Reflection 4 Alicia Srinivasagam

CMCL 507

Last week, my host instructor had students complete a midsemester survey in order to collect
feedback from students and use this information to modify our teaching strategies. In our
meeting, she gave us the opportunity to read through all the students responses in order to get a
sense of their satisfaction with the course and come up with strategies to improve, both
personally and as a team. This was extremely beneficial for all of us, this anonymous feedback
clearly identified our strengths and weaknesses. Two questions were specific to peer mentors,
“what has your peer mentor done to help facilitate your learning?” and “how could your peer
mentor improve at facilitating your learning?”. The responses were overwhelmingly positive;
this was good for us to hear. Every student had something positive to say about their experience
in the lab, and most responded saying that they were very satisfied with their success in the lab
and had no suggestions for improvement. There were a few suggestions and complaints made as
well, but these were all things that could be improved upon in simple ways to better their
learning experience. We were each asked to identify strengths and areas for improvement for
ourselves personally based on the survey feedback, we then shared these with the team and
discussed both similarities among our points and strategies for improvement. Many students
stated that they really appreciated how approachable we are as peer mentors and talked about
how we provide a judgement free source of support for them. Another theme was students’
comments on facilitation, many enjoyed how peer mentors opened up discussion with students
rather than simply giving the answer. They felt that this deepened their understanding of the
concepts. One area for improvement was in the timing and format of the peer mentor midterm
review session; some students felt that the review needed to be scheduled closer to the exam and
in a timed station format similar to the actual exam.
Overall, I was very happy with the feedback we received. Students are truly receptive to
having a fellow student who has taken the course before in the lab to support them should they
need guidance in their experiential learning. I had this same experience with my peer mentor as
a student in this course and wrote very similar feedback in my midsemester survey last year. I
believe this relates to Vygotsky’s idea of changing the classroom hierarchy do that educators and
students act as co-investigators (Lake, 2012). Having a source of information that works with
students without judgement is much more beneficial for students than having an authority figure
that needs to be approached with questions. As a peer to the students in my lab section I believe
that I have been succeeding in supporting student learning without making them feel as if they
are asking ‘stupid questions’. I often find it very helpful to ask questions to confirm my own
understanding; this gives me more confidence in my knowledge and ability. However, it can be
difficult to make this kind of inquiry if there is a danger of looking like you don’t know what’s
going on. Remaining reassuring and approachable is therefore key to my role as a peer mentor.
I was a little surprised to see so much positive feedback on our facilitation in lab. Often
students simply want an answer to their question to complete the exercise, rather than actually
grasping how the concept relates to other course content. However, I think that in this course
students learn how essential making horizontal connections is to their success in the and are able
to improve this skill over time. When I was a student in this course I had this exact experience, I
found that I was able to take the most from each lab and succeed in the course by sharing my
ideas with others and making connections collaboratively. Looking back, I can see my peer
mentors’ role in my development; she facilitated group discussion which allowed us to learn the
material as a team rather than directly from an instructor. This discussion in the lab is a form of
discourse, promoting communicative learning which encourages students to think independently,
share their ideas and overcome challenges as a team (Mezirow, 1997). This type of learning
leads to personal development, I experienced this transformation as a student in this course and
continue to use the skills I gained to succeed both academically and socially.
As a peer mentor I think I have done very well being an approachable source of support for
students. One of my strengths in my mentoring style is my ability to reassure students during the
lab. By making them feel understood and encouraging them to believe in their own abilities, I am
starting to feel as if my involvement in their learning is having a positive effect on students. I
hope to continue to have this effect and address the student’s feedback by improving the peer
mentor review session for the second midterm. I was not involved in the first review session
because of my injury, so I presented my ideas for the next review to the other mentors. Students
felt unprepared going into the first review session because it was two weeks before the exam,
they felt they hadn’t studied enough and weren’t able to participate in answering the practice
questions. I believe that students need to be able to participate and test their own understanding
in order to identify concepts that they need to study. This kind of practicing testing encourages
students to think metacognitively by evaluating their success (Tanner, 2012), without a grade
putting stress on students. This helps to reduce anxiety in their abilities and promote meaningful
learning. In order to encourage student participation, I suggested a more casual type of ‘game
show’ style review where students feel no shame in having a wrong answer. I would like to run
this session the week before the midterm, so students will likely have begun studying. I believe
that this would also increase their confidence with the material, since they will have prepared and
will be able to correctly answer some questions. The midterms in the course can be tough
because students answer questions at timed stations, I would like to have time limits associated
with the questions in the review as part of the game so students can monitor how long they take
to come up with an answer under minimal stress. I believe this strategy will encourage student
self-reflection and more meaningful learning.
 References

Lake, R. (2012). Chapter 2: In and Out of the Zone of Proximal Development. Vygotsky on
Education Primer. New York, NY: Peter Land International Academic Publishers.

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative Learning: Theory to Practice. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 1997(74), 5-12.

Tanner, K. (2012). Promoting Student Metacognition. CBE- Life Sciences Education, 11, 113-
120. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-03-0033