can learn from each other. Humility encourages openness to new ideas and places the coach in a ‘position of ignorance,’ adopting a mindset of curiosity and genuine interest (Kemp, 2008, p. 42).

Humility, also requires faith: ‘[f]aith in people is an a priori requirement for dialogue’ (Freire, 2014, p. 90). Freire emphasises the importance of believing in the ability of others to learn, grow, and change. This faith motivates participants to fully engage in dialogue and education. Coaching, too, reflects faith in others’ potential (Thompson, 2024). Faith enables belief in growth, self-direction, and problem-solving potential. As Thompson (2024) clarifies, ‘Coaching [too] is an act of faith in others’ (para. 3).

With such faith, hope also becomes a drive for change. Hope, according to Freire (2014), is the belief that change and improvement are possible. It is a forward-looking attitude that sustains the energy and motivation necessary for meaningful dialogue and learning, even under difficult circumstances. Hope sustains motivation to achieve meaningful change and supports goal-directed pathways, fundamental to coaching discussions (Rand & Cheavens, 2012; Campbell, 2022).

The foundation for such dialogue, which includes equality, respect, growth, and change, is what Freire identifies as ‘critical thinking.’ Freire views critical thinking as an understanding of reality that is transformative and inseparable from action (2014). Conventional critical thinking often emphasises detached reasoning, ignoring social, and transformative dimensions necessary for real-world engagement. This may explain why critical thinking in undergraduates is elusive (Aston, 2023; Elen et al., 2019). Main culprits include:

• Psychological or sociological factors impeding students’ ability to ‘have critical thinking’ (Aston, 2023)
• The rise of international students who have not been exposed to the Westernised notion of critical thinking and academic writing (Calma & Catronei-Baird, 2021)
• Shortcomings at the institutional, faculty, and course level (Elen et al., 2019).
• The lack of business education research between 1990 and 2019 offering guidance on ‘how to teach it’ (Calma & Davies, 2020, p. 8).

In contrast, criticality – which incorporates self-reflection, action, and engagement with the world – offers a more dynamic and holistic approach. Criticality, especially when combined with dialectical thinking (which embraces contradiction, dialogue, and synthesis), is energised by a dynamic interplay between inconsistencies and dialoguing (Anchin, 2008). Dialectical thinking is heralded by scholars (Laske, 2009; Kramer, 1983; Kallio 2011) as better equipping students to navigate social, political, and environmental crises. Even more so, Wu and Chiou (2008) found a strong connection between dialectical thinking and creativity. Ultimately, a relational, dialogic, and socially engaged form of criticality is required, rather than the isolated, logic-driven critical thinking currently prioritized in universities. Kostoulias (2019) defines criticality as encompassing

a collective dialogic process of thinking that seeks to find creative sustainable solutions. Its focus is on exploring interrelationships and contradictions and critically reflecting on power structures. As such, criticality goes beyond formal thinking and utilises the thought processes of dialectical thinking to problem-solve collectively. (p. 161)

Critical team coaching, incorporates these elements: dynamic interplay, dialogue, synthesis, and creativity to guide students through inconsistencies in their thinking, fostering ethical and responsible solutions.

B. Questioning

Questioning is an essential extension of dialogic learning and the most essential driver of active learning. Dialogue thrives on inquiry that probes assumptions, explores alternatives, and encourages reflections. Abrami et al. (2015) note that instructors facilitate students’ active engagement rather than passive reception of knowledge. Kemp (2008) explains that a coach approaches questioning with curiosity, intentionally setting aside assumptions to foster open-ended inquiry. This aligns with the model of inquiry introduced by Plato in his dialogue, The Sophist (Leigh (2007), where students engage as partners, reflect critically, and creatively test claims. This is in contradistinction to Socratic questioning, where ‘Socrates…does much more talking and telling that would be expected in coaching’ (Cox, 2012, p. 117).

In coaching, questions focus on purpose, adaptability, and context. Their aim is to clarify goals, assess progress, and support team functioning. While these provide a framework, effective coaches adapt their questioning to the specific needs of the situation, and, thus, context (Cox, 2012). Adaptability therefore engenders additional questions to clarify thinking, identify inconsistencies, and explore key ideas. Such adaptive questioning prompts reflection, multiple perspectives, and awareness of social contexts, extending learning beyond personal development to broader concerns. Higher-order questions act as scaffolds for dialectical inquiry, enabling students to probe, elaborate, link ideas, and synthesise solutions. In this way, the tutor-coach (TC) guides teams from surface understanding to deeper critical and social awareness, making questioning a pivotal driver of criticality.

C. Collaborative Learning/Teamwork

Despite the benefits of collaborative learning and teamwork in business education, Flores and Bauman (2024), in Group and Team Work: Teaching Methods in Business Series, underscore how teamwork in undergraduate classrooms fails to ‘achieve their team work-linked learning goals and outcomes’ (p. 23). Even more concerning, ‘these courses end up leaving an indelible negative emotional experience in many of their participants and educators’ (p. 23).

The authors identify several causes and effects. For educators, these include shirking responsibility to teach teamwork skills, choosing teamwork to ‘reduce their workload,’ or choosing it for ‘convenience’ to save time and avoid departmental hassle. Others do teamwork while believing from the outset in the dysfunctionality of their student teams (pp. 23-24). Misalignment between ‘multiple internal and institutional forces’ can also undermine teamwork (p. 24).

For students, the division of teamwork responsibilities often results in lost learning opportunities. Free-riding, lack of transparency, and poor communication are major concerns. Research concludes that students need guidance on what it means to work in a team and how to work well (Bakir et al., 2020; Opdecam & Everaert, 2018).

Coaching student teams has proven to provide the space for students to work well, be accountable, responsible, transparent, and equal, to seek answers to questions to problem-solve local and global issues (Kostoulias, 2019). Such student teams can become high-performing teams. And as Clutterbuck et al. (2019) show, there is ‘increased awareness that high performing teams are much better placed to solve the wicked problems of the twenty-first century than any one individual, however talented’ (Introduction, para.1).

With a strong foundation in dialogic learning and critical team coaching, the next section transitions from theory to practice. It details the structured coaching model, demonstrating how guided questioning, accountability structures, and reflective dialogue transform teamwork into a dynamic process of collaborative inquiry. This section shows how educators foster deeper engagement and criticality in student teams.

Section II: Implementing Critical Team Coaching (CTcM) in Higher Education

These principles form the foundation of dialogic pedagogy in Critical Team Coaching. By fostering equality, respect, personal growth, and critical engagement, team coaching empowers students to collaborate, embrace responsibility and accountability, challenge oppressive structures, and engage in critical questioning to develop thoughtful solutions. Problem-based learning, which flourishes through dialogue, deepens comprehension and promotes meaningful inquiry. In essence, it exemplifies active learning in its fullest form. This pedagogical approach aligns closely with Freire’s (2014) vision of education as a practice of freedom, empowering students not only to transform their understanding but also to reshape the world around them. It equips them with the insight essential for a thriving democracy, enabling them to identify and dismantle blind spots that hinder progress, ultimately preparing them to address crises and meet the needs of future society.

With the theoretical foundation for Critical Team Coaching (CTcM) established, this section demonstrates the application of these principles in practice. The subsequent practical examples, tools, and findings from the action research study show how dialogic pedagogy, critical questioning, and inclusive facilitation are integrated into problem-based team projects, allowing students to participate in collaborative critical inquiry and reflective learning.

The implementation of CTcM was guided not only by pedagogical vision but ethical responsibility. Accordingly, all procedures in the action research study (Kostoulias, 2019) were conducted in compliance with institutional ethical standards and received formal approval from the University Research Ethics Committee (UREC) at Oxford Brookes University (Approval Code: 171163). Ethical considerations were addressed across all levels of participation involving tutor-coaches (TCs), students, and faculty.

Before the coaching intervention, the School of Business circulated an invitation to faculty with experience assessing teamwork. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. These semi-structured interviews explored how teamwork was conceptualized, facilitated, and assessed, and identified potential barriers to dialogic development in team settings. While these interviews helped shape the intervention’s theoretical and pedagogical grounding, they are not included in the analysis presented in this chapter.

For the prospective tutor coaches (TCs), participation was entirely voluntary and preceded by informed consent. The pedagogical training provided to the TCs was designed and delivered by the researcher as part of her doctoral study. Engagement in the research was explicitly distinguished from pedagogical training, and TCs could withdraw at any time without consequence. To address faculty hesitancy, the study positioned tutors as co-researchers. This approach fostered trust and reframed coaching as a complement to, rather than a replacement for, traditional roles. TCs submitted reflective diaries, engaged in semi-structured interviews, and participated in informal discussions throughout the process.

Student feedback followed equivalent ethical safeguards. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, with no academic incentives. To ensure impartiality, a psychology faculty member unaffiliated with the project independently conducted the focus groups.

Credibility was enhanced through data triangulation, member checking, and researcher reflexivity, aligning with qualitative inquiry principles and Braun and Clarke’s (2006) approach to thematic analysis.

Grounded in critical pragmatism, the CTcM process was not only enacted but refined through each cycle of inquiry. It was shaped by dialogic encounters, practitioner reflection, and students’ lived experiences. The key elements of the Critical Team Coaching Model that emerged from this iterative process are as follows:

Orienting the Prospective Faculty into Team Coaches: Volunteer faculty from the L5 Professional Communication module were oriented into the specificities of critical team coaching as well as the differences between the role of faculty in the classroom and that of a coach. These were the stages:

Their reflections on the skills of a coach initiated an insightful discussion on the differences between a coach and an educator.

The TCs were assisted to focus on their role: to mediate the student team’s thinking. What this means is ‘not to do the thinking for the student teams, but to mediate inconsistencies, contradictions, and guide them through these contradictions so that student teams identify legitimate, transparent, and accountable solutions’ (Kostoulias, 2019, p. 83). Coaches were also introduced to their key duties, with a strong focus on the shared commitment required for a successful coaching dynamic. This relationship is not one-sided; rather, both TCs and student teams engage in a reciprocal learning process. While students develop their higher-order thinking and problem-solving skills, TCs refine their approach through ongoing reflection and adaptation. Drawing from Schön’s (1987) framework, this reflective practice unfolds in three stages: Knowing in Action, Reflection in Action, and Reflection of Action. This cycle of continuous learning and self-improvement is essential for fostering effective coaching relationships and maximizing student development.

The training played a crucial role in establishing clear expectations, anticipating challenges, and ensuring an equitable power dynamic between TCs and student teams. A key component of this approach was engagement in the three-stage coaching process (see Section IV), which shaped the structure of the three recorded coaching sessions conducted by each TC with their assigned teams.

Additionally, TCs were given the task to complete three structured reflective diary entries – one before, one during, and one after the coaching process – as well as participate in a recorded semi-structured interview.

Faculty Reflections: Faculty acting as coaches reported their pedagogical transformation, with greater comfort adopting a position of ignorance, modeling critical questioning, and facilitating collaborative knowledge construction.

Team Formation and Orientation: Teams assigned to project-based work first participated in an orientation session designed to establish clear expectations and introduce the team coaching framework. This session was essential for defining the coach’s role—not as an authority figure or expert, but as a facilitator who guides inquiry through questioning. Equally important, it helped create a sense of psychological safety, ensuring that all team members felt supported in expressing their ideas, challenging assumptions, and engaging in meaningful dialogue.

Structured Coaching Sessions: Each team participated in three structured coaching sessions across the term, designed to:

• Encourage dialogue over debate.
• Foster collective critical reflection on the project goals, processes, and emerging challenges.
• Apply higher-order dialectical questioning techniques (e.g., surfacing contradictions, exploring historical contexts, generating creative solutions through synthesis).

Team Dialogue and Accountability: Sessions emphasized shared responsibility for both the process and outcomes, reinforcing the link between personal accountability and what Dewey (2001/1916, p. 126) coins ‘socialization of mind.’

In effect:

• Teams were encouraged to keep reflective diaries, tracking how their thinking evolved through dialogue, peer questioning, and collaborative problem-solving.
• Coaches (faculty members) and students co-generated feedback, focusing on both task performance and the quality of dialogue and critical reflection within the team.
• Two focus group meetings provided the space for student teams to respond to semi-structured questions on the experience of being coached.

From the two action research cycles, evidence was gathered on the impact of team coaching on student learning, criticality, and team functioning. Key findings include:

Improved critical reflection: Students demonstrated a shift from surface reflection (what worked or didn’t) to critical reflection (why certain dynamics emerged, how power or privilege shaped interactions, and what assumptions guided their decision-making).

Enhanced team functioning: Teams reported greater trust, transparency, and equitable participation, directly linked to the dialogic space facilitated by coaching.

Critical engagement with content: Students increasingly questioned the underlying assumptions of their projects, demonstrating higher-order thinking, identifying tensions and contradictions, and exploring multi-perspective solutions.

Creative problem-solving: Dialectical questioning triggered creative leaps, particularly when teams were asked to synthesize opposing ideas into innovative solutions.

Accountability and responsibility: Teams were prompted to discuss their timelines, individual roles, and scheduled meetings, with the TC facilitating the discussion and summarizing key decisions at the end of each session to reinforce commitments. This approach fostered both individual responsibility and collective team accountability.

Student Reflections: The following table presents key themes that emerged from student reflections on the Critical Team Coaching process. These excerpts highlight the impact of guided questioning, teamwork, and collaborative thinking in fostering deeper engagement, criticality, and higher-order problem-solving:

D. CTcM: A Comprehensive Approach to Active Learning Models

Critical Team Coaching is a comprehensive educator’s approach that builds on the strengths of team coaching theory, Project Based Learning (PBL), and Team Based Learning (TBL) to design a safe and active learning environment. Kostoulias (2019) identifies its prerequisites:

A definition of critical team coaching would require a safe (brave), equal environment, where the coach uses questioning and active listening to usher self-awareness in the team, ownership of responsibility, and social intelligence, creating a dynamic interplay of critical dialogue and reflection among coachees so as to develop criticality, in their quest for answers to creatively problem solve (p. 13).

The concept of safe (brave) spaces refers to environments that promote respect and emotional safety for diverse perspectives. Arao and Clemens (2013), however, advance the idea of brave spaces as an evolution of this framework. They argue that meaningful dialogue on diversity and social justice requires participants to face discomfort and engage in honest, sometimes difficult conversations. Brave spaces foster deeper understanding by emphasizing courage and accountability over conflict avoidance.

Unlike traditional team-based learning, where task delegation often results in surface-level engagement, CTcM fosters deeper inquiry by structuring dialogic reflection, accountability mechanisms, and higher-order questioning into the collaborative process. This approach prevents the common pitfalls of free-riding and unequal participation. In effect, it balances power dynamics and mutual learning between coach and student teams, and using critical questioning engages student teams in inquiry to problem-solve real-world issues, taking ownership of accountability and responsibility through transparency empowered by critical reflection. In other words, it uses PBL, TBL, Questioning, and, in addition, Dialogue from the perspective of a mediator who facilitates co-learners’ critical dialogue and self-directed learning to collaborate and address real-world problems. Through critical inquiry into the historicity, inclusivity, and sustainability of the issue, student teams propose viable solutions.

Section IV: Sustainability and Inclusivity: Coaching Protocol

The Critical Team Coaching approach does not operate in a vacuum. It is grounded in the reality that sustainability and inclusivity are essential dimensions of responsible, future-oriented learning.

Although inclusivity is often treated as an ancillary concern in higher education, the CTcM places it at the heart of pedagogical practice. By decentering the authority of the instructor and cultivating dialogic spaces where students’ lived experiences are validated as legitimate knowledge, CTcM enables equitable participation. CTcM, through its emphasis on mutual learning, active learning, and adaptive questioning, creates an environment in which diverse worldviews are not merely welcomed but essential to the learning process. Furthermore, the use of ‘brave spaces’ (Arao & Clemens, 2013) encourages respectful engagement with difference, empowering students to challenge dominant narratives while remaining accountable to one another. This flattening of power structures not only democratizes knowledge production but also ensures that collaborative problem-solving reflects a plurality of perspectives.

This section explores how the coaching process explicitly integrates these concerns into both team dialogue and project content, equipping students to develop socially responsible, inclusive, and sustainable solutions.

The following critical questions can be embedded into team coaching sessions to stimulate dialogue on sustainability and inclusivity. Each coaching session leads to a scaffolding of team goal, team reality, review of team performance and goal, and evaluation of team performance and goal.

First Team Coaching Session: Goal

The first coaching session sets the foundation for critical inquiry and accountability. Through guided questioning, teams clarify their focus, examine historical and power dynamics, and integrate interdisciplinary insights. They assess long-term impacts, ethical considerations, and potential risks, refining their problem statement. The coach then synthesizes their reflections, identifying knowledge gaps, challenges, and strategies. A final self-assessment on motivation, obstacles, and team dynamics ensures alignment and commitment, establishing a structured path for deeper inquiry and solution development.

To support this structured inquiry, the Tutor Coach (TC) poses a sequence of open-ended questions that guide student teams in critically examining their issue from historical, ethical, social, and interdisciplinary perspectives, prompting reflective dialogue, clarifying core concepts, and deepening collective understanding:

Defining the Issue: How did you choose this issue? What need have you identified? What are the major keywords in your focus that you need to define, understand, and research? What environmental, social, or economic issues intersect with your project? Who is affected most, and how?

Historical Context: How did this issue evolve? What policies, ideologies, or practices contributed to it?

Power and Justice: Whose voices are amplified or ignored in defining the problem? How does power shape your proposed solutions? What contributions do you believe you will be making with this focus?

Interdisciplinary Synthesis: How are the disciplines discussing these keywords and issues? How can perspectives from science and technology, social sciences, and humanities inform your solution?

Long-Term Impact: How will your proposed solution impact future generations? What risks or unintended consequences should you consider?

Summarizing Student Team’s Goal: As students engage in these coaching sessions, they begin to unpack complex issues, refine their focus, and identify key areas for further inquiry. The TC plays a crucial role in synthesizing these discussions—clarifying the team’s evolving perspectives, surfacing contradictions, and guiding them toward more transparent, responsible, and interdisciplinary problem-solving. By the end of these sessions, student teams not only gain deeper insight into their chosen issues but also cultivate the skills necessary for lifelong critical engagement.

Exploring Team Reality: A series of questions posed by the TC creates an environment of student team reflection on what motivates the team, what limitations/challenges they may have identified that could challenge them to reach their goal, ways that they may have thought of to overcome these challenges, and what rules and guidelines have they assigned to be able to work together towards their goal. The TC summarizes the team’s decisions.

Second Team Coaching Session: Reviewing Performance & Goal

This coaching session fosters an open and reflective dialogue among team members, guided by a series of thought-provoking questions from the TC. The goal is to encourage critical reflection on past decisions, assess progress, and set meaningful milestones for future work. By engaging in this structured discussion, team members can evaluate their teamwork, identify challenges, and refine their research direction.

Progress: How would you define your progress since our first coaching session? What key factors have influenced your journey so far? How have you collaborated as a team? If you’ve encountered challenges, how do you plan to overcome them? What are your expectations moving forward? Have you discovered any limitations in your research? How did you approach them? Is there a possibility that you are overlooking something? Were any aspects intentionally left out?

Future Forward: What decisions can you make now? What milestones can you set?

Summarizing Student-Team’s Critical Reflection: The TC synthesizes the team’s reflections, reiterates key insights, and restates their decisions and milestones. A series of questions from the TC enables participatory dialogue from the team members as well as critical reflection on the choices they have made and what milestones they can set.

Third Team Coaching Session: Evaluating Team Performance & Goal

The evaluation framework is built upon a series of guided questions designed to prompt critical self-reflection, collective analysis, and forward-thinking strategies. These questions utilize different inquiry methods, including descriptive reflection, analytical questioning, and future-oriented evaluation to foster deeper learning and team development.

The team performance evaluation begins with an open-ended descriptive question of how the team would review their performance in terms of working together, which encourages students to assess their collaboration without restriction. The follow-up questions introduce analytical inquiry, particularly in identifying challenges, such as, ‘What challenges did you discover as a team?’ or, if no challenges are reported, prompting a deeper look into the factors contributing to their teamwork effectiveness. The breakdown into individual and collective contributions ensures a well-rounded discussion, helping students recognize personal strengths while appreciating shared growth. Additionally, questions related to learning from the team members reinforce metacognitive awareness – encouraging students to articulate the skills, knowledge, and insights gained through collaborative efforts. Further, the framework introduces a self-assessment of cognitive development by prompting students to compare their thinking skills before and after the coaching sessions.

The goal evaluation segment encourages students to engage in retrospective assessment, beginning with an examination of their initial goal compared to their current position. The question structure invites a narrative-based reflection, prompting students to describe their journey in a way that encapsulates their experiences, challenges, and successes. This not only facilitates self-awareness but also helps faculty assess how well students internalize their learning trajectory. The student team is then prompted to identify what final milestones they have set to complete their goal.

Summarizing Student-Team’s Evaluation: The TC synthesizes team members’ reflections and milestones to be completed.

Final Session

One important conclusion reached from the study is that an additional session should be added to reach ‘closure’. As Cox (2010) emphasizes: ‘If the ending is not discussed, planned and celebrated and the relationship is left to fade or to end abruptly without closure, then the potential for marking achievement and fully integrating changes may be lost’ (p. 179).

Following is a summary of the Critical Team Coaching Phases (three coaching sessions and the final session) and key focus areas with sample questions:

Section V: Implementing CTcM in Other Academic Fields

While initially developed in business education, CTcM’s adaptability extends far beyond a single discipline. Its emphasis on structured questioning, interdisciplinary thinking, and collaborative problem-solving makes it highly applicable to STEM, social sciences, and the humanities. This section demonstrates how CTcM can be tailored to different academic contexts, equipping students across disciplines with the skills to navigate uncertainty, analyze complexity, and co-create ethical solutions.

Application to STEM Fields

Originally developed for undergraduate business education, the Critical Team Coaching Model (CTcM) seamlessly extends to STEM fields, where collaborative problem-solving and inquiry-driven learning are essential.

In any STEM field, student teams are encouraged to move beyond technical feasibility and engage in deeper critical reflection. Guided by a TC, they examine the historical context of their chosen issue, questioning how past policies and practices have shaped current challenges. They assess whether their solutions challenge or reinforce systemic inequalities and consider how technological advancements can promote both social and ecological justice, ensuring that innovation is not only efficient but also ethically and sustainably sound.

Transferability: This approach can be readily adapted to environmental science, computer science (AI ethics), public health, and biomedical innovation courses, demonstrating how technological development can be critically examined through collaborative, inclusive, and ethical lenses. Any problem-based/project-based/team-based learning environment would benefit from implementing critical team coaching.

Application to Social Sciences and Humanities

In the social sciences and humanities, Critical Team Coaching (CTcM) fosters deeper inquiry, critical analysis, and social impact awareness. Through structured dialogue, students examine historical power structures, synthesize competing perspectives, and assess the broader ethical and societal implications of their work. Rather than focusing solely on surface-level trends, they critically explore how systemic inequalities have shaped present challenges, interrogate dominant narratives, and consider ways to co-create solutions with affected communities. This approach fosters solutions-oriented thinking, making it invaluable in cultural studies, anthropology, and public policy.

Section VI: Conclusion and Next Steps

This chapter has outlined how Critical Team Coaching (CTcM) serves as a transformative approach to active learning, fostering criticality, collaboration, and student empowerment in undergraduate education. By integrating dialogic pedagogy, critical questioning, and a structured coaching process, this model enables students to move beyond passive learning and actively engage in problem-solving, self-reflection, and collaborative knowledge construction.

Key Contributions of Critical Team Coaching

Active Learning

Unlike traditional task-based teamwork, CTcM repositions students as co-learners and co-creators of knowledge, rather than passive recipients of instruction. This approach prioritizes dialogue over debate, cultivating an environment where contradictions are surfaced, assumptions are challenged, and new perspectives emerge.

Empowering Students with Criticality and Agency

Through structured questioning and dialectical thinking, students develop the cognitive flexibility and social responsibility needed to navigate complex global challenges. The findings from the action research study confirm that student teams engaged in CTcM demonstrated deeper critical reflection, stronger team accountability, and heightened creative problem-solving skills.

Building Sustainable and Inclusive Learning Environments

By embedding sustainability and inclusivity into the coaching process, CTcM ensures that students consider the ethical, environmental, and social implications of their work. Encouraging students to explore power dynamics, historical contexts, and justice-oriented solutions aligns higher education with the broader goals of responsible global citizenship.

Future Directions and Challenges

While this study highlights the effectiveness of team coaching as a comprehensive and dynamic active learning strategy, several challenges hinder its widespread adoption. Faculty resistance, time limitations, and the integration of team-based inquiry into curricula remain significant barriers.

Addressing these barriers requires educators to embrace the dual role implied by CTcM: when teaching, they function as faculty, but when engaging in Critical Team Coaching, they step fully into the role of coach. CTcM consists of four structured sessions (three plus a closure), yet the reflexive mindset it develops can influence how faculty later design and facilitate curriculum. In this sense, while coaching is not a day-to-day practice, its principles – inquiry, co-creation, and accountability – may extend into daily teaching choices, embedding sustainability.

To implement this approach effectively, educators must be willing, during the coaching process, to shift away from their faculty identity as expert or authority and adopt the stance of coach: one who guides rather than directs, fosters inquiry, and creates an assessment framework that values both process and reflection, alongside outcomes.

Future research should explore the disciplinary adaptability of this model, assessing its short- and long-term impact on students through both quantitative and qualitative measures. Investigating how CTcM influences higher-order thinking, collaboration, and problem-solving skills across diverse fields will be crucial for refining and expanding its application.

By addressing these challenges, CTcM has the potential to transform higher education, bridging the gap between academic learning and real-world problem-solving. More than just fostering critical thinkers, this model prepares students to become responsible, engaged citizens capable of shaping an equitable and sustainable future.

Final Key Takeaways

1. Critical Team Coaching transforms teamwork from task-based collaboration into a dialogic process where students co-construct knowledge, develop criticality, and learn to navigate complexity and change. A TC needs to:

Step 1: Establish a safe and open team environment;

Step 2: Use structured questioning to surface assumptions;

Step 3: Facilitate teams toward collective reflection and action.

2. Embedding sustainability and inclusivity into coaching sessions ensures that students consider the broader ethical, social, and environmental impacts of their work, developing the skills needed for responsible global citizenship.

3. Faculty who adopt a coaching role that of humility and ‘ignorance’ – focusing on facilitating reflection and inquiry rather than providing answers – enable deeper learning, supporting students to navigate uncertainty, challenge assumptions, and co-create knowledge, to be self-reflective, and sustain their own learning.

References

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Waddington, D. I., Wade, C. A., & Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 85(2), 275-314.https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551063

Active Learning | Center for Teaching Innovation. (2024). Cornell University. https://teaching.cornell.edu/teaching-resources/active-collaborative-learning/active-learning#:~:text=Active%20learning%20methods%20ask%20students,words%20through%20writing%20and%20discussion.

Anchin, J. C. (2008). Special section: The critical role of the dialectic in viable metatheory: A commentary on Henriques’ Tree of Knowledge System for integrating human knowledge. Theory and Psychology, 18(6), pp. 801-816. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354308097258

Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces: a new way to frame dialogue around diversity and social justice. In L. M. Landreman (Ed.), The art of effective facilitation: Reflections from social justice educators (1st ed., pp. 135–276). Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003447580

Askew, S. & Carnell, A. (2011). Transformative coaching: A learning theory for practice. UCL IOE Press.

Aston, K. J. (2023). Why is this hard, to have critical thinking? Exploring the factors affecting critical thinking with international higher education students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 25(3), 537-550. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874231168341

Bakir, N., Humpherys, S., & Dana, K. (2020). Students’ Perceptions of Challenges and Solutions to Face-to-Face and Online Group Work. Information Systems Education Journal, 18(5), 75-88. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1258226.pdf

Barros, A. (2025). Putting management knowledge in perspective: Education as an ethical and political endeavor. Management Learning, 56(1), 115-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505076241284246

Bohm, D., & Nichol, L. (2013). On Dialogue (1st ed.). Routledge.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Calma, A., & Cotronei-Baird, V. (2021). Assessing critical thinking in business education: Key issues and practical solutions. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(3), 100531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100531

Calma A., & Davies, M. (2020). Critical thinking in business education: Current outlook and future prospects, Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1716324

Campbell, J. (2022). Hope and its impact: Tips on the What, Why and How. https://www.growthcoaching.com.au/resource/hope-and-its-impact-tips-on-the-what-why-and-how/

Chang, Y., Choi, J., & Şen-Akbulut, M. (2024). Undergraduate students’ engagement in project-based learning with an authentic context. Education Sciences, 14(2), 168. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020168

Clutterbuck, D., & Megginson, D. (2005). Making coaching work: Creating a coaching culture. CIPD Publishing.

Clutterbuck, D., Gannon, J., Hayes, S., Lowe, K., & MacKie, D. (2019). Defining and differentiating team coaching from other forms of team intervention. The practitioner’s handbook of team coaching (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351130554

Cox, E. (2013). Coaching understood: A pragmatic inquiry into the coaching process. Sage.

Cox, E. (2010). Last things first: ending well in the coaching relationship, in Palmer, S. and

McDowal, A. (Eds.), The Coaching Relationship: Putting People First. Routledge, 159–181.

Dewey, J. (2001). Democracy and Education (1916). Pennsylvania State University. https://nsee.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/KnowledgeCenter/BuildingExpEduc/BooksReports/10.%20democracy%20and%20education%20by%20dewey.pdf

Elen, J., Lai, J., Huyghe, S., Evers, M., Verburgh, A., Dumitru, D., & Palaigeorgiou, G. (2019). Promoting Critical Thinking in European Higher Education Institutions: Towards an Educational Protocol. UTAD. https://repositorio.utad.pt/entities/publication/9ea365d0-2f71-404e-b834-091543fabcd3

Figueiró, P. S., & Raufflet, E. (2015). Sustainability in higher education: A systematic review with focus on management education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.118

Flores, R., & Bauman, A. (2024). Group and team work (1st ed.). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/monobook/book/9781800371095/9781800371095.xml

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Freire, P. (2014). Pedagogy of the oppressed: 30th anniversary edition. Bloomsbury.

Glastris, P. (2021, August 29). What is the value of a college degree? Washington Monthly. https://washingtonmonthly.com/2021/08/29/what-is-the-value-of-a-college-degree/

Grant, A. M. (2003). The impact of life coaching on goal attainment, metacognition and mental health. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 31(3), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.3.253

Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 269-287. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2005.16387885.

How do we define active learning. (n.d.). The Active Learning Network. https://activelearningnetwork.com/

Kallio, E. (2011). Integrative thinking is the key: An evaluation of current research into the development of adult thinking. Theory and Psychology, 21(6), 785-801. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354310388344

Kemp, T. (2008). Coach self-management: The foundation of coaching effectiveness, in Drake, D. B., Brennan, D., and Gortz, K. (Eds.). The philosophy and practice of coaching. John Wiley and Sons, 27-50. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119207795.ch2

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193-212. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2005.17268566

Kostoulias, G. (2024). Nurturing critical dialogue in undergraduate teams to develop criticality in addressing wicked problems with coaching. In Proceedings of ICERI2024 Conference 11th- 13th November 2024, Seville, Spain, 4282-4292. https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2024.1081

Kostoulias, G. (2019). A team coaching model for developing criticality in undergraduate students. [Doctoral dissertation, Oxford Brookes University]. https://doi.org/10.24384/t1qn-1j60

Kostoulias, G., Hepper, L., & Argyropoulou, R. (2011). Dialogic pedagogy: The road of challenge in higher education. In Proceedings of the 9th International Transformative Learning Conference, Athens, Greece, 666-72. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PoeLtPGuiVzri6H_Naz5QqLRkfF9P_43/view

Kramer, D. A. (1983). Post-Formal Operations? A Need for Further Conceptualization. Human Development, 26(2), 91–105. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26764489

Kristal, Z. (2009, November 18-20). Critical reflection in the coaching process. Eighth International Transformative Learning Conference, Bermuda, 227-232. https://researchportal.coachingfederation.org/Document/Pdf/abstract_550

Laske, O. (2009). Change and crisis in dialectical thinking: On the need to think again when getting involved with change. Integral Leadership Review, 9(5). https://integralleadershipreview.com/4578-feature-article-change-and-crisis-in-dialectical-thinking-on-the-need-to-think-again-when-getting-involved-with-change/

Leigh, F. (2007). Platonic Dialogue, Maieutic Method and Critical Thinking. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(3), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2007.00561.x

Nemakhavhani, R. B. (2024). Enhancing student engagement through Problem-Based Learning: A case of the built environment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education Research, 1 (1), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.34190/icer.1.1.3053

Opdecam, E., & Everaert, P. (2018). Seven disagreements about cooperative learning. Accounting Education, 27(3), 223-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2018.1477056

Rand, K. L., & Cheavens, J. S. (2012). Hope theory. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 323–334). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195187243.013.0030

Sakulthai, C. (2024). Driving local development with Social Engineer approaches by Rajabbat University students. Journal of Education and Learning Reviews, 1(4), 23-32. https://doi.org/10.60027/jelr.2024.787

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass.

Shoukry, H. (2016). Coaching for emancipation: A framework for coaching in oppressive environments. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 14(2), 15-30. https://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/items/5d592ac5-2f54-4b23-bde2-8e279137f19f/1/

Thang, P.D. (2025). From theory to classroom: Innovation in teaching methods and faculty development in higher education. Tennessee Community Service International of Empowerment, 2(1), 33-43. https://doi.org/10.53730/tcsie.v2n1.13

Thompson, G. (2024, August 28). The coaching perspective . . .An act of faith in others – Bluepoint Leadership Development. Bluepoint Leadership Development. https://bluepointleadership.com/resources/coaching-perspective-act-faith-others/

United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development| Department of Economic and Social Affairs. sdgs.un.org. https://sdgs.un.org/publications/transforming-our-world-2030-agenda-sustainable-development-17981

van Nieuwerburgh, C., and Barr, M. (2017). Coaching in education. The SAGE handbook of coaching. 505-520.

Wegerif, R. (2008). Dialogic or dialectic? The significance of ontological assumptions in research on educational dialogue. British Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701532228

Western, S. (2012). Coaching and Mentoring: A Critical Text. Sage.

Wu, P. L. & Chiou, W.B. (2008). Postformal thinking and creativity among late adolescents: A post-Piagetian approach. Adolescence, 43(170). 237-252. https://www.proquest.com/openview/33cf07ec1ab5b911d8f2807cd8d0c923/1?cbl=41539&pq-origsite=gscholar

About the author