Developing Problem Solving Skills: The

McMaster Problem Solving Program

DONALD R. WOODS ing skill and which methods were successful in developing the
Department of Chemical Engineering skills. We found that students need both comprehension of
McMaster University Chemical Engineering and what we call general problem solving
skill to solve problems successfully. We identified 37 general prob-
ANDREW N. HRYMAK lem solving skills. We use 120 hours of workshops spread over four
Department of Chemical Engineering required courses to develop the skills. Each skill is built (using con-
McMaster University tent-independent activities), bridged (to apply the skill in the con-
tent-specific domain of Chemical Engineering) and extended (to
ROBERT R. MARSHALL use the skill in other contexts and contents and in everyday life).
Director, Ontario Region, MettNet Inc. The tests and examinations of process skills, TEPS, that assess the
McMaster University degree to which the students can apply the skills are described. We
illustrate how self-assessment was used.
PHILIP E. WOOD
Department of Chemical Engineering
McMaster University I. INTRODUCTION

CAMERON M. CROWE Educators expect that students will graduate from their courses
Department of Chemical Engineering and their programs with good problem solving and group skills.
McMaster University Teachers do their best to develop these skills. They assign many
open-ended problems; they use many group projects. We expected
TERRENCE W. HOFFMAN the graduates from our four-year, accredited program in Chemical
Department of Chemical Engineering and Engineering at McMaster University to be skilled problem solvers.
Senior Consultant, AspenTechnology Inc., Houston, TX Yet, in the late 1960’s the faculty observed that our students had
unexpected difficulties. They could not solve problems if we
JOSEPH D. WRIGHT changed the wording and context of the problem statement. The
Department of Chemical Engineering and students seemed to be “collectors of sample solutions.” They
President, Pulp & Paper Research Institute of Canada seemed to try to solve problems by patching various parts of previ-
ous solutions together to match the new problem situations. Nor
PAUL A. TAYLOR could they bring together ideas from different courses to solve real-
Department of Chemical Engineering istic problems from industry. Confirming our lack of satisfaction
McMaster University with our graduates’ ability to solve problems were reports from in-
dustry. Reports suggested that university graduates did not possess
KIMBERLY A. WOODHOUSE sufficient expertise in communication, in solving problems, in
Department of Chemical Engineering working effectively with people, and in applying lifetime learning
University of Toronto skills.1-7 Resnick8 reviewed the need for the development of higher-
order thinking skills.
C.G. KYLE BOUCHARD Since the late 1960s, we have perused the research literature on
Toronto Institute of Pharmaceutical Technology teaching problems solving and completed four research projects to
Chemical Engineering Department, McMaster University answer the questions “What is problem solving?” “Can it be
taught?” and “Isn’t what we currently do in the classroom suffi-
cient?” To clarify our meaning of problem solving, here is the work-
ABSTRACT ing definition that we have developed. We define “problem solv-
ing” to be the processes used to obtain a best answer to an unknown,
This paper describes a 25-year project in which we defined prob- or a decision subject to some constraints. The problem situation is
lem solving, identified effective methods for developing students’ one that the problem solver has never encountered before; it is
skill in problem solving, implemented a series of four required novel. An algorithm or procedure to be used to solve the problem is
courses to develop the skill, and evaluated the effectiveness of the unclear; problem solving requires much mental work. By contrast,
program. Four research projects are summarized in which we the term “exercise solving” refers to the “recalling” familiar solutions
identified which teaching methods failed to develop problem solv- from previously-solved problems. The terms “a best answer” and

April 1997 Journal of Engineering Education 75

“subject to some constraints” emphasize that for real world prob- shown to be inapplicable. From this research project we could not
lems, we never have perfect information. We lack information; identify why the students were not learning problem solving skills.
there are errors in the information we do have; we never have In the second project, funded by the Ontario Universities Pro-
enough resources. We must apply the law of optimum sloppiness gram for Instructional Development (OUPID) 1974-1978, one of
(or optimum accuracy, as some prefer to call it) and obtain the best the team (DRW) became an undergraduate again. He enrolled in
possible answer with the resources we have. Problem solving skill 1974 as a first year student and “graduated” in 1978. Over that
includes the following 12 attributes: four-year period, he attended eighteen hundred hours of classes in
• being aware of the processes used; all the required courses (English, Chemistry, Differential equa-
• using pattern matching to quickly decide whether a situation tions, Physics etc.). The two purposes of attending classes were 1)
is a problem or an exercise; to monitor weekly the subject knowledge that the students were
• applying a variety of tactics and heuristics; learning and 2) to note explicit suggestions that faculty used to help
• placing an emphasis on accuracy (as opposed to speed.); students become skilled in solving problems. In addition, about 20
• being active by writing down ideas, creating charts and fig- of his student classmates volunteered to attend four hours a week of
ures; problem solving workshops. The four purposes of the workshops
• monitoring and reflecting on the process used; were as follows.
• being organized and systematic; 1. To identify—and answer—the student’s most pressing needs
• yet being flexible (keeping options open, seeing the situation each week in the four-year program. Each workshop session began
from many different perspectives and points-of-view); by asking the students to identify their current greatest challenge.
• drawing on the pertinent subject knowledge and objectively For example, near the beginning of the first year the needs were
and critically assessing the quality, accuracy and pertinence of more about self management and basic learning skills: how to man-
that knowledge and data; age time; how to read the text; how to take lecture notes; how to
• being willing to risk and cope with ambiguity, welcoming sort out lecture notes.9,10 Later their needs were more related to
change and managing distress; problem solving: for example, how to solve problem 5.3 in Physics. In
• being willing to spend time reading, gathering information each workshop, we addressed their needs first.
and defining the problem (as opposed to equating problem 2. To assess their comprehension of the subject knowledge. By
solving with “doing something” despite its pertinence); and attending class and taking lecture notes, Woods knew what subject
• having an overall approach that uses fundamentals rather knowledge had been “covered” in the lectures. In the workshop, we
than trying to combine various memorized sample solutions. continually assessed the students’ comprehension of that subject
These then characterize the skills we seek to develop in our stu- knowledge. In this way we could find out if students could not solve
dents. problems because they did not understand the subject knowledge or
In this paper, first, we summarize our research to define the task because they were missing a problem solving skill.
of developing problem solving skills. Then, we describe our ap- 3. To help the students to see the structure in that subject
proach to develop problem solving skills: the MPS training pro- knowledge and to help them classify the information into different
gram and its implementation. Our 20 years of program evaluation types of knowledge and heuristics, and suggestions for problem
are summarized. Finally, we describe how our MPS program has solving. To achieve this objective, each week the students created
been extended to other schools and contexts. coded cards summarizing the knowledge learned in each class.
These cards were then added to the “knowledge board” hung on the
walls of a dedicated “problem solving room.” Photographs of the
II. BACKGROUND RESEARCH knowledge board are given elsewhere.10
4. To see how the students went about solving problems (when
We used four research projects. In the first project, 1972-73, they knew the basic knowledge needed to solve the problem). We
faculty members sat in on colleague’s lectures and assessed the asked them individually to do one task important in solving a
learning environment used to develop problem solving skills, and homework problem (such as “define the goal,” “draw a diagram,”
our colleague’s attempts to illustrate and develop problem solving “choose symbols,” “explain what the problem is really asking you to
skills. Our impression was that our students should be getting good do”). When individuals were finished, each displayed his/her work
problem solving skills. Colleagues carefully displayed many sample simultaneously on the walls of the room in what we called the
solutions, tried to engage the students in the problem solving everybody-share method. Photographs of this everybody-share
process, and tried to help students “discover” the process. Col- method are available.10 We then discussed the variety of approaches
leagues used open-ended problems and gave explicit suggestions taken and extracted guidelines for successful problem solving.
about how to solve problems. For example, they suggested that stu- Thus, we observed, videotaped, tried various interventions and did
dents “try working backwards from the goal,” “try dimensionless protocol analysis of over 800 hours of student activity. From 1974-
numbers,” and “work the problem in symbol form and then later 1978, we also observed groups at other universities: University of
substitute the numerical values.” The faculty asked students to Western Ontario, McGill University, Virginia Polytechnic Insti-
show how they solved problems by having the students work prob- tute and State University, and Denison University. We analyzed
lems on the board. We hoped that students should develop problem the problem solving approaches taken by our seniors—who had not
solving skills from these activities. Yet, students did not develop attended the problem solving workshops—via the everybody-share
skill in problem solving. The students still could not solve problems method. They exhibited the same approaches as those taken by first
when faculty changed the conditions slightly. They continued to year students. Indeed, students from other universities displayed
depend extensively on sample solutions, even when these were the same approaches as students who had received no formal train-

76 Journal of Engineering Education April 1997

ing in problem solving. Throughout the project we sought advice entific problem solving, but also in social sciences,25,34 behavioral sci-
on what to do and what to look for from colleagues.* ences,22 and writing.20,30 The same findings have been found in Aus-
In the third project, 1975, a second team member (CMC) re- tralia28 and in Europe.27,33 Our work with the everybody-share
peated the second project described above. He enrolled as a first method with our volunteer students, our seniors and with stu-
year student in 1975 and repeated the first half year. He attended dents at different levels at four other institutions showed that all
all of the lectures and had four-hour weekly workshops with stu- displayed the same weaknesses. These findings were confirmed in
dent volunteers. Although this was a second independent ob- our fourth project: observing students during their Ph.D. qualify-
server with a second cohort of students, Crowe observed no new ing examinations.
insights about the students’ skills. Because the payoff from this 3. Despite individual professors’ dedication and efforts to devel-
faculty-intensive project was negligible, we stopped this third op problem solving skill, “general problem solving skill” was not de-
project in January 1976. veloped in the four years in our undergraduate program. Students
In the fourth project we gathered evidence from our Ph.D. graduated showing the same inability that they had when they
qualifying examinations. Candidates for the Ph.D. program started the program. Some could not create hypotheses; some mis-
orally describe the processes and fundamentals they use to solve read problem statements. During the four-year undergraduate en-
original, unique conundrums in Chemical Engineering. The gineering program studied, 1974-1978, the students had worked
candidates had three such two-hour examinations. The purpose over 3000 homework problems, they had observed about 1000
is to identify sample solutions being worked on the board by either the teacher or
• Those candidates who do not know the three major subject by peers, and they had worked many open-ended problems.36 In
domains in Chemical Engineering but who could think crit- other words, they showed no improvement in problem solving
ically and solve problems based on what they do know, skills despite the best intentions of their instructors. Caillot37 and
• Those who know the subject but their problem solving ap- Meiring26 confirm these findings.
proach is based on memory. They can recall every problem 4. The workshop-style interventions** that we offered our vol-
they ever solved, but they cannot solve a problem that is new unteers—and Ph.D. candidates—made a difference. Their confi-
to them. dence and skills improved when compared with the performance of
• Those who know the subject and can apply it to solve new students who did not experience these workshops.
situations. In summary, our research showed that: 1) there is an identified,
Three faculty members observed each candidate. To prepare for subject-independent skill set called problem solving, and 2) that
the examinations, students typically studied cooperatively in small students do not develop the skill in a four-year program by having
groups for about 600 h. We gave students the assessment criteria teachers display how they solve problems, by giving out sample so-
and simulated examinations. Therefore, the performance condi- lutions, by using open-ended problems or by having peers show
tions and forms of evidence were clear. In any year, we asked all their problem solving. Workshops to explicitly develop skill
candidates the same questions by the same professor following the seemed to hold potential for improving students’ problem solving
same format. Three teachers assessed each student by consensus. A skill and confidence.
few candidates knew the subject knowledge but had difficulty dis-
playing their problem solving skills. For them, we offered 40 hours
of intense workshops on “problem solving.” Later, they retook the III. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT-ISSUES
exams. From 1964 to date, we have observed 150+ candidates.
The results from these four research projects were:9,11,12 During the development of what we call the McMaster Prob-
1. In class, we rated the faculty as doing an excellent and consci- lem Solving program (MPS program) we addressed such issues as
entious job of showing their approach to problem solving. They How extensive would be our interventions? When? How? How
worked problems, supplied sample solutions, and showed a variety would we assess the student’s skill? How could we ensure that the
of problem solving heuristics. However, when tested, our students students could use their problem solving skills in other contexts?
were unable to recognize, transfer or apply the skill for the process Would the MPS program be effective? Could other teachers use
of solving their homework problems. In-class faculty demonstra- the MPS program in other contexts? We address each in turn.
tions of the faculty’s skill in solving problems did not transfer skill to
the students.
** The programs that influenced us include Alverno College’s outcome-based
2. We tested students on their “comprehension” of the subject curriculum, deBono’s CoRT thinking, Lipman’s Philosophy for Children, the
knowledge. We found that they “knew the subject knowledge.” Yet American Institute of Chemical Engineers 2-day “Applied Problem Solving”
they could not solve homework problems. We called the general, course, the Chemical Institute of Canada’s 2-day “Problem Solving” course, the
content-independent, missing skill “problem solving.” This skill Kepner-Tregoe week-long program, Xerox’s Problem Solving Program,
embodies the twelve characteristics given at the beginning of this Feurestein’s Instrumental Enrichment, Rubinstein’s Patterns in Problem Solving,”
Wales and Stager’s Guided Design, Ford’s “Team Oriented Problem Solving,” Cre-
article. These characteristics summarize the findings of the novice ative Problem Solving, Paul’s Critical Thinking program, Conger’s Life Skills Pro-
versus expert literature.13-35 This extensive set of references is given gram, Chaffee’s Critical thinking program, the Structure of Intellect, Covington’s
to lead to the breadth and depth of the basic research underlying productive thinking program, Ontario Mental Health program on stress manage-
this work. The citations illustrate that the research is not just in sci- ment, Whimbey-Lochhead talk aloud pairs problem solving (TAPPS) activity and
materials and McMaster Medical school’s small group, self-directed problem-based
learning program. For details about most of these programs and the potential use for
* We appreciate the input during those early days from Jack Lochhead, Jill program development, Woods has published reviews of these programs over the
Larkin, Fred Reif, Alan Schoenfeld, Eric Hewton, Joe Novak, Donna Mitchell, past ten years in the column that he writes, called PS Corner, in the Journal of
Elizabeth Brain, Vic Neufeld, Maynard Fuller, Robert Sparks and Art Whimbey. College Science Teaching.

April 1997 Journal of Engineering Education 77

A. How Extensive? for lifetime learning skills.** The skills are both attitudinal and cogni-
Based on our research we identified 37 separate skills:* four relat- tive. Furthermore, skills overlap; we need some skills for several dif-
ed to self-management; 14 related to personal problem solving ability ferent categories. For example, stress management is needed for self-
for “well-defined, well-stated ordinary homework problems”; five for management as well as for personal problem solving, interpersonal
solving ill-defined problems; seven for interpersonal and group skills; and group skills and change management. Table 1 lists the MPS
two skills for self-assessment; one for change management; and four units by number, the skill being developed, the hours usually used to
develop the skill and the distribution of the MPS units among the
four courses. Thus, the MPS unit 1 on Awareness usually requires
* Over the 25 years of this project, in response to needs of organizations, indus-
about one to four hours and is part of the first course, called Chemical
tries and educational institutions, we have developed MPS workshops for over 55
topics (on such additional topics as implementing change, dealing with difficult be- Engineering 2G2, to develop individual skill in solving traditional
haviors, networking and procrastination). Nevertheless, the 37 basic units given in homework problems. The 48 contact hours in the course are used for
Table 1 have remained the core for our undergraduate program.. Of the 37 units, 23 in-class workshops. Which of the first 18 units are selected depends
units (designated with *, †, and ‡ in Table 1) are usually included in the program. on the needs of the students. For example, some years all students
** We define lifetime learning skill as assuming the responsibility for all ele-
have achieved the goals for the MPS unit 1 within two hours; other
ments in learning: deciding what to learn, creating goals and objectives, selecting
the resources to be used and assessing the extent to which the goals have been groups of students require four hours. Our goal is not to cover materi-
achieved. We expect lifetime learners to accept people as probably the best re- al. Rather, it is to develop the student’s confidence in a set of skills
source for new knowledge. We expect learners to be skilled in learning indepen- needed most by them. To develop all the skills given in Table 1
dently and interdependently. would require in excess of 200 contact hours. We have 120 hours

Table 1. List of the MPS units and the various courses.

78 Journal of Engineering Education April 1997

available. In addition, students need time outside the workshop to re- differ. Therefore, the emphasis, the MPS units selected and the
flect on and practice the skills in different contexts. This time is not amount of time needed by each cohort to develop the skill varies. For
included in the contact hours listed in Table 1. The usual units select- example, the class of 1995 did not receive explicit workshops on MPS
ed from the 37 units in the four courses are given by *, † and ‡ in units 13, 14, 16 or 18. They spent extra time on the MPS units 3, 6
Table 1. and 11 (on “self assessment,” “analysis” and “the unique you,” respec-
tively). The needs of the students set the pacing of all the courses.
B. When?
Students take these workshops in the first semester in our Depart- C. How?
mental program, namely, the first semester of the sophomore year. Providing the students with opportunities to solve interesting
The first course focuses on skills in solving well-defined, ordinary problems is ineffective in developing problem solving skill. Watch-
homework problems. A second course, in the junior year, gives added ing others solve problems is ineffective. We developed workshop-
practice in applying these skills. A third course in the second semes- style activities for each explicit skill based on research in cognitive
ter, junior year adds skills related to group or team problem solving. A and behavioral psychology. Each workshop followed a standard pat-
fourth course in the senior year addresses the skills needed for open- tern: the skill was defined and its importance given; the skill was put
ended problem solving and for lifetime learning. Thus, the skill de- into the context of the other skills being developed. We gave stu-
velopment started with our first contact with the students and con- dents learning objectives and a brief pretest. An overview is given of
tinued through most of the remaining semesters. We asked all the activities in the workshop. The key was to provide explicit activi-
teachers to reinforce the skill application in all courses. Table 1 sum- ties that a) gave students a chance to see how they do the skill in a
marizes these courses and illustrate how and when the different MPS content-independent domain, b) allowed them to compare their be-
units occur. We have found that the needs of each cohort of students havior with target behavior, and c) helped them develop the target

Table 1 Continued.

April 1997 Journal of Engineering Education 79

behavior through practice and immediate feedback. We needed to plex that they cannot develop them when they are learning subject
help them collect evidence about how they did the task. Bridging ac- knowledge. This was particularly true for problem solving skills.
tivities were included to link the skills application into the subject Perkins and Salomon45 give an excellent overview of the issues.
domain and into everyday life. When the participants had acquired To transfer the skill, we have found that the processing skills are
the skill, the workshop closed with a post-test. Participants summa- best developed through a three-stage process:42,48
rized change and growth and identified times and situations when 1. Build the skill in a stress-free exercise so that students can
they would apply the acquired skill. Throughout the workshop, par- focus on the mental processes being used (instead of thinking about
ticipants reflected on what they were experiencing following the both subject-knowledge and the processing skill);
ideas suggested by Schon.39 Following each workshop, participants 2. Bridge those processing skills to apply them in a simplified
monitored (the weekly application of each new and previously-de- problem situation in a target subject domain; reflect on the process
veloped skill), kept a journal and provided evidence of growth. used to solve the simplified problem;
In developing the program and the workshops, our greatest chal- 3. Extend the application of those process skills to any type of
lenge was to write observable and testable learning objectives in the problem situation.
areas of “soft” skills. It took us over three years to evolve our current We enriched this three-stage development process by requiring
set. For example, consider “creativity.” What explicit objectives can the students to write a reflective journal in which they reflected on
one use to distinguish a creative student from an uncreative one? the build, bridge, and extend experiences. To build the process skill,
How can one use these objectives as the basis for developing a work- the students assessed the degree to which they developed the skill in
shop and how can one devise Tests or Examination of Problem Solv- the context-independent portions of the workshop. For the bridge
ing (TEPS) to assess the degree of skill acquisition? Tables 2 and 3 stage, they reflected on the workshop task elements that included
give example objectives and assessments for creativity. The objectives subject-rich activities. In the extend stage they reflected on their use
are structured following Bloom’s taxonomy.39 Hence, in Table 2, ob- of the skill in their subject courses and in their everyday life. Alumni
jective 3.1-3.3, requires application, objective 5, synthesis and so on. report that this is an extremely important and critical characteristic
The objectives and example TEPS are available for other skills.40 of the program.
We used Sternberg’s41 criteria in selecting and developing the The starting activities were “exercises” in subject-independent
methods, procedures and activities. Descriptions of most of the key contexts so that the participants could focus on the “process” and
workshops are available.42 not get hung up on the content. For example, IQ or detective sto-
ries and everyday activities were used first. Then, once students had
D. Assessment of Students internalized the “process,” they used the process on “exercises” in
The assessment centered on the published, explicit objectives the subject discipline. Then, the participants used the process on
and criteria created for each unit and on the synthesis of these units. “problems” in the subject discipline.42,48 Table 5 summarizes our ap-
Formative assessment consisted of the journals that each student proach to bridging and extending and illustrates these activities for
completed for each MPS unit and two personal interviews. In addi- some example MPS topics.
tion, participants elected to identify personal enrichment goals. For
these, they created objectives, criteria, forms of evidence and kept a F. Effectiveness?
journal of progress. Table 4 lists examples of the topics selected. We would assess the program effectiveness by control studies
This illustrates the typical student needs in the second, third and and by longitudinal studies involving our alumni. The results are
final years. discussed in Section V.
For summative assessment, students wrote two or three-hour
examinations, tests and examinations for process skills, TEPS. G. Program Transference
Self-assessment was a significant component in the program.43 We wrote instructor’s guides and would assess the ease with
Self-assessment included the following dimensions: the personal which we and others could run MPS workshops in other contexts.
interview in which each student identified the degree to which The results are given in Section VI.
he/she had achieved each MPS objective as substantiated by evi-
dence; the personal enrichment activity; and the personal choice of
selecting the weighting the formative and summative components IV. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
had in the final mark. Thus, students contracted to have the final
examination count any weighting between 10 and 90% toward The program was set up in 1982 46,49 and has operated similarly to
their final mark. The default contract was that the student received the original plan since then. Class size has ranged from 20 to 60
the best of a 60 to 40 split (exam and team work).42,43 Chemical Engineering students. We dovetailed the problem solv-
ing/interpersonal skills/self-directed learning components into four
E. Student Transference of the Skill required courses: a sophomore, two junior and one senior course,
A major concern was to develop the process skills such that stu- what we now refer to as the MPS program. The introduction of the
dents could use the MPS materials in any context. For example, stu- four required courses with explicit problem solving skill develop-
dents who experienced a separate course on “processing skills” using ment was part of an overall curriculum revision. In this revision, we
context-independent materials usually could not apply the skills in removed duplication of topics among courses, introduced design
other contexts.44-47 Teaching a separate, stand-alone course does not across the curriculum, integrated computer skill development and
develop transferability of the skill. On the other hand, developing communication skills throughout the program, presented an inte-
the skills when students are learning the new subject knowledge is chal- grated laboratory experience, and tried to have all of the core sub-
lenging. Students self-reported that the processing skills are so com- jects (including process control and reaction kinetics/reactor de-

80 Journal of Engineering Education April 1997

 Table 2. Example learning objectives for one MPS unit.

Table 3. Example assessment activities for an MPS unit.

April 1997 Journal of Engineering Education 81

sign) completed by the end of the junior year. This required that in (ChE 2C2). In this way, students bridged to apply the problem
all of the Chemical Engineering courses in the sophomore and ju- solving skill to their homework problems in other contexts. (Origi-
nior years we focus on the fundamentals and leave all of the inter- nally, we asked students to solve the computer programming
esting enrichments to later specialty courses. All in all, the contact homework assignments.46 However, students did not find these
hours and the student load remained the same. Achieving this re- homework problems difficult. Instead, they found the homework
quired a combined effort among students and faculty, a willingness in the mass and energy balance course (ChE 2D4) to be challeng-
for faculty to allow their favorite courses to become electives and an ing. Therefore, we changed the focus of the bridging activity to the
acceptance that we provide the core fundamentals plus skill in life- mass and energy balance course.) Students reflected on the applica-
time learning. We realized that we could not provide all the elec- tion of the skills in other courses and in their everyday life to extend
tives and specialty options graduates would need throughout their the skill application. They documented evidence of this bridging
career. We accepted the analogy “Instead of giving the students and extension in their weekly journal.
more fish, we needed to teach them how to fish.” Details of curricu- The second, required course, ChE. 3E4, introduced no new
lum revision are available.49 Concerning the introduction of the problem solving skills. Students used the problem solving skill set to
MPS program, in particular, all faculty accepted the need for the create mathematical models for different Chemical Engineering
four required courses together with integration of the concepts situations.50 Therefore, students bridged and extended the problem
throughout the program. About 30% of the faculty spearheaded the solving skill directly in Chemical Engineering. Thus, the skills that
development. Here are more details of the four required courses. students had developed previously were reinforced and bridging oc-
The emphasis in the first, required course, ChE. 2G2, was on curred continually within the course.
developing students’ skill in solving ordinary homework problems. The third, required “project” course, ChE. 3G3, was team-
We selected the homework problems in concurrent, required taught. One faculty member focused on mathematical modelling of
courses in Chemical Engineering. In this course the focus was on a local chemical plant. The other faculty member focused on devel-
self-awareness and problem solving with the MPS units given in oping the student’s interpersonal and problem solving skills. The
Table 1. The students developed and then used the skill to solve students worked in teams and usually interacted with the plant op-
homework problems in two independent, separate Chemical Engi- erators. Table 1 lists these skills: group skills, broadening perspec-
neering corequisite courses: the four-credit Mass and Energy bal- tives, how to ask questions, and small group, problem-based learn-
ance course (ChE 2D4) and the two-credit communication course ing. The students developed new skills and then applied (or

Table 4. Example topics selected by the students for self-enrichment.

82 Journal of Engineering Education April 1997

bridged) these to the team project within the context of the same and extend to subject-specific courses and to everyday activities.
course. Students reflected on the application of the skills in other We used the threefold pattern of subject-independent “exercises,”
courses and in their everyday life to extend the skill application. subject-specific “exercises,” and subject-specific “problems” in the
They documented evidence of this bridging and extension in their workshops.
weekly journal. Once the students have strong skills in problem solving and in-
The fourth, required course, ChE 4N4, focused on new skills in terpersonal skills, small group, self-directed, problem-based learn-
problem solving and team skills and on subject-discipline knowl- ing could be used to develop skill in learning how to learn. That is,
edge in engineering economics, ethics and chemical process plant instead of lecturing on engineering economics, groups of five stu-
design and analysis. Table 1 summarizes the context and the con- dents are given a series of five problems. For each, they identified
tent. The new skills were defining open-ended problems, trouble what they knew already and what the vital issues were and what
shooting, chairperson skills, optimum sloppiness, tacit subject they needed to learn. Then, they allocated their team resources so
knowledge, and developing subject knowledge structure. We devel- that each student contracted with the group to learn a given topic
oped the problem solving, interpersonal skills and the subject and return to the group and teach others. The group then synthe-
knowledge concurrently. Bridging and extending occurred contin- sized all the knowledge and used it to solve the problem.51-55 The ac-
ually. Students reflected on the application of the skills in other tivities were modeled after Knowles,55 Tough,56 and McMaster
courses and in their everyday life to extend the skill application. Medical School.57-59* Initially, this activity occurred only in the se-
They documented evidence of this bridging and extension in their nior level course ChE. 4N4. At the students’ insistence, we moved
weekly journal. this earlier in the program to be part of the junior level course.
Through these four courses, we explicitly developed 30 to 40
skills through about 120 workshop contact hours. Bridging in the * We thank the reviewers for bringing to our attention the 25 year old problem-
subject discipline of Chemical Engineering was done continually based learning program implemented at Aalborg University. 2,60,61 Whereas in our
through the four different patterns given in Table 5 of build, bridge MPS program, the PBL activity is limited, in their program PBL is used extensively.

Table 5. Developing the transference of the skill.

April 1997 Journal of Engineering Education 83

 Some key components in our success in implementing the pro- A. Marks Improvement in Other Courses
gram were: In our program, Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry
• the team effort among Woods, Crowe, Hoffman, and students take a required, 4-credit course (ChE 2F4) in the second
Wright during the research phase with projects 2 and 3; semester of the second level. We set up the new curriculum in the
• the impact of the intervention with the Ph.D. candidates, in fall of 1982. Chemical Engineering students were required to take a
project 4, where all faculty could see the effectiveness of a 45 course in problem solving (ChE 2G2) concurrently with ChE 2F4.
hour block of skill development; The Applied Chemistry students did not take ChE 2G2 and there-
• the team teaching of some of the courses, with one teacher fore served as the control group. Therefore, we had data for both
focusing on developing the problem solving skills and the groups before 1982 (before the treatment) and pooled data for
other on bridging to computer programming, mass and 1982-83 and 1983-84 when the chemical engineering students re-
energy balances, modelling and applied mathematics, and ceived the problem solving courses and the control group did not.
computer modelling; For both groups we measured the difference between the marks in
• the clarification sessions that we ran for all faculty to help ChE 2F4 after 1982 and before 1982. The null hypothesis was that
them understand the skills being developed and the tasks the difference in Chemical Engineers’ marks before and after 1982
they can therefore ask students in any class to do that would would be the same as the difference in Applied Chemists’ marks
reinforce the skill application; before and after 1982. In other words, the problem solving course
• the very positive response from alumni and recruiters, and would have no significant effect on the students’ marks in ChE
the host of foreign visitors who have come to observe our 2F4. A t-test (t = 1.56, p<0.059) suggests that, although not con-
classes; clusive, an improvement in marks in ChE 2F4 occurred because the
• our inclusion of extensive self-assessment and reflective jour- students took the concurrent course in problem solving. We subse-
nal writing. quently moved the problem solving course to the first semester and
• treating the development of these “soft skills” with the same ChE 2D4 replaced ChE 2F4 as the corequisite course.
academic rigor that we use in the learning of any knowledge:
objectives, assessment, standards of performance, and ac- B. Learning Environment
countability. The students’ assessment of the learning environment was mea-
• using instructors in these courses whose personality matches sured by the Course Perceptions Questionnaire.63,64 The students’
this style of course. perceptions of the learning environment within our department
An early challenge was to find teachers to facilitate the problem (the sum of the quality of teaching, openness to students, freedom
solving sessions. Running these sessions requires shifting a teacher’s in learning, clarity of goals, standards and assessment, vocational
attitude from being the lecturer and focal-point of the classroom, to relevance, social climate with negative loadings for workload and
being the facilitator/coach working on the sideline to help the stu- degree of formal teaching methods) was 29.68 compared with a
dents develop the skill and to ensure that performance standards are control group (another engineering department in our faculty) with
high. The focal point of the classroom is the student. Indeed, in the a rating of 16.2. This is statistically significant (t = 5.3, p<0.0005);
1980s when any faculty remained uncomfortable with this unfamil- the d= +2.3.* Why is a high rating important? Ramsden65,66 used the
iar role of being a facilitator, we hired alumni from the program to workload, freedom and quality of teaching elements to define “stu-
serve as instructors for these courses to cover for research leaves. dent-centered” characteristics of departments. In student-centered
departments, Ramsden found that students were more likely to de-
velop a “deep” approach to learning than a “surface or rote memo-
V. PROGRAM EVALUATION rization” approach (p<0.01). Students rated the MPS program in
our Department more student-centered than in the control depart-
For the total program, we report on seven different evaluations: ment (t = 2.54, p<0.01).
1) marks improvement in other courses, 2) student acceptance of
the learning environment, 3) their confidence in their problem C. Confidence with Problem Solving Skills
solving skills, 4) their skill in problem solving 5) their attitude to- Heppner’s PSI inventory 67,68 is a Likert-type inventory that rates
ward lifetime learning, 6) development of self-assessment skill, 7) student’s:
alumni, recruiter and employer response, and 8) student and faculty • Problem Solving Confidence: a sense of confidence in one’s
acceptance. We use t-tests and the “d” statistic to report the data ability to solve problems: A low value means very confident;
(where “d” is defined as the arithmetic average of the performance a large value, not confident.
of the treated group minus the arithmetic average of the perfor- • Avoidance: a willingness to engage in trying to solve difficult
mance of the control group divided by the standard deviation of the problems. A small number means very willing; a large num-
performance of the control group). The “d” statistic is used so that ber, unwilling.
the current work can be put in the context of previous studies on • Control: this is similar to the Rotter Locus of control and is a
developing problem solving and thinking skills. In particular, Her- measure of one’s feeling of being in control of a situation
rnstein et al.,62 in a major study evaluating the effectiveness of the (represented by small numbers) and one’s inability to control
Odyssey/Project Intelligence program to develop problem solving, a situation (represented by large numbers).
used the “d” statistic In their comprehensive study they found “d”
values in the range 0.10 to 0.72.
* Response of the target group less the response of the control group divided by
the standard deviation of the responses of the control group. (29.68 - 16.2)/12.1

84 Journal of Engineering Education April 1997

 The total of these three gives to PSI whose numerical value adult males (t=0.755; p>0.20). For students in college in the United
ranges from a low of 32 to a high of 192. Norm data for the United States, Heppner’s data show a statistically significant increase in
States, published by Heppner,68 are given in Table 6 for sopho- confidence between their sophomore and senior years (t=1.85;
mores, seniors, adults and adults identified as being “good” problem p<0.05). Our data for Canadian university engineering students
solvers. Considering just Heppner’s norm data, there is no signifi- (without the MPS training) show that a) students have less confi-
cant difference between the confidence shown by seniors and by dence than their American counterparts (91.3 versus 87.9) and b)

Table 6. Program effectiveness as measured by the Heppner PSI.

April 1997 Journal of Engineering Education 85

 Table 7. Data for the problem avoidance and problem solving elements of the Billings Moos inventory.

students show no significant increase in confidence between their E. Attitude and skills toward lifetime learning:
sophomore and senior years (t=0.26; p<0.4). However, those stu- In our view, a successful lifetime learner assumes responsibility
dents in the MPS program, although they have the same scores in (and accountability) for the tasks of deciding what to learn, for cre-
the sophomore year as do the control group, have significantly im- ating learning objectives and criteria, for selecting the resources
proved scores in the senior year. When we follow the same series of needed, for learning the skill or knowledge and for assessing when
cohorts of students starting in 1988, the values are (d = 1.54; t= 5.0; the learning goals have been achieved. Lifetime learners realize that
p<0.0005), (d = 0.98; t=3.53; p<0.001), and (d =1.66; t=2.77; people are probably the best resource for information. Their atti-
p<0.01). Instead of following specific cohorts of students through tude shifts from being dependent, through independent to interde-
the program, we also pooled all the sophomore and senior Chemi- pendent learners. They perceive information that is difficult to learn
cal Engineering data. These are given in Table 6. The results are as being a challenge to be overcome; as opposed to being something
that the MPS program made a significant improvement in the stu- to be avoided in the hopes that it will “not be on the examination.”
dent’s confidence (d = 1.13; t=13.18; p<0.0005) whereas the control Perry’s inventory 71, 51, Chapter 1 offers insight about the students’ atti-
students (who received no treatment) had negligible improvement tude toward assessment, and about the roles of students and teach-
in confidence. ers in the learning process. Level 2, in Perry’s model, corresponds to
a viewpoint that assessment equates bad person to bad grades; the
D. Skill in Processing skills student’s role is to receive information from a teacher whose role is
The Billings-Moos Coping Responses Inventory 69 tests prob- to know and present the truth. At Level 5 students see assessment
lem solving skills in the specific context of solving a personal, major as a way for growth and seek both positive and negative feedback;
problem. In this Billings-Moos test students identify the degree to the student’s role is to select the best ideas and identify the pertinent
which different tactics were used when they solved a major problem issues in fuzzy situations. The teacher is a resource. In our view, val-
in the past year. Billings and Moos reported that problem avoid- ues of 4 to 5 would be needed for effective lifetime learning. Allen72
ance and problem solving were the significant factors affecting one’s reported that college freshmen have mean scores of 2.3 to 3.1. Fitch
ability to manage. For avoidance, a small value was wanted; for and Culver73 report data for seniors in the range 2.8 to 3.1. For stu-
problem solving, a large value. Roberts et al.70 provide norm data for dents in the MPS program the Perry inventory changed from an
Canadian adults given in Table 7. Students in the MPS program average of about 3.5 in third year to an average of about 4.6 in the
showed, between their sophomore and senior year, a negligible de- final year as measured by either the Gainen or Moore-Fitch inven-
crease in avoidance (t = 1.1; p<0.15) and a significant increase in tories. 51, Chapter 1
problem solving (t = 2.85; p<0.0025). When the seniors were com- We also developed peer and self-tests, called the Quality of
pared with the adult population, improvements in both avoidance Learning Index (QLI). The QLI assesses the degree to which stu-
(t= 3.21; p<0.0005) and problem solving (t = 3.21; p<0.0005) were dents function effectively in small-group, self-directed, interdepen-
observed. dent, self-assessed problem-based learning.74 In the QLI, each stu-
How might one examine the students’ skill in solving chemical dent assesses (and provides evidence to substantiate that
engineering problems? We devised examinations that allowed stu- assessment) the learning preferences of peers in their cohort PBL
dents to display the process used to solve chemical engineering prob- groups. We found the inter-reliability of the test to be high.74 That
lems. For the sophomore, junior, and senior years, we administered is, within each PBL group the self and peer assessments agreed.
two or three-hour written examinations, TEPS, assessing their The results for students in the MPS program were that, after six
processing skills. Example assessment tasks, taken from TEPS, are weeks of PBL activity, over 70% of the PBL groups have more that
given in Table 3. Class average marks were 60% to 87% over the half the members demonstrating skill and attitude consistent with
past 10 years. our definition of lifetime learners. That is, over 70% of the groups

86 Journal of Engineering Education April 1997

had QLI>50. Having lifetime learning skill and attitude is impor- mentals to solve difficult, open-ended problems. This type of work
tant because a) such skill is a valued outcome of the MPS program takes much more than a knowledge of “type” problems (where the
and b) the quality of the student learning in groups with high QLI problem is essentially solved by combining past-solved exercises).
is significantly better. For example, in the MPS program, PBL One of the most important points addressed is that of the transfer
groups are created such that each group had approximately the of skills from one problem-solving environment to another. I be-
same grade point average. After six weeks of PBL activity, we mea- lieve the activity that helped me the most was bridging the problem
sured the QLI for each PBL group. An effective group has a QLI solving skills (which I developed during the workshops) to the dif-
of 100 where all five members work and demonstrate lifetime ferent worlds of technical and everyday life. I think it was writing
learning skills. Ineffective groups might be those where only two of the reflective reports that underlined this. The report made me
the five members work as interdependent self-directed learners focus on applying the learned skills.” Many of our alumni now run
(QLI of 40). Our research showed that effective groups scored 10 workshops based on the MPS materials in industry. Recruiters
marks higher on subject knowledge examinations than did ineffec- wished to remain anonymous. However, here are the reactions we
tive groups.74 have received:
We used TEPS, described above, to assess the student’s skill in • employer X used to recruit on 15 campuses across Canada,
the different elements of lifetime learning. then on 5 and now on 3. McMaster is one of the three.
• employer Y hired a series of our graduates, each of whom he
F. Self Assessment Skill Development said could “think for themselves and solve problems upon
When students are skilled in self-assessment their self-marks graduation.” He also hired from two other ChE schools in
should “agree” with the benchmarks from an independent, objec- Canada, and noted that they had to spend “1 to 1 1/2 years”
tive observer. Skill in self-assessment is a valued outcome of the training the new hires before they could “think for them-
MPS program. Furthermore, we wish to empower students with selves.”
much of the assessment process in our chemical engineering pro- • employer Z requested that another university should set up
gram because we feel that this improves their learning.75, 76 Stefani77 identified parts of our MPS problem solving program before
reports that 76% of student’s self-assessment marks are within they would recruit from their campus;
± 10% of the benchmarks, 23% are underestimated with >-10% and • employers O, P, Q, R, S and T hired us or graduates of our
1% overestimated, with marks >10% above the benchmarks. In the program to give in-house MPS workshops on problem solv-
MPS program, we found that 98% of student’s self-assessment ing.
marks were within ± 10% of the benchmarks, with 2% as underesti- • employer M comments “graduates of the McMaster ChE
mates of performance. Hence, the outcomes from the MPS pro- program are able to clearly communicate ideas. I see vast and
gram are much better than those reported elsewhere.77 Our data can immediate differences between graduates of the McMaster
be expressed in other terms. About 78% of our student’s self-assess- program and other university science programs.”
ment marks are within ±5% of the benchmarks, with 9% underesti- The alumni, recruiter and employer responses are difficult to in-
mated and 13% overestimated relative to the benchmarks. We be- terpret because our program includes many elements. Yet, employ-
lieve these data demonstrate that our students have acquired skill in ers identify the problem solving and group process skill as clearly
self-assessment. identifiable attributes that they see our graduates possess. It is not
possible for us to confirm which components in our whole program
G. Alumni and Recruiter Response: created this shift, and the role of PBL.
We completed a blind survey of graduates one to five years from
the program (N=48). We asked them to identify “The courses that H. Student and Faculty Acceptance:
were the most important for their current professional progress.” Sophomore students initially have trouble understanding and
The results were that 58% of the alumni cited the processing skills accepting courses in “soft” skills. Once they are through the first
and PBL courses in our curriculum. The other courses cited were course, acceptance is high. Indeed, they will anecdotally report
“engineering fundamentals” (25%); project work (10%); and the re- about how the 2G2 helped them with their summer employment.
mainder identified individual courses, such as the environmental To allay their fears and gain early acceptance of the courses, we in-
course, or the statistics course. On the blind survey, here are typical vited alumni and recruiters to come to the first classes and give tes-
comments, “If you learn nothing else in Chemical Engineering, re- timonials. This has worked very well.
member everything you learn in 2G2, 3G3 and 4N4.” “The prob- Initially, some colleagues within the Department merely al-
lem solving that is developed from Day 1 in the Chemical Engi- lowed the MPS program to proceed. Now most have become active
neering program is one of the tools that puts the McMaster supporters, as they have gained a better understanding of the pro-
graduate above engineers from other schools.” “The processing gram and have seen the evidence of its effectiveness. Indeed, the
courses give me a bit of an edge.” evaluation of the program is vital to gain support from more and
Alumni and students have written articles78-82 and have written more faculty. Within the other branches of engineering, under-
directly to us about their undergraduate experience. “ I consider my standing and acceptance has been slow. However, within the last
experience as an undergraduate in the MPS program invaluable; I couple of years, several colleagues have tried selected MPS units.
simply could not do what I do without having developed critical The very positive in-course student response has encouraged these
problem solving skills. My career demands that I am constantly up- faculty to enlarge the offerings.
to-date on technology and that I always learn new ways to apply
fundamentals to the pharmaceutical industry. While much of the
base knowledge is technical, a large portion involves using funda-

April 1997 Journal of Engineering Education 87

 VI. PROGRAM EXTENSION Over the past 30 years, over 300 workshops have been given in
industry, in government, to public school, high school, college and
At McMaster University, elements of the MPS program have university educators in Canada, the United States, Sweden,
been adapted for use in the freshman course on “Engineering De- Venezuela, Mexico, Australia, and the People’s Republic of China.
sign” in Mechanical, Civil, and Materials Engineering. McMaster As external interest increased, we have added more topics to the
University offers a unique, five-year undergraduate degree that original.37 Table 1 gives a current list of the MPS workshops. Some
combines the core of the Bachelor of Commerce degree with an ac- authors have adapted or included MPS materials in their texts.84-88
credited engineering degree in any of ten engineering disciplines.83 Parts of the MPS program have been used in Civil Engineering,89
Students in this program could elect to take two, week-long inten- in Education and Nursing,90 and in Chemical Engineering.91-93
sive courses that use the MPS materials. These courses are held im- Consultants, organizations and industries have used or adapted the
mediately after spring final exams. They are similar to in-house in- MPS materials.
dustrial short-courses created to develop these problem solving and MPS Units have been implemented in High School programs
processing skills. The presenters and curriculum vary slightly from in Michigan and Ontario49 and in Grades 4 to 6 in public school.94
year to year. Both students and employees of companies attend. Roddey95 presented five MPS units to students in her former High
The first week-long course on the basics of problem solving, 4G1, School.
focuses on awareness, strategies, stress management, creativity, self Colleagues from the Netherlands, Mexico, the United States,
assessment, interpersonal skills, and group skills. Based on Heppn- and Venezuela have spent sabbatical leaves learning details about
er’s PSI, we obtain statistically significant improvements after 40 the MPS program. Recently we have about a dozen visitors per se-
hours of intense workshops (d = 2.05; t = 3.47; p<0.005). The sec- mester who come to observe our program and interview the stu-
ond, week-long course considers chairperson skills, conflict resolu- dents (see for example, Brink,95 Kramers-Pals,96 and Landbeck.97
tion, goal setting, roles and team building, managing change, net- With the interest in the use of small group, self-directed, prob-
working, and meeting the press. The response, especially from lem-based learning 56-59,99,100,51 educators are realizing that the explicit
participating employees, has been extremely positive. “As an out- development in the process skills (such as problem solving, self as-
side engineer I found the course very worthwhile and wished I had sessment, managing change, group skills, and self-directed learn-
the chance to take a course like 4G1 as an undergraduate.... Having ing) are needed by both the tutor and the students. The MPS ma-
the technical knowledge without having the tools to apply it is not terials40,42,51,54 are being used by many, especially in Pharmacy,
good enough.” He goes on to describe the internal courses he pre- Medicine, Nursing, Forestry, Veterinary Medicine, Education, and
sented within the company based on the MPS materials. Occupational Therapy.
Another development at McMaster University has been the
Theme School. This is a program for interdisciplinary learning that
students from all disciplines may elect to take as a minor. Based on VII. IDEAS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
the research expertise at McMaster, one of the theme schools is on
“New materials and their impact on society.” This school has five, Some suggestions include:
3-credit courses, three 2-credit seminar courses and two 6-credit • Start with your own course and start simply. Many procrasti-
research internships. Enrollment is by application and is limited. nate until “the Department decides to take action.” Imple-
About 35 students were admitted in both the first and second years. ment some of the MPS program in your course. Your stu-
Students are from English, biology, physical education, nursing dents will become your strongest allies.
chemistry, mathematics, and engineering. The 3-credit courses use • Don’t reinvent the wheel. Use the MPS materials and the
the small group, self-directed problem-based format. The first teacher’s guides as a basis. Adapt the materials for your envi-
course is at the sophomore level. In each 13-week course the tutor- ronment.
less student groups handle two to three cases or problems. Concur- • Consider the development of the process skills to be valued
rently they are taking five to seven required courses in their major outcomes of your program.
area. Except for the nursing program, all the other courses the stu- • Include explicit activities to build, bridge and extend the skill.
dents take are presented in the conventional lecture format. The • Use a workshop style of presentation.
students had received no formal training in the processing skills be- • Use journal writing and reflection.
fore they enrolled in the theme school. Our approach has been to • Gather evidence to show that you are making a difference.
develop these problem solving and processing skills concurrently via • Don’t expect instant miracles. Usually your student evalua-
five explicit, 1½ h workshops based on the MPS materials. These tions will decrease the first time you try anything new. Help
workshops (on understanding PBL and its expectations, managing the students adjust to the new experiences. Use the grieving
change, problem solving, group skills, and self-directed-interde- process to help them learn how to cope with change and to
pendent small group learning) are given during the second semester help them adjust.
of the sophomore year. The student evaluations of the program
have identified the importance of these explicit workshops and have
recommended that these be given before the students encounter VII. SUMMARY
their first case problem. Currently, this program does not explicitly
include the development of processing skills as valued outcomes, Problem solving we define as the processes used to obtain a best
nor are these skills formally assessed. We believe that the program answer to an unknown, or a decision subject to some constraints. In
would be strengthened if it did. The students are not required to do the late 1960s our graduates were not skilled in problem solving de-
extensive journal writing and they should. spite our best efforts to develop that skill. From four research pro-

88 Journal of Engineering Education April 1997

jects we found that students could comprehend the subject knowl- 2. Hansen, P.H.K., “PBL in an Engineering Curricula at Aalborg Uni-
edge and yet be unable to solve problems. We listed twelve character- versity,” [Link] August
istics of general problem solving skills. These skills are general in that 1996.
they are independent of subject knowledge and when combined with 3. Schinkel, R., et al.., Graduate Engineers: Success in Industry, Chemech
knowledge in a subject domain can be used to solve problems. Faculty Research Group Project Report for MettNet Inc., McMaster University,
demonstrations of problem solving did not transfer the skill to the Hamilton, ON., 1996, 98 pp.
students, nor did asking students to solve many homework problems, 4. Boud, D., and J. Lublin, Self-Assessment in Professional Education: A
nor did using open-ended problems. Workshops on explicit problem Report to the Commonwealth Education Research and Development Commit-
solving skills improved the students’ confidence and skill. tee, Tertiary Education Research Centre, The University of New South
Based on these research findings and drawing on programs de- Wales, Kensington, NSW, Australia, 1983.
signed to develop problem solving skills, we created 120 hours of 5. Bradford School of Technical Management, Managerial Skills and
workshops to develop 37 skills (in self-management, problem solv- Expertise Used by Samples of Engineers in Britain, Australia, Western Canada,
ing, interpersonal and group skills, self-assessment, change manage- Japan, the Netherlands and Norway, University of Bradford, Technical Re-
ment, and lifetime learning). These addressed both the attitude and port TMR 152, 1984.
cognitive dimensions. The workshops were presented in four re- 6. Rush, J.C., J.A. Krmpotic and F.T. Evers, “Making the Match,”
quired courses: one in the sophomore, two in the junior year, and one Corporate Higher-education Forum, Montreal plus Phase II Reports,
in the senior year. Our emphasis was on developing the skill through 1985.
in-class “building” activities, then in-class and outside-class “bridg- 7. Sparkes, J.J., “Quality in Engineering Education,” Engineering Pro-
ing” the application of the skill to Chemical Engineering, and finally fessor’s Conference, Occasional paper #1, Department of Mechanical En-
through “extending” the application to everyday life as documented gineering, University of Surrey, Guilford, Surrey, 1989.
through reflective journal writing. 8. Resnick, L., Education and Learning to Think, National Academy
The McMaster Problem Solving, MPS, program was imple- Press, Washington , DC., 1987.
mented in 1982. Control studies showed that marks in a Chemical 9. Woods, D.R. and C.M. Crowe, “Characteristics of Engineering
Engineering course increased significantly for those students who Students in Their First Two Years,” Engineering Education, Feb., 1984, pp.
concurrently took the MPS program compared with students who 280-295.
did not take the MPS program. Students rated the Departmental 10. Woods, D.R., J.D. Wright, T.W. Hoffman, R.K. Swartman and
learning environment more positively than students in other disci- I.D. Doig, “Teaching Problem Solving Skills,” Annals of Engineering Edu-
plines in a conventional program. Students’ confidence in their prob- cation, vol. 1, no. 1, 1975, pp. 238-243.
lem solving ability improved by 1 to 2 standard deviations whereas 11. Woods, D.R. et al., “Major Challenges to Teaching Problem Solv-
students in a control group changed negligibly over the same three ing,” Annals of Engineering Education, vol. 70, no. 3, 1979, pp. 277-284 and
year period. Our evaluations on most measures showed statistically “56 Challenges to Teaching Problem Solving” CHEM 13 News, no. 155,
significant improvements in performance and attitude when com- 1985.
pared with control or comparable benchmark performances. Stu- 12. Woods, D.R., “Problem Solving,” in What Research Says to the Sci-
dents scored well on tests and examinations of processing skills, ence— Solving, vol. 5, D. Gabel, ed., National Science Teachers’ Associa-
TEPS, designed to assess problem solving skills. The students’ atti- tion, Washington, DC., 1988.
tude toward learning improved. Alumni response has been enthusi- 13. Bloom, B.S. and Broder, L.J., Problem-Solving Processes of College
astic. Recruiters have seen a positive difference in our MPS gradu- Students: An Exploratory Investigation, Supplementary Educational Mono-
ates; some recruit primarily from our graduates. Student and faculty graphs no. 73, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL., 1950.
response has been positive. 14. Bransford, J., R. Sherwood, N. Vye and J. Rieser, “Teaching
The MPS program materials are being used in many different Thinking and Problem Solving,” American Psychologist, vol. 41, 1986, pp.
contexts, levels, and disciplines. Suggestions are given for imple- 1078-1089.
menting the MPS materials. 15. Chi, M. et al., Representation of Physics Knowledge by Experts and
Novices, Technical Report 2, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.,
March, 1980.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 16. Clement, J.J., Some Types of Knowledge used in Understanding
Physics, Physics Dept., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA., 1971,
Financial support was given by McMaster University and by Clement, J.J. Lochhead, J., and E. Soloway, Translating Between Symbol
Ontario Universities Program for Instructional Development. Our Systems: Isolating a Common Difficulty in Solving Algebra Word Problems,
colleagues who helped develop the program include I. Doig, Uni- University of Massachusetts, 1979; Clement, J.J. Solving Algebra Word
versity of New South Wales; S. Cotnam, Dofasco; L. Eubank, Problems: Analysis of a Clinical Interview, University of Massachusetts,
Procter & Gamble; R. Moore, Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd.; Amherst, 1979.
and Heather Wright and Tracy Clarke-Pringle, McMaster Uni- 17. deBono, E., Teaching Thinking, Pelican Books, 1976.
versity. We thank the four reviewers for their suggestions. 18. Feurestein, R., Instrumental Enrichment, University Park Press, Bal-
timore, MD., 1979.
19. Finegold, M., Reporting Classroom Research, vol. 13, no. 2, Mar-
REFERENCES April, 1984.
20. Flower, L., Problem Solving Strategies for Writing, second edition,
1. Anon, “Employability Skills Profile: What Are Employers Looking Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, San Diego, CA., 1985.
For?” The Conference Board of Canada, Ottawa, ON, 1993. 21. Harvey, Wayne, Success and Failure in Problem Solving, Ph.D. The-

April 1997 Journal of Engineering Education 89

sis, University of California, Berkeley, 1981. Chapter 5, distributed on the WWW through [Link]
22. Heppner, P.P. et al., “Personal Problem Solving: A Descriptive [Link]/problem based learning/.
Study of Individual Differences,” Journal of Counseling Psychology, vol. 29, 41. Sternberg, R.J., “Criteria for Intellectual Skills Training,” Educa-
1982, pp. 580-590. tional Researcher, Feb., 1983, pp. 6-12.
23. Larkin, J.H., Understanding Problem Representations and Skill in 42. Woods, D.R., Problem-Based Learning: Helping Your Students Gain
Physics, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Nov. 4, Internal report, the Most from PBL, Woods, Waterdown ON ISBN 0-9698725-1-8, 1996,
1980. Chapter 3, distributed on the WWW through [Link]
Larkin, J.H. et al., “Expert and Novice Performance in Solving Physics [Link]/problem based learning/.
Problems,” Science, vol. 208, June 1980, pp. 1335-1342. 43. Woods, D.R. et al., “Self Assessment in the Context of the Mc-
Larkin, J.H., “Cognition in Learning Physics,” American Journal of Master Problem Solving Program, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Physics, vol. 49, no. 6, 1981, pp. 534-541. Education, vol. 13, no. 2, 1988, pp. 107-127.
24. Lin, H., Problem Solving in Introductory Physics: Demons and Diffi- 44. Black, P.J., J.A.R. Griffith and W.B. Powell, “Skills Sessions,”
culties, Ph.D. Thesis, Dept of Physics, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1979. Physics Education, vol. 9, 1974, pp. 18-22.
25. Meichenbaum D., D. Henshaw, and N. Himel, “Coping with 45. Perkins, D.N. and G. Salomon, “Are Cognitive Skills Context-
Stress as a Problem Solving Process,” in Achievement, Stress and Anxiety, W. bound?” Educational Researcher, Jan-Feb, 1989, pp. 16-25.
Krohne and L. Laux, eds, Hemisphere Publishing Co., Washington, DC, 46. Woods, D.R., C.M. Crowe, P.A. Taylor and P.E. Wood, “The
1982. MPS Program for Explicitly Developing Problem Solving Skill,” Proceed-
26. Meiring, S.P., Problem Solving..A Basic Mathematics Goal, Parts 1 ings, 1984 ASEE Annual Conference, ASEE, 1984, pp. 1021-1035.
and 2, GLC Publishers, Agincourt, 1980. 47. Sparkes, R.E., personal communication, Chemical Engineering
27. Mettes, C.T.C.W. et al., “Teaching and Learning Problem Solving Department, Washington University, St. Louis, MO., 1975, about his
in Science,” Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 57, no. 12, 1980, pp. 882- course “Inventive Reasoning,” in The New Teachers, D.M. Flournoy, ed.,
885 and vol. 58, no. 1, 1981, pp. 51-55. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA., 1972.
28. Prendergast, W.F., Physics Problem Solving: Student Performance 48. Woods, D.R., “How Might I Teach Problem Solving?” Chapter in
Analysis on Mechanics Problems Requiring Diagrammatic Visualization, M. Developing Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving Abilities, J.E. Stice, ed.,
App. Sc. Thesis, Western Australian Institute of Technology, Perth, 1984. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA., 1987.
29. Reif, Fred, “Understanding and Teaching Problem Solving in 49. Woods, D.R., “Ideas about Curriculum,” Chemical Engineering Ed-
Physics,” Research in Physics Education, Editions du Centre National de la ucation, vol. 26, no. 1, 1992, pp. 34-37.
Recherche Scientifique, Paris, 1983. 50. Crowe, C.M., Formulation and Numerical Solution of Chemical
30. Reif, John, Workshop on Improving Writing Skills in Humanities, Process Models: A Problem Solving Approach, Chemical Engineering Depart-
York University, June Downsview, ON., 1987. ment, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, 1994.
31. Schoenfeld, A.H. and D.J. Herrmann, “Problem Perception and 51. Woods, D.R., Problem-Based Learning: How to Gain the Most from
Knowledge Structure in Expert and Novice Mathematical Problem PBL, D.R. Woods, Waterdown, ON., 1994 [distributed by McMaster
Solvers,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cogni- University Bookstore, Hamilton, ON, Canada.]
tion, vol. 8, no. 5, 1982, pp. 484-494. 52. Woods, D.R., “Issues in Implementation in an Otherwise Conven-
32. Smith, M.U. and R. Good, “A Proposed Developmental Sequence tional Program,” Chapter 12 in The Challenges of Problem-Based Learning,
for Problem Solving Ability in Classical Genetics: the Trial-and-Error to D. Boud and G. Feletti, ed., Kogan Page, London, 1991, pp. 122-129.
Deductive Logic Continuum,” NSTA Conference Paper April, Cincin- 53. Woods, D.R., “Implementing PBL in a Large Class and as Part of
nati, OH., 1985. a Conventional Program,” in New Directions in Teaching and Learning, L.
33. van der Meer, A. and A. Knol, A Mathematics Laboratory for First Wilkerson and W. Gijselaers, eds., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA., 1996.
Year Students in Chemical Engineering, Internal report, Twente T.H., En- 54. Woods, D.R., The MPS Self-Directed Learning Program, Depart-
schede, the Netherlands, 1979. ment of Chemical Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON.,
34. Voss, J., “Problem Solving and the Educational Process,” in Hand- 23 min videotape, 1993.
book of Psychology and Education, R. Glaser and A. Lesgold, eds., Erlbaum, 55. Knowles, M.S., Self-Directed Learning, Follett, Chicago, IL., 1975.
Hillsdale, NJ., 1986. 56. Tough, Allen, Ginny Griffin, Bill Barnard, and Don Brundage,
35. Whimbey, A. and J. Lochhead, Problem Solving and Comprehension, The Design of Self-Directed Learning, Department of Adult Education, On-
Franklin Institute Press, Philadelphia, PA., 1979. tario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) Toronto, ON., undated,
36. Woods, D.R., “Problem-Based Learning and Problem Solving,” in three videotapes plus a manual.
Problem-Based Learning in Education for the Professions, Higher Education 57. Barrows, H.S., and R.M. Tamblyn, Problem-Based Learning: An
Research and Development Society of Australasia, Sydney, 1985. Approach to Medical Education, Springer Publishing, New York, NY, 1980.
37. Caillot, M., “Problem Solving Research in Elementary Electricity 58. Neufeld, V.R., and H.S. Barrows, “The McMaster Philosophy: An
at LIRESPT,” Problem Solving Newsletter, vol. 5, no. 3, p. 2, 1983. Approach to Medical Education,” Journal of Medical Education, vol. 49, no.
38. Schon, D., Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New De- 11, 1974, pp. 1040-1050.
sign for Teaching and Learning in the Professions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 59. Spaulding, W.B., Revitalizing Medical Education: McMaster Med-
CA., 1987. ical School: The Early Years 1965-1974, B.C. Decker Inc, Hamilton, ON.,
39. Bloom, B.S. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Classification of 1991.
Educational Goals: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, McKay, New York, 60. Creese, R.C., “A Project-Centered Engineering Program,” Engi-
NY., 1956. neering. Education., Nov., 1987, pp. 100-105.
40. Woods, D.R., Problem-Based Learning: Resources to Gain the Most 61. Kjersdam, F., and S. Enemark, The Aalborg Experiment, Aalborg
from PBL, D.R. Woods, Waterdown, ON, 1996, ISBN 0-9698725-2-6, University Press, Aalborg, DK, 1994.

90 Journal of Engineering Education April 1997

 62. Herrnstein, R.J., R.S. Nickerson, M. deSanchez, and J.A. Swets, 81. Chornenko, D.M., et al., “What is Problem Solving?” Chemical En-
“Teaching Thinking Skills,” American Psychologist, vol. 41, no. 11, 1986 , gineering Education, vol. 13, no. 3, 1979, pp. 132-137.
pp. 1279-1289. 82. Bouchard, C.G. Kyle, “Developing Problem Solving and Team Skills,”
63. Knapper, C., Instructional Development Center, Queen’s University, Toronto Institute of Pharmaceutical Technology, Toronto, ON, 1996.
personal communication, 1294 about the short CPQ version used in the 83. Woods, D.R. and D.C. Loney, “McMaster University’s Five-year
paper D. Bertrand and C. Knapper, Contextual Influences on Student’s Ap- Undergraduate Engineering and Management Program,” Proceedings, the
proaches to Learning in Three Academic Departments, Queens University, Second International Conference on Engineering and Management, Toronto,
Kingston ON., 1993. ON., Sept., published by ICEM II, Willowdale, ON, 1989, pp. 130-131.
64. Ramsden, P., The Lancaster Approaches to Studying and Course Per- 84. Fogler, H.S. and S.L. LeBlanc, “Strategies for Creative Problem Solv-
ceptions Questionnaires: Lecturer’s Handbook, Educational Methods Unit, ing,” Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ., 1995.
Oxford Polytechnic, Oxford, OX3 0BP, 1983. 85. Fogler, H.S., “Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering,” Prentice
65. Ramsden, P., “How Academic Departments Influence Student Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ., 1986.
Leaning,” HERDSA News, vol. 4, 1982, pp. 3-5. 86. Wankat, P.C., “Equilibrium Staged Processes,” Elsevier, New York,
66. Ramsden, P., and N.J. Entwistle, “Effects of Academic Depart- NY., 1988.
ments on Students’ Approaches to Studying,” British Journal of Educational 87. Beckman, O., B. Kjollerstrom and T. Sundstrom, “Energilara,”
Psychology, vol. 51, 1981, pp. 368-383. Almquist & Wiksell, Stockholm, 1984, p. 336-344.
67. Heppner, P.P., and C.H. Petersen, “The Development and Impli- 88. Rugarcia Torres, A., et al., “El Desarrollo de Habilidades para La Res-
cations of a Personal Problem-Solving Inventory,” Journal of Counseling olucion de Problemas en la Ingenieria Quimica,” Reverte Ediciones, S.A. de
Psychology, vol. 29, no. 1, 1982, pp. 66-75. C.V., Mexico, DF, Mexico., 1993.
68. Heppner, P.P., The PSI Manual, 210 McAlester Hall, University of 89. Lewis, R.B., “Creative Teaching and Learning in a Statics Class,”
Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO., 65211, 1986; Available as the Engineering Education, vol. 81, no. 1, 1991, pp. 15-18.
Problem Solving Inventory, PSI, from CPP, PO Box 10096, Palo Alto 90. Todd, Shona, “Preparing Tertiary Teachers for Problem-Based
CA 94303-0979. Learning,” Chapter 13 in “The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning,” D.J.
69. Billings, A.G., and R.H. Moos, “The Role of Coping Responses Boud and G. Feletti, eds., Kogan Page, London, 1991, pp. 130-136.
and Social Resources in Attenuating the Stress of Life Events,” Journal of 91. Ko, E.I., and J.R. Hayes, “Teaching Awareness of Problem-Solv-
Behavioral Medicine, vol. 4, no. 2, 1981, pp. 139-157. Available as the ing Skills to Engineering Students,” Journal of Engineering Education, Oct.,
Coping Responses Inventory, CRI, from Psychological Assessment Re- 1994, pp. 331.
sources, PO Box 998, Odessa FL 33556. 92. Stice, J.E., “Teaching Problem-Solving Skills,” IEEE Newsletter,
70. Roberts, J., et al., Promoting Adjustment and Reducing Health Service May. 1982.
Utilization: The Effectiveness and Efficiency of Three Types of Specialty Clinic 93. Nirdosh, I., “An Experience in Problem-Based Learning,” The
Care for Chronically Ill Outpatients,” Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster Lakehead University Teacher, vol. 4, no. 4, 1996, pp. 2-3 and Canadian
University, Hamilton ON., 1994. Chemical News, vol. 48, no. 3, 1996, pp. 13-14.
71. Perry, W.G., Jr., Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Behavior in the Col- 94. Thomson, Anne, “Teaching Thinking in Grades 4 to 6,” PS News,
lege Years, Holt Reinhart and Winston, New York, NY., 1970. vol. 87, 1993, pp. 87-14 to -17.
72. Allen, R.D., “Intellectual Development and the Understanding of 95. Roddey, M., Implementing the MPS Units in High School, Personal
Science: Application of William Perry’s Theory to Science Teaching,” Enrichment Report, Chemical Engineering Department, McMaster Uni-
Journal of College Science Teaching, vol. 11, 1981, pp. 94-97. versity, Hamilton, ON., 1996.
73. Fitch, M.A., and R. S. Culver, “Educational Activities to Stimulate 96. Brink, R.W., “Educational Innovations in Canada and the United
Intellectual Development in Perry’s Scheme,” Proceedings, 1984 ASEE An- States,” Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Twente, En-
nual Conference, ASEE, 1984, pp. 712-717. schede, the Netherlands, 1989.
74. Woods, D.R., “Assessing Learning in Small Group Problem-Based 97. Kramers-Pals, Henny, “Chemists Have Solutions,” Faculteit
Learning,” Chemical Engineering Department, McMaster University, Chemische Technologie, Universiteit Twente, Enschede, the Nether-
Hamilton ON, submitted, 1996. lands, 1987.
75. Gibbs, G., “A-Z of Student Focused Learning Strategies,” Educational 98. Landbeck, R., “Teaching Problem Solving: Some Recent Develop-
Methods Unit, Oxford Polytechnic, Headington, UK, undated. ments,” Center for Advancement of Learning and Teaching, Griffith Uni-
76. Novak, J., “Helping Students Learn How to Learn: A View From versity, Nathan, Queensland 4111, Australia, 1985.
the Teacher-Researcher,” Third Congress of Research and Teaching in Science 99. Boud, D., “Problem-Based Learning in Education for the Professions,”
and Mathematics, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, Sept., 1989. Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Syd-
77. Stefani, L.A., “Comparison of Collaborative Self, Peer and Tutor ney, Australia, 1985.
Assessment in a Biochemistry Practical,” in Assessing Active Learning, Part 100. Boud, D., and G. Feletti, ed. “The Challenges of Problem-Based
II, G. Brown and M. Pendlebury, eds., CVCP Universities’ Staff Develop- Learning,” Kogan Page, London, 1991.
ment and Training Unit, University House, Sheffield, UK, 1992, pp. 58-
62.
78. Lieske, S., “Solving Problems in Industry,” in “Problem Solving,”
J.T. Sears et al., eds., AIChE Symposium Series vol. 79, No. 228, 1983.
79. Moore, R.F., “Developing Style in Solving Problems,” Engineering
Education, vol. 69, no. 7, 1979, pp. 713-717.
80. Liebold, B.G. et al., “Problem Solving: a freshman experience,” En-
gineering Education, vol. 67, no. 2, 1976, pp. 172-176.

April 1997 Journal of Engineering Education 91