These seven Calls for Collaboration are conversation starters based on areas of potential complementarity among conference presentations. The named presenters are prospective contributors, not confirmed participants. Each call is open to other teachers, researchers, students, material designers, publishers, and institutional partners who share the purpose and can make a useful contribution.
Across all seven collaborations, Critical Thinking for Collaboration (CT4C) proposes a stewardship approach. Participants contribute without surrendering their intellectual independence. Stewards coordinate purpose, participation, learning, and continuity; they do not claim ownership of other people’s work. Each collaboration should remain open to review through four questions:
Feasible: What can we credibly investigate or create with the available people, time, access, and resources?
Acceptable: Acceptable to whom, and under what ethical, cultural, institutional, and practical conditions?
Suitable: Does the proposed work address the actual problem and serve the stated purpose?
Aspirational: What greater educational, scholarly, or societal value might become possible?
David A. Gann, Tophe Zuelke, Dennis Koyama, Ross Thompson, and Paul Consalvi could help develop a shared framework that links critical-thinking definitions, task demands, observable behaviors, and practical classroom assessment.
Tomoko Watanabe, Michael Herke, Ariel Tabak, Nidal Butt, Tom O'Neill, Ashley Kobayashi, Yoshiki Kinjo, Jeremy Robert-Welscott Byma, and Paul Consalvi could collaborate on a developmental pathway from low-risk inquiry to evidence-based advocacy, counterargument, oral defense, and deliberation.
Graham Horn, Stephen Jennings, Jacqueline Jacob, Ian Mauer, and Paul Consalvi could establish a cross-institutional action-research group studying when AI scaffolds thinking and when it displaces it.
Kriti Arora, Kimberly Loren Geonzon Abella, Lorna Sachie Asami, Michael Alan Essex, Lachlan Jackson, and Paul Consalvi could develop protocols for moving from interview or source material to observations, interpretations, alternative perspectives, and defensible insights.
Sophie Otsuru, Timothy Doe, James D. Dunn, Joff P. N. Bradley, Michael McGehee, Charlton Bill Moananu, and Paul Consalvi could create and test multimodal, game-based, and place-based tools for making critical thinking visible and collaborative.
Stuart Warrington, Parvathy Ramachandran, Sarah Deutchman, Jeremy Robert-Welscott Byma, Ross Thompson, and Paul Consalvi could examine how learners move from supported participation to autonomous critical judgment without confusing language proficiency or performance confidence with reasoning capability.
Conan Chi and Paul Consalvi could initiate a strand on the institutional conditions required for critical-thinking practice: transparency, fair process, protected disagreement, decision rights, accountability, and stewardship.