Running head: BROKEN ARM CASE STUDY REFLECTION
Broken Arm Case Study Reflection
Elizabeth Lufrano
University of Kansas
1
BROKEN ARM CASE STUDY REFLECTION
2
Overview of the Case Study
In the Broken Arm Case Study, we learn about a student named Jim O’Hara who attends
Crossroads High School. Jim O’Hara is a seventeen-year-old boy who excels in athletics, but
has auditory processing deficits and language learning delays. Jim has received special
education services since the second grade; In middle school Jim attended general education
classes and his general education teacher accommodated for Jim’s learning needs by consulting
with the school’s special education teacher. Overall, Jim has managed to keep up with his peers
in his general education classes through supports and instructional modifications. Jim hopes to
attend college and receive an athletic scholarship. Unfortunately, this year Jim has encountered
difficulties in his co-taught English class where his general education teacher, who is new to
Crossroads High School, believes that spelling is of great import in terms achieving future
success. Specifically, Jim has found himself unable to pass the weekly spelling tests given in his
co-taught English class; Jim’s failing grades have caused him to become very embarrassed as the
scores are publicly posted each week, and Jim has consequently taken to skipping his English
class.
Historically, Crossroads High School has run a successful co-teaching program where
students with mild to moderate disabilities have been able to successfully attend general
education classes, resulting in the obtainment of a standard high school diploma. Under the
Crossroads High School’s co-teaching program, each co-taught class has a general education
teacher and a special education teacher who are responsible for planning, instruction, and
assessment. Shared responsibility of teaching every student in each co-taught classroom is the
standard at Crossroads High School; this philosophy is demonstrated by the fact that it is often
BROKEN ARM CASE STUDY REFLECTION
3
difficult to tell which of the two teachers in co-taught classrooms is the general educator and
which is the special educator.
This year in Jim O’Hara’s co-taught English class, the special education teacher is Mary
King and the general education teacher is Helen Williams. Mary King has been a part of
Crossroads High School’s co-teaching program for five years and has been teaching for fifteen
years in total. Mary King is a sensitive and soft-spoken teacher who strives to create a
welcoming and safe place for students with disabilities in her classroom. Moreover, Mary takes
a collaborative approach to her work as a teacher and believes it is both the general and special
educator’s responsibility to help support every student’s learning needs so that they can achieve
success in the classroom. Before the start of the current school year Mary’s co-teaching
teammate resigned; therefore on the first day of the new school year Mary found out that she
would be teaching with Helen Williams. Helen Williams has been teaching for twenty years, is
new to Crossroads High School, and has never co-taught a class before. Helen Williams believes
in high teaching standards and that maintaining high teaching standards helps students develop
essential life skills and a work ethic that they will appreciate later on in life.
Mary would have liked to have been involved with the interview process for her new coteacher; however, Mary entered the situation she entered with optimism and asked Helen if she
would like to meet so they could start planning for their English class. Helen agreed to meet
however found this invitation to be odd, as she had already started planning for the class.
Overall, it was clear from Helen and Mary’s first meeting that Helen and Mary had very different
ideas of what co-teaching means. When Mary brought up discussing what each of their roles and
responsibilities would be in the classroom, Helen stated, “…I would prefer to be the one who
presents the content. That way, you can do your job and focus on helping the ones having
BROKEN ARM CASE STUDY REFLECTION
4
trouble” (The IRIS Center, p. 2). This statement illustrates that Helen views special and general
education as separate silos, and that as the general education teacher she is the content
knowledge expert, and therefore should be the one to provide instruction. Despite Mary being
disappointed during this initial meeting, Mary hoped that they would be able to develop a
collaborative partnership throughout the course of the school year. As part of Helen’s
instructional plan she informed Mary that she planned to test her students on spelling every
Friday. When Helen stated, “It’s important that they [the students] be able to express themselves
clearly and spell correctly. These mechanics will constitute one half of the grade” (The IRIS
Center, p. 2), Mary responded by expressing her concerns that weighing the spelling test grades
in such a manner might not be feasible for certain students. In response, Helen stood her ground
and stated, “If you have to, take the students having trouble into the common area and give them
some extra help, but I think they all should have to learn to spell correctly” (The IRIS Center, p.
2). During this interaction Helen and Mary once again fail to communicate with one another
effectively or collaborate.
On the first Friday of the school year, Helen gave a spelling test on twelve words as
planned; these words were at the seventh and eight-grade level, therefore Helen thought it was
more than reasonable for her tenth grade students to be able to spell each of the twelve words.
On this first test Jim O’Hara misspelled all twelve words, which heightened Mary’s overall
concerns about the expectations of her fellow co-teacher. In an attempt to help Jim improve his
spelling test score, the following week Mary gave Jim six words on Monday and then the other
six words on Tuesday. Mary then proceeded to help Jim make flashcards for each of the twelve
words he would need to be able to spell by Friday, and showed him how he could use the
flashcards to review outside of school. Later on, when Mary researched Jim’s academic
BROKEN ARM CASE STUDY REFLECTION
5
background she discovered that Jim’s writing was okay, that he was making A’s and B’s in
science and mathematics, and making C’s in history. Moreover, Mary noted that Jim was
making adequate progress in the literature section of her co-taught English class, and yet his
spelling scores were poor enough that they could impede him from passing English this year.
Over the next few weeks, Mary tried various strategies to help improve Jim’s spelling test
scores. For example, Mary tried giving Jim fewer words each day to learn throughout the week,
then Mary taught Jim orthography rules and had Jim spell out each word repeatedly.
Unfortunately, no matter what Mary tried, nothing seemed to help improve Jim’s scores on the
spelling tests. After weeks of unsuccessful attempts to help Jim, Mary approached Helen about
modifying Jim’s spelling tests: “How about allowing him to pick the correct spelling word out of
a choice of three, or perhaps match the word in a sentence?” (The IRIS Center, p. 4). Helen
responded to Mary’s inquiries in a defensive manner by stating, “Spelling is something everyone
must be able to do! I don’t think it would be fair to lower that standard or my expectations for
him or anyone else” (The IRIS Center, p. 4). Mary tried again to express her concerns to Helen:
“Helen, I don’t think spelling is a skill that Jim will ever be able to master. It is simply part of
his disability” (The IRIS Center, p. 4). Despite Mary’s insistence, Helen maintained that Jim
needed to learn to spell. Moreover, Helen internally expressed two main concerns about
modifying Jim’s spelling tests. First, Helen was concerned about being accountable for her
students’ end-of-the-year high-stakes testing scores: “These students have to learn to spell;
otherwise, I have to answer for it!” (The IRIS Center, p. 4). And second, Helen was worried
about what modifying Jim’s spelling test would mean: “If I make modifications for one student,
won’t the other students expect the same? Am I going to have to come up with individualized
tests?” (The IRIS Center, p. 4). At the end of this interaction, Mary once again felt defeated and
BROKEN ARM CASE STUDY REFLECTION
6
nervous about bringing up modifying Jim’s spelling tests again for fear that she would alienate
and make an enemy out of Helen.
Motivations of each Character
The two predominant players that impact Jim’s success or lack of success in the
classroom are Helen and Mary. Helen and Mary from the beginning are at odds with one another
as they view co-teaching differently. Specifically, Mary sees co-teaching to be a collaborative
effort in which co-teachers together plan, instruct, and assess every student (with or without
disabilities) in the general education classroom. In contrast, Helen views co-teaching simply as
two teachers being in the same classroom, but that overall instruction still is the responsibility of
the general educator, and the special education teacher is simply responsible for helping
struggling students and students with disabilities learn. With these viewpoints in mind, Mary’s
actions are aligned with trying to obtain consensus on the fact that Jim needs instructional
modifications in order to succeed in spelling. On the other hand, Helen’s unwillingness to make
instructional modifications to Jim’s spelling tests stem from her concerns that she will be
punished if her students are unable to spell and meet the standards of the end-of-the-year testing
and that other students will see such modifications as unfair and insist on having individualized
tests created for them as well.
Common Problems & Issues that Occur in Co-Teaching
Common problems that arise in co-teaching include differing teaching philosophies,
general education teachers viewing special education teachers simply as instructional aides and
not as equal partners, one co-teacher dominating interactions, insufficient shared planning time,
lack of mutual respect and trust, differing views on behavior management, and overall
compatibility between co-teachers. In the current case study, there are two main issues that arise.
BROKEN ARM CASE STUDY REFLECTION
7
The first issue is Helen and Mary’s lack of compatibility and differing teaching philosophies, and
the second is Helen and Mary being unable to agree on whether or not instructional
modifications for Jim’s spelling tests are warranted. There are many other underlying issues that
contribute to the main issues in the current case study such as lack of quality and respectful
communication between Mary and Helen.
Steps to Establishing Successful Co-Teaching Relationships
In order to establish successful co-teaching relationships, educators must be cognizant of
a variety of facts as well as take specific actions. First and foremost it is essential that educators
be aware that “Any collaborative relationship can be doomed if one partner dominates, or leads
in a direction that the other partner is not expecting” (Murawski, W. W., & Dieker, L. A., 2004,
p. 53). Moreover, educators who seek to develop a successful co-teaching partnership must trust
their co-teaching colleague and respect the skills and knowledge that their partner brings to the
classroom (Mastropieri et al., 2005). Educators also need to understand that “… conflicting
beliefs about how to plan for co-teaching, how to manage behavior, and how to interact with
students can seriously inhibit positive relations” and the “… availability of common planning
time also impacts effective co-teaching …” (Mastropieri et al., 2005 p. 269). With these items in
mind, it is imperative that educators take the time to get to know the colleague(s) he or she will
be teaching with and work to maintain positive and open communication. On a related note, it is
imperative for educators to know that effective co-teachers are responsible for instruction,
planning, and assessment and that effective co-teaching requires collaboration in these three
areas (Murawski, W. W., & Dieker, L. A., 2004). For example, according to Murawski W. W. &
Dieker L. A. (2004), “Special and general educators can work together to determine what is
working instructionally for the whole class, what areas may need revision or re-addressing, and if
BROKEN ARM CASE STUDY REFLECTION
8
there are specific students who may need individual accommodations” (p. 57). General and
special educators also need to “Recognize that grading frequently becomes a sticky topic and is
one that should be discussed proactively to avoid confrontation” (Murawski W. W., & Dieker L.
A., 2004, p. 57) while co-teaching a class. Furthermore, as was seen in the present case study,
high-stakes testing can negatively impact how co-teachers work with one another (Mastropieri et
al., 2005). Finally, co-teachers should continuously evaluate their collaborative efforts in order to
determine whether their efforts are benefiting themselves and their students (Murawski W. W. &
Dieker L. A., 2004).
Instructional Accommodations & Modifications
Instructional accommodations and modifications should be put into place whenever a
student is not able to be either successful or participate in the general education curriculum (The
IRIS Center). Potential instructional accommodations or modifications include permitting
students to use the computer for written assignment, shortening the length of assignments so that
mastery of key concepts are focused on rather than extraneous details, or as in the current case
study modifying a spelling test so that a student does not have to physically spell the word
correctly, but rather pick the correctly spelled form of the word from a list of options (The IRIS
Center).
Jim’s Instructional Accommodations & Modifications
Mary tried a number of instructional accommodations to help Jim improve his scores on
the weekly spelling tests. All four accommodations (i.e., reducing the number of words required
to learn each day, making flashcards, instruction in orthography skills, copying each word
numerous times) were unsuccessful because they did not address Jim’s underlying language and
BROKEN ARM CASE STUDY REFLECTION
9
auditory processing deficits. No instructional modifications were made to Jim’s spelling tests as
Helen would not agree to proposed modifications.
The Importance & Benefits of Communication & Collaboration
Open communication and collaboration can have a positive impact on the learning of all
students. For example, research has shown that “The relationship between … co-teachers is a
major critical component influencing the success or failure of the inclusion of students with
disabilities” (Mastropieri et al., 2005, p. 268). In short, when co-teachers experience good
working relationships with their partners and get along with one another, the likelihood that
students with disabilities will be successful in general education classrooms increases
(Mastropieri et al., 2005).
References
The IRIS Center [n.d.]. Instructional accommodations & co-teaching: A broken arm. Retrieved
November 28, 2015, from http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/wpcontent/uploads
/pdf_activities/case_based/IA_Broken_Arm.pdf
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Graetz, J., Norland, J., Gardizi, W., & McDuffie, K. (2005).
Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, and challenges.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 260-270.
BROKEN ARM CASE STUDY REFLECTION
10
Murawski, W. W., & Dieker, L. A. (2004). Tips and strategies for co-teaching at the secondary
level. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(5), 52-59.