Susan E. Shadle, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry; Director, Center for Teaching and Learning
sshadle@boisestate.edu
E-717
426-3153

Education

1988, B.A. Chemistry, Colgate University
1994, Ph.D., Inorganic Chemistry, Stanford University
1994-1996, NIH Postdoctoral Fellow, Johns Hopkins University

About Me

Since 2006, Susan has served as the director of the university Center for Teaching and Learning

I have been married to Carl Brown for 15 years, who works as an Air Quality Analyst at the Department of Environmental Quality. We have two fantastic boys – Noah, age 8, and Abram, age 5. We like to camp, hike, and cross country ski. Our house is inundated with Legos, with most display surfaces (and the floor) covered with the boys’ creations!

Pedagogical Philosophy

I am a teacher of chemistry. While I find great value in the perspectives my discipline provides, it was probably more important to my career that I ended up as a teacher. (Had I taken different courses or had different mentors, perhaps I would now be a professor of sociology instead.) This is because I find I am “filled up” by the activity of interacting with students, finding out where they are and what they need, and then using my talents, knowledge and enthusiasm to help them create their own learning process. (I really LIKE students!).

When I teach I have two principle goals. First, I want to leave my students with the ability to think like a chemist – to visualize the world at the level of atoms and molecules and to understand how we develop conceptual ideas from data. Second, I want them to develop transferable process skills that could be valuable to them outside of my class. I know that weeks and months after my course, most of the details will not be useful to them and so they will forget those details. (As a result, I have always worked to minimize memorization and plug-and-chug problem solving). However, if I have helped them to develop the ability to think like a chemist, then they may use that thinking to ask questions at a chemical level (e.g., I wonder how long it takes for the active ingredient in this sunscreen to break down so its no longer useful?) or at least to appreciate that there is a molecular-level explanation for real things. Because most students I teach will not become chemists, I also want them to be able to approach problems in other disciplinary areas (or real life!) with greater facility because they took my course.

The approaches I choose to use in my courses come from several core beliefs about students, learning, and teaching. First, I believe that all students are capable of high levels of achievement. Second, I believe that each student must construct his or her understanding of material and any new material must be integrated with knowledge they already have. And third, for the learning students do in my class to be transferable, I must help students to think about their own learning. On the first day I tell them I am not smarter than they are, I’ve just been at it longer. Further, I tell them that I believe every one of them can succeed, it’s just that some will have to expend greater efforts for the same result. This belief system requires me to meet students where they are and to differentiate student assistance whenever possible. In my interactions with students I rarely give answers away, or spell out strategies. Instead, I pose a series of questions to determine where a student (or a group of students) is starting from, which is followed by more questions until the student has arrived at an answer he or she believes. The idea is to buoy students along the process, helping them to come up with their own answers, and thereby construct their own understanding. Sometimes, this approach frustrates students, particularly those who just want the answer. However, because I talk a lot about why I do this (and other things I do) most students come to appreciate how the approaches help them develop process skills and contribute to a deep knowledge of course material.

My engagement in my own teaching comes from my interest in improving the extent to which I meet my goals (above). I have what I expect will be a life-long investment in learning, which extends to my own learning about how to facilitate student learning. This process involves my reading and attending conferences about teaching and learning. It also involves trying new things and assessing their effectiveness in my classes. For example, I have recently changed my approach in introductory chemistry so that I now do very little lecture. Most of the class time is spent in small groups, actively engaged in the process of interpreting data and handling chemical concepts. (This asks them to think like a chemist!). Interestingly, I found that changing my approach also opened up new ways of thinking about the material for me. More importantly, students in my class are actively engaged in the classroom and report that this approach helps them to develop their understanding of the material. In addition, it gives me a good read on each student’s strengths and weaknesses, allowing me to differentiate instruction more easily.

I have identified several areas in which I need to focus my own development as a teacher. First, by not lecturing in introductory chemistry, I have now reduced the opportunity to share my knowledge of the “relevance” of the material to real life, and I need to find some way to thread those ideas into class work or assessments. Second, I have not always modified my assessments and evaluations to reflect the more process-oriented approach I am using, so these could be improved. Thirdly, while I have begun to utilize the more process-oriented approach in my advanced course, I have a lot to learn about how to do it well and how to handle the tyranny of “coverage” in my advanced course. Finally, while one of my primary goals is to help students “think like a chemist”, I need to consider more carefully how I might determine the extent to which this goal is achieved.

Research Interests

For the last few years, my research has focused on the study of the calcium binding protein, calsequestrin (CSQ). Calsequestrin (CSQ) is a lumenal protein of the sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR), thought to function in both sequestration of Ca2+ and regulation of SR Ca2+ release. CSQ binds Ca2+ with moderate-affinity (Kd ~1 mM) and high-capacity (~20-40 Ca2+/CSQ molecule). CSQ undergoes significant conformational changes and forms aggregates in response to binding calcium. While some studies have investigated the details of these changes, there are several aspects of the prevailing model to be confirmed experimentally. To this end, our work has been aimed at using CD and flouresence spectroscopies to probe CSQ secondary structure and flow Field Flow Fractionation and analytical ultracentrifugation to study CSQ aggregation. In addition, small hydrophobic molecules, such as trifluoperazine (TFP) or anthracyclines, are known to bind to CSQ, but their effects on the structure and function of the protein are less well understood. Thus, we are extending our studies to examine the effect of trifluoroperazine on CSQ structure and aggregation.

I have had an active interest in education research for many years. Several years ago, I conducted a study of the effectiveness of some introductory chemistry labs and gained an appreciation for the difficulty of working with human subjects. In my current position as Director of our campus Center for Teaching and Learning, I am cultivating my interests and expertise in the area of the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL).