Interprofessional Health Team Development

IntD 410 (Interprofessional Health Team Development) is a process learning course intended to provide knowledge, skills and experience in building interprofessional (IP) health care teams comprised of students in various professional programs.

Blended learning approach

Given that not all IP interactions occur face to face, the rationale for transforming this course into a blended format was to create online environments to support (1) students in IP team development and generation of knowledge within an online context; and (2) facilitators in their role within the IP team development course.

Content development team

Consultant team

  • Heidi Bates, Faculty of Agriculture, Life and Environmental Sciences.
  • Gisele Gaudet-Amigo, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry.
  • Janice Causgrove-Dunn, Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation.
  • Tracey Hillier, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry.
  • Gerri Lasiuk, Faculty of Nursing.
  • Mark Makowsky, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences.
  • Berni Martin, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine.
  • Teresa Paslawski, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine.
  • Elizabeth Taylor, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine.
  • Chris Ward, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry.

Sample week in the course

Students covered 10 modules in 10 weeks, either distributed over Fall and Winter terms or concentrated during the Winter term only. Students were placed in interdisciplinary teams of 6-8 students and worked together for the length of the course. Course facilitators were either faculty members from the health science programs, or practitioners from varied health science disciplines in the community.

The first week of the course was completely online. Online elements included videos, interactive modules, and a discussion forum to introduce the concepts of interprofessional education, team roles, team meetings, and role clarification among the disciplines. In the “Professional Roles Discussion Forum”, students answered questions about their future profession, including their scopes of practice, misconceptions about their professions, what other disciplines they are most or least likely to work with in the future, and more. All student activities and resources were available on eClass.


The second week of the course was face-to-face, and students met their team members for the first time to built on what was covered in the online components of week one. They followed up on the “Professional Roles Discussion Forum” by mapping out how their disciplines were similar (e.g. overlapping scopes of practice) and different. They also followed up on the “Introduction to Team Roles” and “Team Meeting: Care Planning” videos by assigning each team member a formal role for the week, and they continue to do this for each week of the course.

General results from all cycle 1 blended learning projects

What is students’ engagement and satisfaction in different blended learning approaches?
Student Engagement
  • Survey results suggested that students above first-year level BL courses were statistically more engaged than in first-year level BL approaches:
    • Individual motivation of students in later stages of their academic program seem to influence engagement, even when students are presumably not as satisfied with the course and/or its format.
  • Interviews revealed that engagement was also boosted when students received effective ongoing instructor support, and when they were able to collaborate and interact with other students in the course:
    • The opposite occurred when students struggled with ambiguous instructions (or an unclear course structure), because this often increased their workload (having to navigate large amounts of vague information).
Student Satisfaction
  • Survey results showed that students were statistically significant more satisfied when the online video resources were not highly produced (e.g. recorded using a laptop webcam, featured the professor in a casual setting, etc).
  • Interviews corroborated that student satisfaction was mostly influenced by the quality of the online resources (and even more the online video resources):
    • Students responded positively to good quality, entertaining and informative videos. They also appreciated when the professor explained the material in a more unscripted way.
    • Students also highlighted the importance of seeing the instructor’s face when making videos for educational purposes, since this is a way to complement the pedagogical relationship between them and the instructor.
Taken together these results suggest:
  • The importance of cultivating a relationship between instructors and students in the different mediums to promote student engagement (even more to promote student satisfaction with BL).
  • And that no matter the pedagogical approach implemented instructors should always remember/aim to bolster a pedagogical connection (face-to-face and online).
What is the instructors’ experience in developing and implementing a blended learning course?
  • Instructor interviews revealed that they spent an extensive amount of time (more than expected) transforming their courses into BL. Instructor experiences were permeated by the amount of time invested reflecting about the content, developing the different materials, and implementing the different activities:
    • Even when they witnessed positive outcomes, having to spend so much time in the project greatly interfered with the rest of their academic responsibilities.
    • Furthermore, some instructors did not have the appropriate institutional support (from their department or faculty), which both hurt their attitude towards BL and made the transition more difficult.
  • These results suggest that it is vital to not only prepare instructors for the magnitude of the project they are potentially undergoing, but to also install the appropriate institutional mechanisms to support them in this process.
Do you want to know more details about our Blended Learning Evaluation? Send us an email:

L. Francisco Vargas M.

Resource development details

Roles of the content development team (~50 hours)

  • Provided CTL with course materials.
  • Filmed, transcribed and edited a student enactment of TOSCE (a type of team meeting), and sent to CTL.
  • Provided voices for narration.
  • Reviewed scripts and video drafts, requested edits as necessary.
  • Uploaded completed videos to YouTube.

Roles of the CTL production team (~111 hours)

  • Drafted script and storyboard based on course materials (Team Roles Video).
  • Recorded and edited audio using Audacity. CTL also provided additional voices for narration.
  • Produced videos using GoAnimate, PowToons, and Camtasia.
  • Made video edits based on feedback from the Instructor Team.
  • Finalized videos (remove noise from audio, etc.) and shared files with Instructor Team.

Total production time required for these three videos was ~6 hours/minute (18 minutes of video = 111 hours of production time).
Total hours required by the Educational Developer was ~6 hours.

Tools & additional information





Presentations & publications

Davies, J., Fricker, L., King, S., Onuczko, T., & Hatch, T. (2015, September). Flipping the interprofessional classroom: Collaborating in real and virtual space. Paper presented at Collaborating Across Borders (CAB) V, Roanoke, VA.


Do you want to know more about the content?

Contact Details

JoAnne Davies

Do you want to know how CTL can help you?

Contact Details

Phone: +1 (780) 492-2826