Paper Authors

Abstract

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract

The Loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia: Portaging the Leadership Lessons with a Critical Thinking Model Abstract Business schools have long valued case studies as a tool for both broadening a student’s perspective, and provoking them to deeper consideration of complex situations. The challenge with case studies is assuring the portability of the lessons; we don’t expect students to see situations imitating those they’ve studied, hence the goal must instead be habits of mind and principles of action which the student can portage to the circumstances of their professional lives. This paper evaluates the suitability of Richard Paul’s Critical Thinking model as a template for evaluating engineering enterprise thinking habits and organizational behavior, using the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) report1 as a case study. Specifically, the authors sought to answer the following questions: “Does the Paul model of Critical Thinking provide a beneficial vocabulary and construct for evaluating complex technological case studies?” and, “Does the structure of Paul’s model enhance the portability of the lessons?” The authors determined that with minor refinement, Paul’s model provides a powerful vocabulary for complicated case study analysis, and that familiarity with the model provides students and case study participants with both a mechanism for analysis and a means for portaging lessons to other professional situations and organizations.

Introduction

The analysis and evaluation of our thinking as engineers requires a vocabulary of thinking and reasoning. The intellect requires a voice. Richard Paul and his colleague, Linda Elder, from the Foundation for Critical Thinking, have proposed a critical thinking model documented in various sources2,3,4, including over a dozen Thinkers' Guides that apply this model to diverse disciplines including science5 and ethics6. Their Thinker’s Guide to Engineering Reasoning specifically adapts Paul’s model to the intellectual work of engineers, exemplifying the questions that experienced engineers ask of themselves and others.

In the paper below, the Paul model is first summarized using definitions drawn from Paul, Niewoehner, and Elder’s Engineering Reasoning.7 This summary includes brief discussions of our approach in introducing the Paul model and vocabulary to this class of students. Next, the findings of the CAIB report are summarized for those who are not familiar with its contents. Importantly, we do not seek to re-analyze the CAIB’s findings or recommendations, nor further excoriate those whose mistakes may have contributed to the mishap. We cannot improve on what we regard as a masterful contribution to the literature describing high technology organizations. No, it is instead the Paul model which is under examination. Our question was solely whether the Paul model was adequate to the purpose of opening the CAIB report and its complexities to our undergraduate students in ways that they could retain and apply.

A Critical Thinking Model For Engineering

Engineers and scientists are quite comfortable working within the context of conceptual models. We employ thermodynamic models, electrical models, mathematical models, computer models or even physical models fashioned from wood or clay. Paul, Niewoehner and Elder apply

• Citation

• Format
  • APA
  • APA - LaTeX bibitem
  • MLA
  • MLA - LaTeX bibitem
  • Bibtex
  • EndNote - RIS

Niewoehner, R., & Steidle, C., & Johnson, E. (2008, June), The Loss Of The Space Shuttle Columbia: Portaging The Leadership Lessons With A Critical Thinking Model Paper presented at 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 10.18260/1-2--3354