NSF grant to help UB’s engineering students become better problem-solvers

Engineers are often asked to solve problems, says Andrew Olewnik, adjunct assistant professor in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. And they often have little training in how to discern between the kinds of problems and the fit for the solution they are searching for. They may use an approach that may have worked once, but doesn’t fit the latest problem.

Olewnik, who as director of Experiential Learning Programs helps engineering students find experience outside the classroom, has an answer. He has received a two-year grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to help his students become better problem-solvers and better connect their coursework and their professional preparation, while at the same time working with UB’s Graduate School of Education to measure whether the project has lasting effects.

“Very few problems in the world, engineering or otherwise, are limited to one discipline,” says Olewnik. “We have this opportunity to give authentic problems to students as part of their academic experiences. But how am I going to help students from chemical engineering or civil engineering approach solving the problem as a mechanical engineer?”

That answer, he says, lies in creating problem-solving environments, and tapping into the concept of “problem typology.” Basically, this means giving engineering students a way to recognize the nature and structure of a problem to be solved and to apply an appropriate method or set of strategies that fits the problem they face, rather than a pre-existing formula that’s too narrow in its applications.

Adapting research by University of Missouri faculty member David Jonassen — who, Olewnik says, literally “wrote the book” on designing problem-solving learning environments — Olewnik will develop an approach, or what he calls a “terrain” or “architecture,” to address problems his engineering students will encounter. When ready, this problem-solving architecture will be useful to these students, regardless of what kind of engineers they are, and suitable for a variety of problems they will face.

“So for each type of problem common to engineering, we’re trying to define these typologies,” Olewnik says. “And when these students are solving real-world problems on campus or during internships, it will provide them with a way to contextualize what they are doing in such a way that they can explain it.”

He will try to define the steps for solving problems with a strategy he calls “discipline agnostic,” or steps not limited to one engineering discipline.

“So it doesn’t matter if you’re a chemical engineer or a civil engineer,” he says. “If I am designing something, I’m going to go through these steps.”

Having strategies that fit a variety of engineering problems will benefit students in a number of ways, Olewnik explains. Besides giving students better problem-solving tools to use during course projects, extracurricular projects, internships and their eventual professional work, this system of problem typology also builds better communication skills for students to use when they talking to people who are not engineers.

“We’re hoping that this ability to recognize the kinds of problems they solve and the professional competencies and skills required to work collaboratively to solve it will help students communicate about their work to future employers,” Olewnik says. “We are going to look at whether students do a better job communicating some of the professional competencies that matter in solving the problems.”

Students’ academic engagement does not always lead to professional competence, he notes, recalling instances when an outstanding student has completed a successful internship, but has not done well in corporate interview.

“And they’re just like, ‘What happened?’” Olewnik says. “And it’s because, although they have lots of great experiences and obvious technical skill, when it comes to talking about what they did in terms of professional competencies — working on a team, managing time and the role of communication — that’s not well-connected for them.”

This research study aims to work with the students to try to solve these professional, in-the-field problems.

“We want to more explicitly introduce problem typology,” Olewnik says, “and see if they can get better talking about how they solve the problem and working on a team.”

The Graduate School of Education’s role in the project is to help design the intervention and assessment measures to determine whether the new educational programs for engineers are accomplishing their goals.

“Designing high-quality social and behavioral research is not as easy as most people think,” says Randy Yerrick, associate dean for outreach and engagement in GSE. “Design is as important in educational research as it is in engineering.

“The faculty in the GSE have significant expertise in designing educational research studies and assessing the effectiveness of pedagogical innovation,” Yerrick says. “It’s what we excel at as a unit, and there are many such collaborations throughout UB which are leveraging our expertise to raise the standard of STEM education research.”

NSF grants often require scientists and engineers to collaborate with social scientists, he says — sometimes in design and assessment, and sometimes in dissemination of impactful products or outcomes.   

“Like Andrew, many scientists and engineers have solicited the support of GSE faculty and asked us for help in answering theirs questions,” Yerrick says. “I work with a great many engineers and I have never had one tell me they have any formal teaching training, nor formal training in conducting qualitative research.

“We in GSE love these opportunities to work in an interdisciplinary fashion, as we learn from each other how to ‘raise all ships with the tide.’ Our two deans work very closely together and share many of the same goals. ”

The new Department of Engineering Education is a good example of the kinds of new trajectory UB Engineering is pursuing, Yerrick and Olewnik say.

“UB recognizes the importance of leadership in engineering education,” Yerrick says. “The American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) has been calling for the reform of engineering pedagogy for decades. The trend nationally for decades has been to load up engineering undergraduate students with heavy loads of coursework emphasizing high-level mathematical analysis, emphasizing to students that ‘hard work’ and ‘competition’ are the best ways to learn engineering.

“Yet, much research is revealing that such an approach has a significant filtering effect on the diversity of the undergraduate engineering population.”

“We know we can do a better job teaching,” says Carl Lund, SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor and chair of the new Department of Engineering Education. “We have a great opportunity here with this new department to make a real national impact, as there are currently only a few formal engineering education departments in the nation.”

The predominant approach in engineering education involves lectures and homework, Lund explains. Lectures typically present information and illustrate how to use that information to perform engineering tasks. Homework then allows students to practice using the information in ways similar to that illustrated during the lecture.

“This approach is good at showing students what to do and how to do it,” Lund says. “But in very many cases, it fails to show students how to recognize or know what they need to do for any one particular problem when it is encountered in a context different from that lecture and follow-up homework assignment.”

Olewnik notes that engineering students’ schedules are so condensed that they might be taking five or six courses at a time. “What students will do is just look at a problem and try to solve it immediately without stepping back and saying, ‘Is that the right approach?’

“We can help novice engineers practice metacognition in their problem-solving, and at the same time help experienced engineers think about how to build this reflexivity into their own instruction on a regular basis,” he says.

The NSF grant of nearly $200,000 will support GSE researchers in not only evaluating the program, but in helping to design the study so that it measures what engineering administrators would like to be measured.

“Does this make them (students) better problem-solvers?” asks Olewnik. “Does this help articulate the role of professional competencies is a better way? We’re using pre- and post-assessments, field notes, video analysis and a highly coordinated intervention approach.

“So after their coursework preparation and their internship experience with our corporate partners, we hope that, not only do they think better, but they also are able to share how they grew in their professional competencies at UB to prepare them to be real engineers.”