critical thinking in action based on Markkula case studies

Step 1: Read the Markkula case studies, then choose ONE to examine in this essay. Employ the TGS Critical Thinking Rubric as framework for

analyzing the case. Begin with an Introduction that states the purpose of your analysis. Use the FOUR key steps in the rubric as the format

framework of a short position paper (details below). Employ the sub-steps within each of the four key steps to further direct your analysis and




Write a short paper that critically analyzes the ideas or position presented in the case reading. The major headings of your paper should

include the following:

Explanation of the Issue or Problem
Analysis of the Information
Analysis of Alternative Viewpoints, Conclusions or Solutions
Personal or Summarized Conclusions and Proposed Decisions
Follow these guidelines:

Use the TGS Critical Thinking Rubric to guide your analysis.
Use the TGS Written Communications Rubric to guide your writing.
Draw in references from at least one reputable outside resource related to the topic to support your conclusions or proposed decisions.
Employ APA Style 6ed for format and citation guidance.
Remember: Even though I have suggested the major headings for your short paper, you should still follow best practices for structuring the


An effective introduction grabs the reader’s attention and sets the tone and direction for the rest of the paper. In reading an introduction,

the reader should have a clear idea of what will follow. Supporting paragraphs move the reader from the general introduction to the more

specific aspects of your analysis in the paper.
The body paragraphs show how the information you are providing supports and relates to your thinking. Even though I’ve provided the title for

each section, paragraphs across and within sections need to effectively transition from one to the next.
Each paragraph should include a topic sentence, which contains the main point of the paragraph.
The Conclusion (#6) brings to a close what you have presented in your paper.
You have moved the reader from the general introduction (“The intent of this paper is to critically analyze…) to the specific supporting

paragraphs (the details under headings #2-5), and now to the conclusion, which briefly summarizes the issue or intent and restates the main

points of your analysis (“detail analysis of the issue of … resulted in conclusions that indicate… and suggest proposed decisions to…”).


Bassham, G.; Irwin, W.; Nardone, H.; & Wallace, J. (2011). Critical thinking: A student’s introduction. 4th Ed. New York, NY: The McGraw Hill


Fisher, A. (2011). Critical thinking: An introduction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hereford, Z. (2015). How to think critically and problem solve. Retrieved from

Lau, J. (2011). An introduction to critical thinking and creativity: Think more, think better. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Lau, J., & Chan, J. (2015). What is critical thinking? Retrieved from

Melillo, N. (2010). What is the relationship between critical thinking and ethics? Retrieved from

Case Study
Responsibility for Accident
On June 7, John Schmidt, one of the company’s employees, seriously injured
his hand while pushing a large piece of wood through a table saw in the
production shop. There is now a dispute over who is to blame for the accident,
the company or the employee.
The injured employee claims that he followed all the company’s safety
procedures and that the company is at fault because it did not guarantee that the
machine was as safe as possible for use. The company shop manager, David
Donald, asserts that the machine was in safe condition, because if it hadn’t
been, the shop foreman, Harry Hiller, would have informed him.
The foreman, Harry Hiller, insists that the machine was maintained
satisfactorily; he has produced the written maintenance records. The foreman
also claims that prior to the accident he saw the employee “joking, laughing
and goofing around” with his co-workers.
A co-worker supports the claim of the injured employee, insisting that despite
regular maintenance on the table saw, it was not safe because the safety guard
was poorly designed and didn’t function well. The co-worker claims that shop
workers informed the foreman about the issues with the safety guard.
A health and safety report determined and reported that the safety guard was
poorly designed to protect operators in a number of circumstances.
(Adapted: AF, 2011)

  • Enter the code: AE30