[The Montana Professor 14.1, Fall 2003 <http://mtprof.msun.edu>]

Conversations with Carnegie CASE Montana Professors of the Year Esther England and Mehrdad Kia

Fred McGlynn
Philosophy (Emeritus)
UM-Missoula

During the past summer I spent several hours interviewing Professors Esther England and Mehrdad Kia of the faculty of the University of Montana at Missoula. Prof. Kia received the Carnegie award as Teacher of the Year in Montana in 2001 and Prof. England received the same award in 2000. Prof. Kia is a professor of Mid-Eastern History and is currently Vice-President for International Programs at UM. Prof. England is a professor of voice in the Music Department in the School of Fine Arts and has also served as Associate Dean of the School of Fine Arts.

The interview process demonstrated to me one reason why both professors are such successful teachers. They both are articulate and extremely enthusiastic about their subject matter and the question of teaching. I interviewed each professor separately, but I was not surprised to find that their responses to my questions were sometimes very similar. When I asked if they had any theory of pedagogy, they both denied that they had any theory of teaching whatsoever. When I originally broached the possibility of these interviews with them, they both suggested that they were not confident that they had anything to contribute, since they didn't have any theory of pedagogy which they could impart. Nevertheless, discussion with them revealed certain common approaches to both subject matter and students which may account for their success in the classroom. Since Prof. England is also a studio vocal teacher as well as a classroom instructor, some essential differences between studio and classroom teaching also became evident through our conversations.

The first common element in their approaches was the need to communicate one's own passion for the subject matter. "I do not have any theories of teaching. I have a passion for the subject matter, and I hope that passion is reflected in my teaching," said Kia.

Replied England, "On the spot I try to get them engaged in the subject matter. The way that I do this is to express my own excitement about the subject matter. Of course this is easier to do in a studio course [where students are presumably already seriously interested or they wouldn't be taking a studio voice course]." It was evident in talking to them that this passion for their subject matter did not have to be forced; it expressed itself in even the most casual conversation.

They both agreed that engaging the students was a central concern in teaching. Said England,

In a large course, I think the lecturing style matters. I try to deliberately erase the distance between the professor and the student. I don't think that you can do this by standing at a podium and lecturing. I walk around the room...try to get them engaged...I don't work with notes at all. [Referring to Prof. Raoul, her co-teacher in The History of the Musical:] We always went out to dinner before hand. I carried a blueprint or outline in my head.

Prof. Kia, on the other hand, does lecture in his classes, but said that he always stops the lecture two or three times to invite questions from the students. He regretted that the large class sizes (80 or more students) inhibited the kind of full interaction with students that he would prefer.

Most of the interviews, however, centered around issues which were particular to each professor's subject matter. Prof. Kia said that many students took his classes expecting to discuss contemporary issues of conflict in the Middle East. The challenge was to get them to understand that all of these contemporary issues have historical backgrounds. "They quickly realize that what they thought would be boring--the history of some event in the 7th century, for example--can be fascinating and very relevant to contemporary issues." He said that he acknowledged at the beginning of his classes that most students come with some set of images about the issues and that some of these images may be true. The challenge was to get them to understand that they should not just consume these images; that they should set these images aside in order to "give them an historical context.... Once that historical context is added to the images, then suddenly everything starts to make sense.... When they see that people are demonstrating and shouting in the streets, they need to see that there are reasons for this, rational reasons. They do not necessarily have to agree with them, but it is important they understand that there are reasons."

"I could care less," he added, "whether they end up with positive views of Turks, Arabs, Israelis, or Iranians, as long as they understand that there are reasons for the positions which are held by various groups and what the historical circumstances are which created these views." Most students, he said, comment on class evaluations that "they started the course with certain stereotypes but that they finished the course understanding and appreciating the complexities of the issues involved."

Due to the average student's lack of knowledge about Western history, let alone the history of the Middle East, he said, the biggest challenge was to get them "to realize that the constructs of West, East, and Middle East as civilizations are false constructs, that there has been almost constant interaction among them." "The old silk road," he said, "was a route for the movement not only of goods, but ideas, religions, etc." Beyond the mixture of ideas and religious notions, he said that he also tried to communicate and share the whole of the culture: the songs and dances, the stories and poems, as well as the dishes the students have not tasted.

One of his goals is to show students how messy history is: "I'm troubled by progressive or evolutionary history." When I suggested that he was not an Hegelian, he said, "Well, I think that you have to be an Hegelian in the sense that history is a movement of Spirit. But it is important to think of this movement as multifaceted. You have to keep the door open for one more element to come in." Despite the controversial nature of Mid-Eastern issues in the present world, which might make getting students to think about these issues quite difficult, he claimed that he was impressed with students at the UM. "Even those who have reservations are open to rethinking these reservations. They want to learn more about it and are willing to test and examine what they believe about other societies." If an essential test of any good teacher is his or her ability to stimulate critical thinking, then it is not surprising that Prof. Kia is so highly regarded by his students.

Prof. England also expressed a deep passion for history. She said that she thought it was vital in both her course in the history of the musical as well as in performance classes to get the student to understand and appreciate the historical context in which works of art came into existence. "Understanding any art form requires an attention to the historical period in which it was produced." The term papers in her class on the history of the musical required the students to research the period of the production of the musical about which they were writing. Many of the students, she said, thanked her later, saying that this work deepened their appreciation of what these people had gone through. Many said that it gave them a better understanding of relatives, for example, who had lived through the period they were researching.

Historical understanding is also central to her approach to performance. Understanding of the style appropriate to the performance of a particular piece requires an understanding of the era of its production and other works of art produced in that same era. "What's baroque brio? You can learn this from looking at the painting and the architecture of the baroque era as well as listening to the music."

Her most interesting observations were on issues of teaching studio vocal classes. "One-on-one teaching is probably the most intimate thing that one can do, with the exception of making love," she said. When starting with a new student, she said that "we just sit down and talk." She admitted to being very gentle with freshmen and sophomores in order to give them the support needed to undertake the risks of solo singing. "This," she said, "is the most vulnerable situation a person can be in. You have to try to make that transition as smooth as possible." When asked whether the intimacy of this situation could foster discipleship, she said that she never talked about herself unless it was illustrative of a point she was trying to make regarding the student's technique.

In the junior and senior years, she said, she insists upon more rigor and is more critical in her comments. It is here that she introduces historical matters pertinent to style and insists that students become familiar with the culture of the period of the work they have chosen. "No person is the same," she said, "and no teaching technique works with every student. You have to use your whole bag of tricks." Singing, she said, "involves a process, a focus, an aesthetic.... I make these kids look at the form of what they are doing. You're going into the bones of music. I don't do this much with freshmen and sophomores." Finally, she said, "Teaching is an art. Performing artists often find it difficult to explain what they do. The best teachers are those who are still active as artists but who have a calling to help others develop their creative process."

Since a serious automobile accident a few years ago permanently damaged muscles in her abdomen, she admits to regretting that she no longer adequately can embody in her own singing all the aspects of the art of singing she may be trying to communicate to her students. This, she said, has forced her to concentrate on verbalizing points which she was previously able to illustrate by performance. "More than anyone else, a singer must master her body.... [B]reathing, placement and articulation" all depend upon this mastery of the whole body. While admitting that she had become much better at verbalizing the issues involved, she also suggested that retirement is looking more attractive, since she can no longer function as both teacher and performing artist--her ideal pedagogic situation.

It was clear to me from my interviews with these two professors that while they both disclaimed any theory of pedagogy, they had both worked diligently over the years to deepen their communication of their knowledge, whether it was historical critical thinking or artistic technique. It was easy to see why each have won the admiration of both their colleagues and students as master teachers.

[The Montana Professor 14.1, Fall 2003 <http://mtprof.msun.edu>]