Interesting question you raised. It is very important that students gain solid knowledge of basic courses as concepts thought in these courses are used later in following courses.I think that experienced professors can do a better job than newly employed ones.

Interesting question you raised. It is very important that students gain solid knowledge of basic courses as concepts thought in these courses are used later in following courses.I think that experienced professors can do a better job than newly employed ones.

Unquestionably senior professors having vast experience. Senior professors will be able to explain the concepts in a lucid manner, provide real life examples that will resonate with the concepts, and will rouse the enthusiasm of the student to remain committed to the discipline. For a freshmen student the first impression with the professor is more important to make more commitment to the program. Many universities meticulously follow this procedure. I love to teach freshmen class every semester.

I agree that senior faculty should teach freshen but I find that's usually not the case. In my experience, it's the young inexperienced lecturers who are given large first year classes to teach.

There seems to be an interesting divide between "what should be" and "what it really is." Personally, I agree that the teaching of core subjects should be assigned mainly to professors with great experience. But it would be interesting to explore the possibility of carrying out a part of the courses in ways other than the traditional lecture, for example through collaborative learning.

I don't think it's a matter of older or new faculty. I think it's a matter of who can be the most effective and motivating teacher. Students need to be engaged in the material and whom ever can do that should be teaching the freshman course!

Well, we must bear in mind that freshmen are new to the university life, for instance in the Mauritius Education system, college students who have completed their A level (HSC) cambridge, access to the university life at the age of 18. The change from secondary education to university education comes as a shock at many levels. Here, the lecturer comes as a guide and serves as the transition facilitator. Many students complain that professors and senior lecturers are too theoretical, use too much complex words ( a habit that is formed by writing many scholarly papers, and doing higher studies), too much in their highly 'academic' world. They rather appreciate younger lecturers who are more friendly and use the youngster's language. Of course, there are exceptions in both ways. So basically, whichever level the lecturer is, the main aspect here is using the youngster's language to guide him through this transition to bring him from the current level to the highest level. Any lecturer capable of putting himself in the shoes of these youngsters is suitable to teach at any level.

By ability, not hierarchy.

Dear All,

As today is Teacher's Day in my country! I want to share the following quote from Peter Drucker with you: "Teaching is the only major occupation of man for which we have not yet developed tools that make an average person capable of competence and performance. In teaching we rely on the 'naturals,' the ones who somehow know how to teach" It was sent to me by one of my past students.

Teaching andguiding 1st year students is essential, because students take basics courses and concepts. I believe that professional and experienced teaching staff should deliver lectures to students in these classes.

As I have read and enjoyed the responses to this question as an emeritus professor, it appears the majority believe that passion for the subject, the ability to evoke interest and speak to students about complex phenomena in the language of the students and within the scope of their experience. Age in this respect is not a relevant factor.

However, all the responses I have read assume that the what the teacher does is the primary source of students positive responses to a course and learning. I would like to argue that the teacher is central in the ways that the average person has responded to the question but so is the context that surrounds the teacher such as the quality of the course content organization, the selection of learning activities given to students throughout a course ( including how they will be tested), the opportunity for active student engagement using electronic tools inside class and outside through websites, etc. and the opportunity for students to be engaged in projects, investigations, or research across a time period of at least one month or more. The combination of teaching and context makes instruction. It is the quality of the instruction that I would argue makes the primary difference in the positive disposition students hold toward the discipline and what they learn in a course. My own research both past and ongoing research in university classrooms with freshman and sophomores supports the importance of distinguishing between the teachers actions and all that surrounds it including those actions.

There is also an implicit message that whoever does this freshman teaching should not drive students away from the discipline and that they will teach in large lecture halls.

We all know that many meta analyses of empirical research show that teaching ratings are correlated to class size and become more negative as the number exceeds 50. We all know that both constructivist learning theory and empirical tests of that theory show students learn concepts and relationships more readily if they can relate the information presented to prior experience and existing knowledge. And we all know that large classes are cash cows that the university administration thinks it needs. Moreover, it frees faculty to do other things that are needed in a rich university community. So there usually is a faculty member who is sufficiently organized, dynamic, entertaining and loves the role of being with young folks (at a distance) that the administration has a 50/50 chance of making money while keeping freshman motivated and majoring in the area in the sophomore year.So the same model persists.

The evidence for what and how well students learn in these freshman courses is however much thinner than it should be, how many students skip class rather than attend it, how many students might learn more or become more aligned with a discipline if they were in classes of 50 or less being taught 5 classes of 50 (rather than one class of 250) by a professor and a team of graduate students (one per class and one two hour mutual planning meeting each week) and how many more students might try to find a way to engage in identifying a question based on core concepts of the course that they can research and present at the end of the class or just learn more about what research entails and write about that from first hand experiences>

In short an entertaining professor who provides clear explanations and elaborates key relationships among concepts will get good student ratings and should increase voluntary class attendance but the lecture hall might as well be a TED talk of 20 minutes done 3 times a week. The up keep is a lot cheaper for the university. And like MIT the talks could be given to the world for free on the internet. But those who view what happens in classrooms as more than teaching will opt for high quality instruction as well. Then the two models should be compared on basis of what is learned , ranging from what could be learned to what we really need most students to learn to move with success to higher level courses where the knowledge obtained in the freshman year is in fact a basis for the planning and enactment of challenging courses.

M.W. Aulls