Interview with Prof. Andrzej Kraśniewski

Prof. Andrzej Kraśniewski from the Faculty of Electronics and Information Technology of the Warsaw University of Technology is a respected educator and expert who has worked for years to internationalise Polish universities. He develops degree programmes taught in English, introduces innovative teaching methods, and promotes Polish higher education worldwide, for which he has received numerous awards. We invite you to read the interview in which he discusses his academic path, experiences, vision of higher education, and student–teacher relations.

Academic path

– Let us go back to 1969. You have just completed your secondary school exams, full of ideas, and you begin your studies at the Warsaw University of Technology. With what expectations and ambitions did you enter the academic world at that time? Did you already have a clear vision of your future career path? What were your plans and dreams?

– To be honest, the choice of both the university and the field of study was somewhat accidental. I was not particularly driven by a desire to become an engineer. I was also interested in other fields, such as chemistry or geography, but once I decided to study at the Warsaw University of Technology, the choice of faculty and programme – I graduated in control engineering – was already deliberate and, from today’s perspective, very accurate. At that time, control engineering was essentially systems theory, which proved useful in many areas of professional activity. I met outstanding figures there, such as Prof. Władysław Findeisen, who was then the institute director, and Prof. Andrzej Wierzbicki, a very well-known figure – the creator of development forecasts for the country. I can say that I have used knowledge of systems theory in many areas. It may sound immodest, but I consider myself quite a versatile person, able to cooperate and work in very different fields, and systems theory has indeed been useful to me. I chose one field, and in those days studies were truly demanding, so studying two programmes – which is quite common today – was practically out of the question; they were very time-consuming studies.

– Looking at your entire academic life – what turned out to be your greatest passion, or perhaps even a surprise? What drew you most into academic work?

– I sometimes wonder whether I am actually a researcher. I think not entirely – the term ‘researcher’ suggests something slightly different to me. I can certainly speak about working in the academic environment, but I am not sure whether the word ‘researcher’ fully reflects what I do today. What attracts me in academic work is probably the diversity of topics and the contact with many different people, established on various occasions with individuals representing a wide spectrum of interests, including those outside academia. Incidentally, speaking of this diversity, I was probably fortunate to obtain my academic degrees before science became so tightly framed within strict disciplines. I am not sure I would meet today’s requirements within any single discipline. I work at the Institute of Telecommunications and Cybersecurity, but I studied control engineering, completed my PhD in telecommunications, my habilitation would probably be closest to electronics or computer science, and in the United States I worked with physicists on superconducting systems. I used this experience in educational activities. I consider myself one of the people who initiated the process that led to the creation of the Internet of Things Engineering programme – a field that combines electronics (sensors), control engineering (actuators), telecommunications networks, and computer science processing the collected data.

I was also active in the higher education sector and must say that I found great satisfaction in working on the Polish Qualifications Framework. We worked in a group consisting of a philosopher, a philologist, an economist, a mathematician, myself, and another engineer. It was truly enjoyable! We worked during the summer, meeting every few days. My involvement in the Conference of Rectors of Academic Schools in Poland (KRASP) also provided opportunities to interact with people with diverse interests. When rectors meet, people from many different universities share fascinating stories from fields such as art, medicine, and many others – it is a pleasure to listen.

The contemporary student – what does it mean today?

– You have a unique perspective spanning several decades. How much have students at the Warsaw University of Technology changed – from your time as a student to today? What has changed in their approach to learning, expectations towards the university, and studies themselves?

– This is, of course, a result of changes in the broader environment. In my time, hardly anyone worked professionally while studying. Students did earn extra money, but in a completely different way – for example, by tutoring. One of the more interesting and well-paid jobs was cleaning tram stops. Back then, after graduation, one could receive a job placement in a specific company. Today, the situation is entirely different. Most students work from the early years of study, usually in areas related to their field. At the second-cycle level, almost everyone works – that is simply how it is. Students’ knowledge of the world and languages is also completely different; it is rare for a student not to have some international experience. Not to mention the impact of digital technologies. Soon we will be dealing with students who were practically born with a smartphone in their hand. This is a huge change – we need to approach and teach them differently. In my time, studies were an end in themselves, I suppose. They were extremely demanding and time-consuming, leaving little room for anything else. Today, studies are just one element in a young person’s life. They are probably also less valued – in my time, fewer than 10% of young people pursued higher education.

– Over the years, you have worked closely with students. What gives you the greatest satisfaction in this relationship?

– The greatest satisfaction comes from the successes of former students. It is always a pleasure to see that. I also appreciate genuine expressions of recognition. When I received the Warsaw University of Technology Medal years ago, a whole group of students sent me congratulatory emails. I enjoy working with students and believe I am still doing something useful. Contrary to appearances, academic work is not stress-free, so teaching is often a relaxing part of my day.

Prof. Kraśniewski with students – presentation of students projects

– What have you learned from students? Are there any moments or experiences that have particularly stayed in your memory?

– I have learned from students the things they are better at than I am, for example various tricks in digital technologies and similar areas. I often talk with students, and I do not hesitate to say that there are things I do not know or cannot do, because there is no one who knows and can do everything. Perhaps it is not so much that I have learned, but rather that I have found out—students travel around the world, take part in Erasmus programmes, and sometimes bring back something interesting from their stays, sharing observations about what is happening at different universities. – From students as a community, I have learned one thing – that this environment is extremely diverse. Their opinions, needs, and expectations can differ so greatly that any attempt to define what a ‘student’ is, or to formulate a universal model of a student, is bound to fail. Students are extraordinarily diverse in every respect. In the student environment, I feel somewhat younger – it is not something I have learned, but rather something I have gained from contact with students. When I meet my former classmates from secondary school – I graduated from a high school in Milanówek – it is clear that working at a university is, I would say, something that ‘keeps you alive.’

Changes in thinking about the entire education system

– You are known and highly regarded as an expert who has had a real impact on the way teaching and education are perceived in Poland. Where did this interest in education as a system – rather than just the day-to-day delivery of classes – come from?

– To be honest, the proper answer is: I don’t know. A person suddenly becomes interested in something, right? Perhaps it stems from my experience in the United States – at a relatively young age I had the opportunity to spend two years at a good American university, so some inspiration certainly came from there. Perhaps also from a general inclination to do something useful, because I saw that it was possible, for example, to make the education process more flexible.

– What was the impulse that led you to become involved in higher education reforms, including work on implementing the Bologna system? What in the system at that time most needed to change? And now, with hindsight, is there anything you would do differently today? 

– There were several factors. Observing how systems function in other countries, especially in the United States. Also, at that time we began to observe a significant increase in the proportion of students taking up employment – a result of the economic transformation – who, because they started working, did not complete their studies. There were long-cycle master’s programmes; a student would take up a job in the third year, become absorbed in it, and never finish their studies. Another issue was concern, or uncertainty, about the quality of the master’s degree. When students are very diverse and some of them work, it is simply not possible to adjust requirements to the small group of the very best, because that would mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The Bologna Declaration was signed in 1999, while we introduced two-cycle studies at our faculty already in 1994. In a sense, we were pioneers. The personality of Prof. Jerzy Woźnicki, who was then the Dean and later the Rector, played a crucial role. He was simply determined and persistent enough that it succeeded. Later, he effectively authored the legislation that introduced the two-cycle system in Poland. It was not easy – convincing students to complete first-cycle studies without, in fact, a guaranteed path to a master’s degree. So, in a way, we created such a guarantee for them. Initially, it was a hybrid of two-cycle and long-cycle studies, and students with a sufficiently high grade average could effectively continue in a long-cycle mode. Interestingly, at one point many students could choose whether to study in a truly two-cycle system or to somewhat “simulate” it. It took ten years for the majority of students to choose two-cycle studies voluntarily. It was a process – after ten years, one could say that the pendulum had swung, and students themselves concluded that the two-cycle system was better for them. Could anything have been done better? I believe that what was done at the time was genuinely very solid, and the book we wrote in 1995 (Flexible Two-Cycle Study System, editor’s note) can still serve today as a basic handbook for those who want to implement a sensible study system. What we could perhaps have done better is what we commonly do today – namely, involve students in designing the education process, because they are its main stakeholders.

– The reforms you were involved in concerned the entire higher education system. In your opinion, is there a universal model of teaching that works equally well in technical, humanities, and social science fields?

– In a sense, yes. Education through problem-solving and project work, or properly understood research-based learning, is good both for engineering and for philology. However, such education must also be properly understood and organised. Many people think that research-based education consists of a researcher telling students about their research. In reality, it means that the student conducts the research. Not ‘science’  in the strict sense, but ‘research’ – in the sense of how “research” differs from “science.”

International Perspective

– You have worked in international teams and are familiar with different education systems. How do studies in Poland differ today from studying, for example, in Germany or the United States? Do the differences concern students, system structure, or teaching methods?

– It is difficult to speak of a single American system. Universities there are highly diverse and enjoy a high degree of autonomy. What is characteristic – and has a major impact – is that a typical American university is fully interdisciplinary. That means everything is present at one university: engineering, humanities, and so on. This is, contrary to appearances, extremely important, because in a pub or during lunch on campus, architects, musicians, engineers, sociologists, and many others sit at one table. It really is something special. I would say that we tend to remain somewhat confined within the boundaries of our own discipline.

In Germany, the system is more restrictive, and there is also federal (state-level) legislation – legal frameworks may differ from one state to another. I became familiar with this as a member of the Steering Committee in the European University Association’s Autonomy Scorecard project. From this, I also know that the Polish higher education system – in terms of the level of autonomy defined by law – is quite favourable to universities. Often, it is the universities themselves that limit their own flexibility, if I may put it that way. One thing is the law, and another is how it is applied. In Poland, certain decisions are made by universities themselves, for example the election of the Rector. In other countries, such as Norway, formally the minister appoints the Rector, but in practice it is impossible for this to happen without consultation with the academic community. Law and practice are sometimes two different things.

Whether studies are paid or free is of enormous importance. This has a huge impact on how students function. While teaching in the United States, at a university where tuition fees were high, I encountered first-year students in Electrical Engineering who did not know what Ohm’s law was. I discovered this by accident and became curious, so I asked how it was possible. It turned out that in their equivalent of secondary school they have a subject called science – if they chose physics, they know Ohm’s law; if they chose chemistry or biology, they do not. And these students, who began Electrical Engineering studies without knowing Ohm’s law, become very good engineers after four years. Why? Because they pay a lot for their studies and spend nights in laboratories to make sure that this investment pays off. This issue is fundamental in shaping attitudes towards studying. We tend to underestimate it somewhat, being accustomed to the European system where education is largely free.

– Are there also more ‘organisational’ differences?

– For example, when teaching a large course in the United States, I had as teaching assistants students who were one year older than those I taught – and they were truly excellent support. They helped in laboratories, easily established contact with their peers, and performed very well. I do not know why we do not use this more widely. Another difference compared to the American system is the approach to accreditation. When an accreditation team visited, they were not really interested in documentation. What interested them most was students’ work assessed by instructors, along with comments on that work – and, of course, the nature of the assignments, because only in this way can learning outcomes be evaluated. In other words, the focus is on what is assessed and how it is assessed. We are gradually moving in this direction. There is also a difference in the level of internationalisation – both in Germany and the United States there are many more international students and a much higher proportion of foreign staff. In Poland, however, there is much greater interest in technical studies than in those countries. This is, of course, a result of the labour market situation. After a period of fascination with marketing or business following the economic transformation, there has been a return to “hard” professions.

Studies in a Changing World

– Many lecturers say: ‘students today are different.’ Is this a real generational change, or rather a change in the world in which universities operate?

– It is a generational change resulting from what is happening externally. Students are different, but not worse, contrary to what people sometimes say. If that were the case, we would soon return to the Stone Age. In short, the technological revolution is advancing at an enormous pace. This would not be possible if increasingly weaker students were entering technical universities. Of course, they are different – they know the world, participate in Erasmus programmes, use tools efficiently, including artificial intelligence tools. They have higher expectations, particularly regarding the structure of classes. A traditional lecture, which is a one-way transfer of information, no longer makes sense to them. They express their expectations more clearly, are less shy, and more assertive. They expect flexibility and the possibility of choice. Authority and recognition must be earned.

– How do you see the role of an academic teacher in the era of artificial intelligence and widespread access to knowledge?

– The fundamental problem a teacher faces today – perhaps less in engineering than in other fields – is the proper verification of learning outcomes. We must avoid situations in which an AI tool used by the teacher evaluates the output generated by AI used by the student. This should significantly change the approach to education. Much more important is analysing and verifying the learning process itself – how the student arrives at a solution – rather than the final ‘product’ of their work. This raises questions about the traditional form of the thesis. In engineering, it is relatively easier to replace a “classic” thesis with a project; the humanities and social sciences face greater challenges. Oral examinations are one possibility – many people advocate returning to them. However, any restrictions on the use of artificial intelligence tools will not solve the problem. We need to teach students how to use AI wisely, not prohibit its use. We should also teach them how to document their use of AI tools. As for the role of the teacher, quality is becoming increasingly important, even at the expense of quantity. This is especially true in project-based education rather than one-way transmission during classes. I can easily imagine that weekly contact hours at a university might be around 15. In fact, this is already the norm in the United States. That does not mean students are not on campus for 12 hours a day – they work in laboratories or libraries.

Prof. Andrzej Kraśniewski receives the Stanisław Staszic Award, granted for outstanding teaching achievements and innovative contributions to the development of higher education

– If you were to design an ideal class – one that truly stays with students and satisfies you as a teacher – what would it look like? What is absolutely essential?

– In engineering, although not only there, I think these would be team-based projects with a visible, tangible outcome. Ideally, not just a piece of software, but something physical – a light blinking, for example. It would also be good if the project were grounded in real-world practice, not just an academic exercise created for a course, but something arising from an actual need. In the Internet of Things Engineering programme, for example, in the second semester lecturers invited foresters, and students worked on a real problem related to monitoring forest conditions. In addition, it would be good if the project were open-ended – meaning that there is no single correct solution, that several variants must be analysed, and that students are allowed to make mistakes. This is very important – the educational process must allow room for trial and error, for learning from one’s own mistakes. That is how I would imagine ideal classes. The Internet of Things Engineering programme is a very interesting example, probably unique in Poland. In every semester, starting from the first, there is a large team project worth 12 or slightly fewer ECTS credits, meaning that about 40% of the student’s effort is concentrated in a single project-based course. This is not how education is typically organised in Poland, so it is a major didactic experiment, but one that is close to the concept I have described.

– What one skill – regardless of the field of study – should universities develop today to prepare students for the future?

– Ten years ago, I would have had no doubt and would have said “the ability to learn.” Today, it is still important, but equally important has become – in the context of artificial intelligence – the ability to critically evaluate sources. We will increasingly rely on various sources in our work. The ability to select, evaluate credibility, and assess usefulness in this flood of information is becoming absolutely critical. This does not mean that learning itself is no longer important, but also that we must know how to choose the sources from which we learn.

– Looking ahead: in what direction is academic teaching evolving? What will studies, lectures, and student–teacher relations look like in 20 years?

– Talking about what universities will look like in 20 years is like reading tea leaves. I remember when MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) appeared in the early 2010s – people predicted the widespread collapse of traditional universities, which of course did not happen. Similarly, the emergence of Wikipedia did not radically change the world in the way some expected. So predicting 20 years ahead does not make much sense. However, certain trends are already visible. These include further individualisation supported by artificial intelligence tools, such as learning analytics; a more flexible model of lifelong learning with a reduced role of traditional degree programmes and an increasing role of alternative forms such as micro-credentials; and, hopefully, wider adoption of network ped learning. In this model, lecture-type materials are made available in advance online, and classroom time is used for dialogue, Q&A sessions, and explaining complex issues. Education may also become more structurally open – not confined within faculty boundaries, but organised at the level of the university or consortia of universities. Student–teacher relations will partly move into cyberspace – that is probably unavoidable. I will not speculate on the consequences of the widespread use of AI tools, but the changes we have discussed, particularly regarding the verification of learning outcomes, are inevitable.

– If you were to give one piece of advice to a young researcher or student starting their academic path today – what should they focus on most?

– This is general advice, also repeated by a colleague who, after completing his PhD at WUT, continued a successful career in business and whom I sometimes invite to first-semester classes: “Do what interests you.” If the studies you have chosen do not interest you – change them as soon as possible. This applies equally to studies and professional careers. In simple terms: do what interests you and brings you satisfaction; otherwise, you will become frustrated. The second piece of advice I would give is: ‘Build a network of contacts, including international ones – it's truly invaluable.’