Initially, I learned that everyone comes from different environments including races, religions, cultures, and genders etc. Upon learning about stereotype threat, I was reinforced that everyone regardless of who and what they look like are vulnerable to stereotype threat. With this, I learned that a huge effect of stereotype threat is that is creates poorer performance. An example would be that if society says that “Asians are good at math”, if all of a sudden the struggle, they can experience self-threat and anxiety because they feel a sense of responsibility that they should be good at math. By understanding this, I learned to accommodate all different types of people to support their success in the course. Some of these techniques were creating safe spaces where everyone feels comfortable to speak and no one person dominates the conversation. This could be achieved by not being a teacher, but rather a student. As students, we understand the challenges within a course and we are often similar in age and should be approachable. In other words, in Stev 96, we learned to create a environment that is not solely focused on the subject and learn to stimulate conversation before and after sessions. I think this was …show more content…
In Stev 96, we learned scaffolding techniques and I particularly found fascinating the “Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). I learned that there must be a balance between learning from peers that are less capable, of equal ability, more capable peers, and developing inner resources through knowledge, experience, memory and strength. Initially, in my sessions, I tried splitting the students up by ability and performance based on a formative assessment given. However, after understanding the ZPD, I realized that learning can actually be the most beneficial if you have an even distribution of students in groups. By having a student who struggles, a student who is semi-confident in their understanding can explain problems and the one who is the most capable can oversee as an additional helper to the learning assistant. Many suggests this can hold back students who are already ahead, but I recall during Stev 96 that ambitious students attend MSI and if students already fully understand course material why are they at MSI? Based on this assumption that students who attend are not fluent in the material lack some knowledge and other peers may introduce new perspectives or insights on how to solve problems. Students with more understanding can test their knowledge