(Nakahara) Hello, everyone. I’m Jun Nakahara. Welcome to the Story Session. Today, I will have a discussion with Dr. Naoki Irie from the Graduate School of Science. Dr. Irie, thank you for coming. (Irie) It’s my pleasure. (Nakahara) First of all, I would like to ask you about your research. What is your field? You belong to the Graduate School of Science, but could you be more specific? (Irie) My field is biology. (Nakahara) Biology. (Irie) About how animals evolve and have evolved. (Nakahara) I see. (Irie) I research things like why humans are shaped the way we are. (Nakahara) Wow. Then you must focus on the process of animal evolution? (Irie) Yes. The process of evolution and how bodies are built. (Nakahara) I see. How many courses are you currently in charge of at UTokyo? (Irie) How many would it be? More than 10, including evolutionary developmental biology and such… (Nakahara) Do they include courses conducted by multiple instructors? (Irie) Yes. (Nakahara) How many courses do you conduct alone? (Irie) Courses such as evolutionary developmental biology and academic English for science… (Nakahara) I see. What course is the closest to your own research? (Irie) That is evolutionary developmental biology. (Nakahara) Evolutionary developmental biology. How many students take that course? (Irie) 12… 19… I believe there are 19 this year. (Nakahara) I see. (Irie) The first half of the course has just started. (Nakahara) I see. Are they undergraduate students of the School of Science? (Irie) Yes, they are undergraduates. (Nakahara) In their third and fourth year? (Irie) In their third year. (Nakahara) In their third and fourth year. (Irie) Third year. (Nakahara) Third year. (Irie) Yes. (Nakahara) How do you deliver your classes? (Irie) I try to convey to the students what remains unknown in the class. I think it is uninteresting to talk only about what is already known. (Nakahara) Do you mean that it’s no use talking about already revealed knowledge related to animal evolution and development? (Irie) Yes. Instead, we deal with questions such as “How many hundreds of millions of years does it take for humans to become a creature like a Kamen Rider?” (Nakahara) I see. (Irie) No one can answer such a simple question, but I make the students think about what they need to answer such a question. (Nakahara) Then, how do they learn about preexisting knowledge? Do you just let them read books at home? (Irie) I give them quizzes in every session, and tell them, as a minimum, to cover a particular range. (Nakahara) You have them study at home? (Irie) Yes. I tell them “Study at least this part of the textbook,” and give them quizzes to test their knowledge. In order to organize the content, I structure each session with small items based on questions. (Nakahara) And you have the students discuss those questions? (Irie) Yes. I just call on a student to say the correct answer if the question is about topics already solved. (Nakahara) Do the students really read the textbook? (Irie) I’m not sure about that, but from how they answer the quizzes, I can tell that those who read the textbook seem to read it quite thoroughly. (Nakahara) Really? (Irie) Yes. (Nakahara) Great. (Irie) Those who read are eager readers. (Nakahara) Wow. But those who don’t read must be unable to catch up with the discussion. (Irie) That’s true. I can also tell from the quizzes those who are not reading. I give quizzes in every session. So, in that case, I tell them “You have a quite low rank,” or “Your score is awful." (Nakahara) Really? Do they then respond to your words and become good readers? How are they? (Irie) If I tell them so, they do so. (Nakahara) Wow. How about class discussion? Is it lively? (Irie) Well, that’s the point. I find it a little difficult right now. I talk with graduate students daily, so I tend to think and talk at that level. (Nakahara) You are? (Irie) Yes. There are times when I have trouble communicating with the students in class, and I always think there is room for further improvement in that regard. (Nakahara) I understand that. It is difficult for you to understand what they don’t understand or from what level they don’t understand. (Irie) Exactly. (Nakahara) I can’t tell what they are interested in. Because of my job and my field, I, too, frequently communicate with graduate students and working adults, so I somehow know how to talk with them, but when I go to Komaba Campus and have to talk with undergraduates, I find it quite difficult to figure out the extent of their preexisting knowledge and from what level I should ask questions… (Irie) So do I. Yes, it’s difficult. That’s why I give students quizzes, which also works as a method for me to learn about them. (Nakahara) I see. So, Dr. Irie, where did you work before coming to UTokyo? (Irie) I was at Rikagaku Kenkyusho (RIKEN), a research institute. (Nakahara) RIKEN. (Irie) Yes. (Nakahara) You were at RIKEN. (Irie) I was at RIKEN. (Nakahara) I see. It’s been about a year since you moved to UTokyo? (Irie) Yes. (Nakahara) How has the year been so far? (Irie) It has been extremely busy, but my life has a sense of fulfillment. The last year has been a big plus for my research. (Nakahara) Generally, reseach is important at research-oriented university, on the other hand, we are also responsible for education, service and many others. Some faculty members treat education is more "a load" than responsiblity. (Irie) A kind of burden (Nakahara) Yes, it is. Too much is also a problem, though. What do you think about teaching compared to research? (Irie) It's a plus for my research. (Nakahara) What makes you say that? (Irie) When I was at the research institute, I felt as if I was researching by reducing my knowledge. The time schedule was flexible enough to proceed with my studies, but when it comes to teaching undergraduates who don’t have expert knowledge, for example, you need to have a bird’s-eye view with a thorough understanding of great variety of knowledge. You cannot deliver classes unless you are able to look over the field and establish for yourself what the unknown point is from a broad perspective. I was about to fall into a narrow path in my field, but I was able to pull myself up a little from there, thanks to the opportunity to teach. (Nakahara) I see. (Irie) Yes. So, that’s the attractive point of university. While engaging with education, you can make good use of it for your own research. I mean, education helps your research. (Nakahara) I see. Research fields are so fragmented that everyone competes in a small area. In that sense, when it comes to teaching, you need to pull yourself up to the upper layer and to have an overview of your field. (Irie) Yes. And I came to realize that, in research, simple questions are more interesting. Questions such as, “How long would it take squid to get ashore and walk around?” or “Is there any possibility that such a thing could happen?” (Nakahara) Squid. (Irie) It sounds unscientific but, among the invertebrates, squid are quite intelligent animals. (Nakahara) Really? (Irie) So it is said. (Nakahara) Squid? (Irie) Squid. Octopus and squid. (Nakahara) Wow. (Irie) Simple questions like that initially sound unscientific, but think of a field of science which deals with predictability. For example, in the field of physics, it is natural to discuss what the appearance of the universe would be like five billion years from now. Then I can get back to myself and think about what is lacking in my field. I realize that evolutionary developmental biology doesn’t deal with such an issue, and in that way, I can have an overview of my field. (Nakahara) I assume that undergraduates are better at coming up with simple questions like “When will squid be able to walk?” (Irie) Undergraduates are more likely to talk about such things. I am occasionally caught up in the framework of technical knowledge and manners of expertise, so in that sense, undergraduates have more flexible ideas. (Nakahara) Really? (Irie) Yes. (Nakahara) I see. Then they might give you a surprise attack. (Irie) They do. (Nakahara) From an unexpected angle. (Irie) They ask me, “Why are you unable to answer this question?” It’s not a problem that I cannot answer that, because I explain to the class that it is unknown. However, I also cannot answer the question “What do you need to figure out to answer this question?” For example, it has been years since pluripotent cells were discovered, but when I am asked “Why is it so difficult to build a three-dimensional organ,
such as a heart, in a test tube?” or “What do you need to figure out to reach such a goal?” it is difficult for me to answer. (Nakahara) I see. (Irie) I cannot answer such questions immediately unless I am prepared with organized knowledge. Such questions strike home. (Nakahara) They must be simple but sharp questions. (Irie) Yes, they are. (Nakahara) But I think their [undergraduate] sense is close to that of the general public. Undergraduates must be good at such things. (Irie) I’m asked questions such as “Why is it impossible to do this in spite of so many wise people gathering together and researching it?” or “What is the unknown point?” I’ve come to realize that I cannot answer such questions even if they are related to my research. (Nakahara) That’s interesting. (Irie) It’s thought-provoking. (Nakahara) By the way, you mentioned that it’s been a year since you moved here. Was it hard to deliver classes in the first place? You must have had to start from scratch. (Irie) Yes, it was hard. (Nakahara) What did you find difficult? (Irie) I had difficulty… in grasping the level of knowledge of the undergraduate students who take my class. I had and still have difficulty in grasping that and so I am going through a process of trial and error. That is a little difficult. (Nakahara) It must be. How about the structure of a session? For example, I imagine you don’t rattle on for 90 minutes to deliver a class, but isn’t it hard to structure content to fill 90 minutes? (Irie) Yes, it is hard. I have had some opportunities to visit other universities to give special lessons, but I have difficulty structuring 90-minute classes into a series to teach as a whole course. (Nakahara) It’s hard. (Irie) Yes. (Nakahara) Yes. I understand how you feel. (Irie) It’s difficult. (Nakahara) I delivered a class at Komaba Campus last year, intended for first and second year
undergraduate students. What happened is that I had to cut down the amount of content I usually teach graduate students in an hour to about one third in order to make myself understood to undergraduates. I had trouble considering the amount of content, like when I had been a new instructor. I think it’s hard to structure teaching content according to the students. (Irie) I sometimes cram too much content, or if I break the issue down too simply, I am criticized for not having enough substance. (Nakahara) That’s tough. (Irie) But I prefer receiving such feedback, because then I can realize that that level is not challenging them. (Nakahara) Some students give severe feedback. (Irie) And those who seriously criticize my class are usually the highest achievers. (Nakahara) Really? (Irie) Then what happens is I ignore the lower achievers without noticing that I’m doing it. (Nakahara) I understand that… (Irie) I was out of my mind about delivering the classes for all the students or only for the enthusiasts… (Nakahara) I understand. So here comes another problem, about which level to set for which students. (Irie) Yes, it’s difficult. (Nakahara) Whether you should set the level for the top students or the middle. Many of the people watching this program are graduate students who are likely to teach at universities in the near future. Do you have any advice for them? (Irie) An instructor and researcher I admire once said: it is true that faculty members are busy, but they complain too much about their teaching duties. There are many interesting things to derive from education and it contributes a great deal to your own research, so I felt pleasure once I started to engage with education, and it hasn’t been much of a burden. This is how I feel as an instructor in my first and second year, though. (*laughing) (Nakahara) Then you might change your mind in the future. (*laughing) (Irie) No, no, I hope I can keep feeling this way. Well, the person I mentioned is quite an experienced instructor, and he says that he has always felt pleasure in education. (Nakahara) I understand that some instructors like to complain about the quantity of their “duties". (Irie) They do. (Nakahara) It’s no use doing such a thing. (Irie) The instructor I mentioned said that it is rewarding to engage with education, because by teaching students your own school of thought or way of thinking, the graduates of your university become strong in that particular field. So, you can say that you are fostering your academic field through education. (Nakahara) I think that’s true. (Irie) It surely is. (Nakahara) I think not all, but many of the instructors who are serious-minded in the future of their academic field are sincerely committed to education. (Irie) I think there is an advantage for research in that sense. (Nakahara) Yes. Now I would like to end this session. Dr. Irie, thank you very much for coming today.
