Captions, Group Work, and a Fast Lecture
You co-teach a 10th-grade biology class that includes Lila, a student with moderate bilateral hearing loss. Lila uses hearing aids and an FM system; her reading level is about fifth grade. The general education teacher lectures for 25 minutes at roughly 150 words per minute, shows three uncaptioned videos per unit, and assigns lab groups of four. Lila's FM system carries the teacher's voice but not her peers'. Her lab notebook is incomplete; she says she 'can't hear the group' and copies from a friend. Her unit test average is 58%, and her participation grade is dropping. The teacher says Lila 'isn't trying' and wants to reduce her grade for not participating. Lila attends a resource period twice a week but receives no direct DHH instruction in science. You have one planning period per week with the teacher and access to a captioning request system with a two-week turnaround.
1. What instructional and access issues explain Lila's performance?
Read the worked answer
Lila's 58% average is not evidence of low effort; it is evidence that the lesson's language and listening demands exceed her access. A 25-minute lecture at 150 words per minute is about 3,750 words with no visual anchor, and Lila's FM system delivers the teacher's voice but not peer discussion. The uncaptioned videos remove access entirely for a student who relies on listening and speechreading. Her fifth-grade reading level means grade-level biology text and test items may be language barriers even when she understands the concepts. In labs, she cannot hear group members, so she copies-a predictable response to inaccessible group work, not a participation choice. The teacher's plan to reduce her grade would punish her for a barrier the team has not removed. I would also check whether Lila's hearing aids and FM are functioning, whether she uses them consistently, and whether she has been taught to request clarification. The key issue is that the teacher attributes an access problem to motivation, which is both unfair and unlikely to improve learning.
2. What specific changes would you make to the lecture, videos, and lab groups?
Read the worked answer
For lecture: chunk the 25 minutes into 8–10 minute segments; provide a guided notes outline with key terms and visuals; slow down to about 120 words per minute; pause for a quick partner retell; and repeat or write down critical directions. Use the board or slides for every key term. For videos: request captions two weeks ahead through the captioning system, and do not show uncaptioned video as core instruction; if a video arrives uncaptioned, provide a transcript or replace it. For labs: assign roles and give a written group protocol; place Lila with a consistent partner; use a small FM pass-around microphone or a classroom sound-field system; and have groups report one key finding in writing so she has a record. Pre-teach five to eight vocabulary terms before the unit, including cognates and visuals. Provide a completed lab notebook model and check it mid-lab rather than only at the end. These changes support all students, not just Lila, and cost little instructional time.
3. How should the team handle participation grading and monitor progress?
Read the worked answer
First, separate behavior from access. If Lila cannot hear group members, lowering her participation grade for not participating is not a valid measure. The team should revise the participation rubric to grade observable, accessible behaviors-bringing notes, using the written protocol, asking a scripted clarification question, contributing one idea in a small group-and give her credit for using access strategies. The DHH teacher can push in during labs to coach group communication and to check that the FM pass-around is used. Monitor weekly: lab notebook completeness, quiz scores on pre-taught vocabulary, and a brief student self-report. After four to six weeks, compare her unit test average with the previous 58% and review whether the changes are working. If the teacher still believes Lila is not trying, ask for specific evidence and observe the class together. Document the accommodations in the IEP and the grading change in the team meeting, so the grade reflects science learning rather than hearing access.