Experience level of intro instructors

ruinexplorer

Sherpa
CB Mods
Premium Member
Fight Leukemia
Looking at colleges, how important do you feel the experience level of introductory class instructors? I remember back to when I had grad students teaching 100 and 200 level courses, but balked at upper division courses taught by grad students. https://www.chronicle.com/article/it-matters-a-lot-who-teaches/243125
This article posits studies that show that early courses taught by seasoned professors might benefit the student more (in STEM courses at least). I don't remember having many part time professors other than grad students when I was in college. I know that's changed because of offers that I have recently received.
 
My department was small and we didn't have any graduate program in anything technical related, so all of our classes were taught by experienced professors. We did have things like theatre history and script analysis that were grad students and they didn't compare. Our theatre history was in 2 chunks and the grad student teaching them got fired/kicked out half way through so the second half was a professor and it was a world of difference in what I remembered, retained and actually learned.

I know there are a ton of great grad students who make great teachers but there was a clear benefit having the more experienced people teaching classes in my experience. It's also worth noting most grad students don't have the backlog of lessons and what not. True of new high school teachers too, that was my biggest hurdle when I was teaching, I knew a ton of information for my students but finding the effective method of delivering it and developing lessons I knew worked and building up that stock to reference each year makes a difference too.

tldr: makes sense to me.
 
The more novice the student, the more important it is to have "teaching" skills. So a grad student who might know the material but doesn't know how to work with students is going to be ineffective.

Furthermore, an intro college course is the gateway to the field. Your best students are going to be asking questions that go beyond the intro level. So a grad student who only knows the intro material is going to be ineffective.

If you have to choose between an instructor who can teach, and an instructor who knows theatre, I'd pick the one who knows how to teach, provided they understand the limits of their theatre expertise. Ideally, you put your intro students in front of someone with lots of experience who also knows how to teach and be a mentor. That person may be hard to find though.

At the higher levels, I think it's easier to get away with instructors who know their stuff, but aren't great teachers.
 
The more novice the student, the more important it is to have "teaching" skills. So a grad student who might know the material but doesn't know how to work with students is going to be ineffective.

100% True. Education is one thing communication is 90% of it. I would personally rather learn from someone who can explain better than just someone who reads off the book without any real interaction, etc.
 
At the higher levels, I think it's easier to get away with instructors who know their stuff, but aren't great teachers.

Sometimes. The problem with people who are really good at something is that they are not always the best at explaining it to people who lack the natural aptitude toward the subject matter since they themselves never struggled to really grasp the concepts. I've met my share of professionals who make terrible professors.
 
I would say a problem that graduate programs have, I am currently in one, is that they don't really teach you, how to teach or really communicate. I think a lot of undergrads where I am would benefit more if they had the seasoned professionals, tenured professors teaching them even a basic intro course. This all depends on each academic program, I know there are ones out there where the focus is all on the grad students and the undergrads get left behind unfortunately. I think the trick is teaching critical thinking when it comes to our craft, that should be is #1, that mixed with problem solving applications. The curtain still needs to go up every night, I think that a lot of grad students who are young in their careers have trouble with this. A lot of them are in grad school to try and further their careers and I think the compounded work mixed in with the busy schedule will sometimes create a student who may not focus on problem solving or critical thinking skills when it comes to teaching undergrads. It sucks to say but sometimes its just teaching what a text book says. We can teach you how to build a flat or plug in a light but how do you get through a situation when a leg dies and you lose a bunch of dimmers and you still have to get everything up and going for opening night? You order all of your material for a build but what happens when the carps accidently cut the short lengths first and all you run off is not long enough for your other cuts and ohh you are at budget now. I know a lot of undergrads that if put in these situations would just buckle, they really need the seasoned pro faculty member putting them through scenarios to critically think about issues to solve problems. As we all know, that is a norm in our business.
 
Last edited:
I would say a problem that graduate programs have, I am currently in one, is that they don't really teach you, how to teach or really communicate. I think a lot of undergrads where I am would benefit more if they had the seasoned professionals, tenured professors teaching them even a basic intro course. This all depends on each academic program, I know there are ones out there where the focus is all on the grad students and the undergrads get left behind unfortunately. I think the trick is teaching critical thinking when it comes to our craft, that should be is #1, that mixed with problem solving applications. The curtain still needs to go up every night, I think that a lot of grad students who are young in their careers have trouble with this. A lot of them are in grad school to try and further their careers and I think the compounded work mixed in with the busy schedule will sometimes create a student who may not focus on problem solving or critical thinking skills when it comes to teaching undergrads. It sucks to say but sometimes its just teaching what a text book says. We can teach you how to build a flat or plug in a light but how do you get through a situation when a leg dies and you lose a bunch of dimmers and you still have to get everything up and going for opening night? You order all of your material for a build but what happens when the carps accidently cut the short lengths first and all you run off is not long enough for your other cuts and ohh you are at budget now. I know a lot of undergrads that if put in these situations would just buckle, they really need the seasoned pro faculty member putting them through scenarios to critically think about issues to solve problems. As we all know, that is a norm in our business.

The ability to integrate lecture & lab with the "real world" only happens in the real world where reputations and household incomes are on the line with every performance, presentation or installation. Some institutions come close - those lucky enough to have lots of performances of both student and professional artists - and the technical staff gets a taste of what operating a PAC or supporting in-house and touring productions is all about.

Without labs and practicums it's not easy to integrate the technical and artistic. Inside your head isn't always the best place for such exercises. It's necessary to design, build, light, listen to, "experience"... the results of applying ones knowledge and experience in order to grow artistically and professionally. Life in the real world of artistic technical work is about being about to generate a Plan C as you implement Plan B... and get things fixed before break. No classroom or controlled lab experience can prepare a student for that. They have to figure it out and if they can't, it's a good thing they're not medical students. :D

My observation over the last few decades is that students in any endeavour of creativity achieve the most when pursuing those in a concentrated and focused manner. About 10 years ago I took an audio training class on the Gilbert, AZ campus of CRAS. The class was not part of their curriculum and their space was rented for this training. That meant we didn't directly interact with most of the students but it was easy to spot the kids who'd probably do better - they were scheduling more studio time or handling little live gigs, playing in a band or working as stage hands (gasp!) - they were out there exercising their skill sets and applying what they thought they'd learned. The other kids were hanging out or had social calendars.

Here endeth the reading, go in pieces. ;)
 
Last edited:
As I have been giving more lectures to college students, either as an invited lecturer or through my work with USITT, I have found that in our particular discipline, the biggest challenge to students is having access to equipment. When they do get access, even with older equipment, they need to have instructors who know how to teach everything that they need to know.

My biggest problem with the Conservatory of Recording Arts and Sciences, when I would hire their graduates, was that the students who seemed to know a TRS from an XLR were the ones who went into the program with some experience. That way they knew what questions to ask and what they needed to practice in their studio time. They were the successful ones. Those who went into the program without experience relied on the instructors who didn't give them what they needed.

The university that I attended (to be an archaeologist) had a road house theater where we had the big Broadway tours as well as many other national (and international) touring groups come through. When I was going there (early 90's), they wouldn't hire anyone out of the theater program from the university. They had found it too difficult to teach them how to work in a professional setting versus the educational/regional theater mind set. They found it easier to hire students (for those few student positions) who were in other programs and train them to work in the professional setting. Over the years, the theater department made some changes so that some of their students did qualify to work in the road house, and I know that those who did came out successful and at least some are gainfully employed.
 
As I have been giving more lectures to college students, either as an invited lecturer or through my work with USITT, I have found that in our particular discipline, the biggest challenge to students is having access to equipment. When they do get access, even with older equipment, they need to have instructors who know how to teach everything that they need to know.

My biggest problem with the Conservatory of Recording Arts and Sciences, when I would hire their graduates, was that the students who seemed to know a TRS from an XLR were the ones who went into the program with some experience. That way they knew what questions to ask and what they needed to practice in their studio time. They were the successful ones. Those who went into the program without experience relied on the instructors who didn't give them what they needed.

The university that I attended (to be an archaeologist) had a road house theater where we had the big Broadway tours as well as many other national (and international) touring groups come through. When I was going there (early 90's), they wouldn't hire anyone out of the theater program from the university. They had found it too difficult to teach them how to work in a professional setting versus the educational/regional theater mind set. They found it easier to hire students (for those few student positions) who were in other programs and train them to work in the professional setting. Over the years, the theater department made some changes so that some of their students did qualify to work in the road house, and I know that those who did came out successful and at least some are gainfully employed.

I think you're right about students who arrive at specialty schools with some prior experience or training having a leg-up on the rest of the student body. They're the ones who already have a focused interest in their subject, as opposed to those who go to CRAS or Empty Sheet because they think they look good in daddy's old Bob Dylan t-shirt.

A short story - one my friends in St Louis had an applicant come in with formula resume in hand and during the interview bragged more than once on his mixing skills. My buddy took the applicant out to the shop where they had some *analog* multi track feeding a mixer. He cleared the desk and told the applicant "set up a mix for me." Half hour later he went to check and it was just short of a train wreck, noticing that none of the input trims had been adjusted and levels were all over the place. "Why didn't you change that and make it easier?" "Oh, our instructor always made that adjustment". Next.

In my shop I had a similar applicant a couple years later. After an unimpressive interview with me, the boss had a few questions as well. The exasperated applicant finally asked "what do I need to know to work here?" I pointed to a corner and replied "the brooms are over there and I take 2 creams in my coffee." Whatever money he spent in Florida, it wasn't enough to get him an above-entry level position.

/stories
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back