Critical Thinking in the Quality Group

"Four Steps of Critical Thinking in the Quality Group"

            The Desert Survival Simulation was part of the classroom work that was completed during the Session Two instructional activities.   The class was assembled into two groups and sent into separate areas to complete the task of ranking survival supplies in order of importance to the team.  The scenario was that 15 items, survival supplies, were available to victims of an airplane crash in the middle of the desert.  The task of the group was to come to a conscientious as to how the group would rank these items in order of importance to ensure the survival of the victims of the crash.  The group ranking of these items would then be compared to the opinions of survival experts to evaluate the quality of the group's decisions.

The first step in the four part process of critical thinking is to identify a common problem.   The problem for the group was to come to an agreement on the ranking in order of importance of items on the list.  The goal of the group was established by specific directions provided to the group by the instructor prior to the activity.   This instruction established the common problem for the group.  During the common problem phase, members of our group shared their individual feelings regarding the importance of items on the list.  Prior to starting the group project, we were asked to rank the survival items ourselves.  This provided the basis for allowing individual members of the team to express their unique perspectives, personal needs and opinions. It seemed that members of our five person group felt comfortable sharing their viewpoints in an honest and open manner.   

Once the common problem or task had been agreed upon, the group moved on to analyzing the problem.  This is step two in the process of critical thinking.  During this phase a comparison of "what exists" versus "what is desired" took place.  The condition that existed at the beginning of the exercise was that each member of the group had previously created a ranking of items in order of importance.   Since each list was different, the desired state was to create a single list that we could agree upon and present as a group.  A discussion took place among the members of the group to explore the differing opinions and value that each member placed on each item on the list in an attempt to gain a better understanding of each person's rationale for placing importance on a given item.  This provided common ground for considering possible solutions.  We did not specifically discuss impelling forces or constraining forces as part of our analysis of the task.

Evaluating proposed solutions is the next step in the process.  Our group demonstrated this behavior as we evaluated various suggestions and input from each member.  We accomplished the objectives of choosing the proposals that was most satisfactory to the group and we modeled the behavior of obtaining members' agreement and commitment to the decisions that were made prior to agreeing on a ranking. One of the tactics we employed was to break the list down into five groups of three items each to assist us in ranking the items in order of importance.  This assisted the team in the evaluation of the solutions being presented.  We would agree that each change we made as a group was somehow better that the decision we made individually even if there was a compromise by one or two members regarding the ranking of a particular item. 

Implementing a decision was the final step in the process.  Once we agreed on a solution, ranking of an item, and finalized our decision.  The plan was put into operation when it was presented to the broader group in class and compared to the opinions of the survival experts.   The completion of the exercise and presentation to the instructor and the entire class is evidence that our group succeeded in completing the task it was charged which was to agree on a ranking of the survival items.