COUC 747 Week 4 Case Study Part 1 Example

Case Study Part 1: The Student Who Argues With Every Piece of Feedback, a Faculty Workshop Case on Problem Situations and Gatekeeping

Workshop Overview

Chapter: problem students and difficult classroom situations (McKeachie & Svinicki, 2014). Topic: when a difficult student is a classroom management problem and when the difficulty becomes a question of professional competence. Learning goals for faculty: (a) apply the chapter's strategies for responding to defensive or challenging students, (b) distinguish a classroom problem from a problem of professional competence and (c) identify the steps counselor educators owe students before any remediation decision.

The Case

Dr. Karen Ellis teaches Counseling Techniques, a required first-year course in an online CACREP-accredited master's program in clinical mental health counseling. Students record weekly role-plays with a volunteer partner and upload them for feedback from Dr. Ellis and two classmates in small groups, using a rubric based on microskills. The syllabus states that the course is graded on growth across the eight weeks, and that the final recording is also reviewed for the program's practicum readiness check.

Jordan, a second-semester student, is bright and articulate and earned top grades in the program's theory courses. Jordan works full time as a human resources manager and has mentioned in introductions that conflict resolution is part of the job. In week two, Dr. Ellis noted that Jordan asked mostly closed questions and interrupted the volunteer client four times in ten minutes. Jordan replied to her feedback within an hour, writing that the rubric was "rigid," that the client had been "rambling" and that interrupting was "a deliberate focusing technique."

In week three, a classmate suggested in small-group feedback that Jordan try more reflections of feeling. Jordan posted a long reply quoting three textbooks and ended with, "I would appreciate feedback from people who know the material." The classmate emailed Dr. Ellis privately to say she no longer felt comfortable giving Jordan feedback, and another group member stopped posting. When Dr. Ellis checked the group's thread, she saw that the group's other feedback had become brief and general, mostly praise.

In week four, Jordan's recording showed the same pattern, and at one point Jordan told the volunteer client, who was describing a breakup, that she "needed to move on." When Dr. Ellis wrote that the comment might feel dismissive to a real client, Jordan replied that the feedback was "unprofessional" and asked to speak with the program director.

Dr. Ellis has a meeting with Jordan scheduled for Friday. She is unsure whether to treat this as a classroom conflict to be managed, a skill deficit to be coached or something that belongs before the program's review committee.

Complicating Factors

Several details make the decision harder. The course is online, so Dr. Ellis has never met Jordan in person and has only written and recorded interactions to go on. Jordan's academic record is excellent, and Jordan may be under pressure to keep it so. The classmate's complaint is private, and Dr. Ellis must decide whether and how to address the group climate without revealing who complained. The program handbook describes a professional dispositions review, but students rarely see it until a problem arises. Finally, it is only week four of an eight-week course, so there is still time for change. Dr. Ellis also wonders whether her own written feedback, sent late at night and in brief rubric comments, sounded harsher than she intended. She has taught the course six times and has never referred a student for review.

Discussion Questions

• 1. Using the chapter's discussion of defensive and challenging students, what is Dr. Ellis's goal for Friday's meeting, and how should she open it?
• 2. How should she respond to the classmate's complaint and to the changed climate in the small group, without singling anyone out?
• 3. Which of Jordan's behaviors are skill deficits that coaching can address, and which, if any, raise questions about professional dispositions?
• 4. What does the ACA Code of Ethics require of Dr. Ellis before any remediation or review, and what should Jordan already have been told?
• 5. How might the online format have contributed to the problem, and what might Dr. Ellis change in the course design for the next cohort?

Facilitator Notes

McKeachie and Svinicki (2014) encourage instructors to treat challenging behavior as communication, to listen first and to talk privately rather than confront a student in front of peers. Faculty may notice that Jordan's replies came quickly and publicly, while Dr. Ellis has not yet spoken with Jordan directly; the meeting is the first real conversation.

The ACA Code of Ethics (American Counseling Association, 2014) requires counselor educators to tell students early about expected competencies, evaluation methods and timing, to provide ongoing evaluation and to help students who show limitations obtain remediation, with dismissal considered only after other steps. Brown-Rice and Furr (2016) note, citing earlier research, that about one in ten counselors in training has been found ill-suited for the profession, and they describe gatekeeping as a demanding role that requires transparency with students. Kerl et al. (2002) argue that evaluations of interpersonal and clinical competence must follow a clear, documented procedure, because students have challenged dismissals in court. A useful prompt for the workshop is to ask which documentation Dr. Ellis already has and what she should begin keeping now. Facilitators can point out that Dr. Ellis has recordings, rubrics and written replies, which is more documentation than many instructors have, and that the student handbook's dispositions review should be shared with Jordan in plain terms whatever the outcome.

A second prompt concerns the online format itself. Text-based feedback lacks tone of voice, and quick written replies can escalate in ways a hallway conversation would not. Faculty can discuss whether a short video meeting earlier in the course, or recorded audio feedback instead of written comments, might have changed the pattern.

Faculty may also connect the case to the principle of safety in Vella (2002): the small group became unsafe for some learners, and restoring safety may be part of Dr. Ellis's task whatever she decides about Jordan.

References

American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA code of ethics.

Brown-Rice, K., & Furr, S. (2016). Counselor educators and students with problems of professional competence: A survey and discussion. The Professional Counselor, 6(2), 134-146. https://doi.org/10.15241/kbr.6.2.134

Kerl, S. B., Garcia, J. L., McCullough, C. S., & Maxwell, M. E. (2002). Systematic evaluation of professional performance: Legally supported procedure and process. Counselor Education and Supervision, 41(4), 321-332. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2002.tb01294.x

McKeachie, W. J., & Svinicki, M. (2014). McKeachie's teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (14th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Vella, J. (2002). Learning to listen, learning to teach: The power of dialogue in educating adults (Rev. ed.). Jossey-Bass.