Rigor, Access, and Belonging
Updated: Sep 18
What Action Research Revealed About Student-Centered Instruction for Diverse Learners
This blog was created as the culminating project for CI6103: Curriculum and Instructional Design at the American College of Education. It brings together my reflections and findings from the course’s quantitative and qualitative action-research activities, focusing on student-centered instruction and support for diverse learners. As a secondary science educator, I began this work with a question that continues to shape my teaching: How can I help every student access rigorous learning while also ensuring that each student feels capable, valued, and included?
Throughout CI6103, I examined student-centered instruction, strategies for diverse learners, teacher perceptions, classroom management, lesson planning, and purposeful use of technology. In Module 4, I developed an action-research proposal focused on evidence-based instructional practices. In Module 5, I analyzed quantitative and open-ended survey responses from science educators. Module 8 allowed me to learn from an experienced secondary science teacher through a qualitative interview. Finally, in Module 9, I synthesized the findings and developed practical recommendations for classroom instruction.
Three ideas connected my work: rigor, access, and belonging. Through this research, I came to understand rigor as asking students to analyze, explain, apply evidence, and revise their thinking. Access involves anticipating barriers and providing meaningful ways for students to engage with challenging work, while belonging requires relationships and participation structures that communicate that every student is a valued member of the classroom community (Bradshaw et al., 2018; Thompson et al., 2025).
I have come to understand that these ideas cannot be separated. Rigor without access may prevent students from participating meaningfully. Access without rigor may unintentionally communicate that we expect less from students. Both become more difficult when students do not feel safe asking questions, making mistakes, or sharing their ideas.
My most important conclusion is that supporting students does not mean making learning easier. Instead, effective instruction preserves the intellectual challenge while changing the pathways students can use to reach the learning goal.
Student-Centered Does Not Mean Teacher-Absent
Before this course, I associated student-centered learning primarily with inquiry, choice, collaboration, and hands-on activities. I still value those practices, but I now recognize that student-centered instruction also requires intentional structure.
Choice alone does not guarantee meaningful learning, and group work does not automatically produce collaboration. Students need clear learning targets, explicit expectations, useful resources, and feedback that helps them improve. In a secondary science classroom, student-centered learning might involve students generating questions, investigating phenomena, constructing models, analyzing data, explaining ideas, or developing a Claim-Evidence-Reasoning response.
These approaches shift some responsibility to students, but they do not eliminate the teacher’s role. Instead, the teacher becomes a designer, modeler, observer, facilitator, and feedback provider. The teacher continually studies evidence of student understanding and decides what support or challenge is needed next.
This understanding connects with the four pillars of education: learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together, and learning to be (International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century, 1996). Science instruction should help students build knowledge, apply that knowledge, collaborate respectfully, and develop confidence and independence.
Why I Needed to Ask This Question
Local science assessment data showed an overall proficiency rate of approximately 31% (New Hampshire Department of Education, 2025). The data also indicated greater performance concerns among economically disadvantaged students and students with disabilities. Although these findings established a need for further investigation, they did not explain why students were struggling or identify one specific instructional cause.
Biology students often move among diagrams, quantitative data, physical models, laboratory procedures, technical vocabulary, and written explanations during a single lesson. These tasks require students to manage attention, working memory, planning, organization, language, and self-monitoring. A student may understand the science but still struggle to demonstrate that understanding because of the demands of the task.
Therefore, my action-research question focused on both instructional effectiveness and feasibility: How do educators perceive the effectiveness and feasibility of evidence-based multimodal instructional strategies for supporting diverse learners?
The literature led me to examine six evidence-informed approaches: purposeful multiple representations, Universal Design for Learning paired with individualized supports (Thompson et al., 2025), explicit Claim, Evidence, and Reasoning instruction (Boyle et al., 2026), concept maps and graphic organizers (Ciullo et al., 2015; Karaer et al., 2024), Predict-Observe-Explain inquiry, and technology-enabled simulations (Kohnke, 2026).
I also examined formative assessment and criterion-referenced rubrics as ways to connect instructional strategies to learning goals. One important caution emerged: simply adding more formats does not automatically improve learning. Each representation must serve a clear purpose, connect to the learning target, and avoid creating additional barriers.
Two Sources, One Central Question
My project combined quantitative and qualitative evidence from two sources. Using both approaches allowed me to examine broad patterns while also considering how an experienced educator made instructional decisions in context (Mertler, 2020).
First, 10 general education science teachers completed an anonymous online survey consisting of 10 Likert-type statements and four open-ended questions. The survey examined perceptions of instructional strategies, formative assessment, criterion-referenced rubrics, practicality, and implementation conditions. I summarized the responses using counts, percentages, medians, and observed ranges. Because the sample was small and the response options were ordinal, I did not calculate inferential statistics or treat the findings as generalizable.
Second, I conducted a semi-structured interview with an experienced secondary science educator. The interview explored rigor, resources, technology, collaboration, classroom management, conflict, and advice for novice teachers. I analyzed the interview for recurring instructional actions and decision-making processes. All participant identities and identifying details have been omitted.
The survey revealed patterns across a group of educators, while the interview provided a deeper explanation of how one teacher responded to learners and circumstances. Neither source measured student achievement. However, together they provided useful local evidence on the strategies teachers value, the barriers they face, and the rationale behind responsive instruction.
What Teachers Value—and What Gets in the Way
Quantitative Findings
The survey revealed strong support for purposeful multiple representations and formative assessment. All 10 participants responded positively to multiple representations, and 90% responded positively to formative assessment. Explicit Claim, Evidence, and Reasoning instruction, concept maps, Predict-Observe-Explain inquiry, criterion-referenced rubrics, and overall practicality each received 70% positive responses. Among the nine educators who responded to the simulations and virtual-reality item, 78% responded positively. Universal Design for Learning paired with individualized supports received 60% positive responses.
Figure 1
Teacher Perceptions of Evidence-Based Instructional Practices—Module 5 Survey Findings
Note. Positive responses include “agree” and “strongly agree.” Percentages represent the proportion of positive responses from participating science educators.
The most important tension appeared between perceived value and implementation capacity. Although 70% of participants agreed that the strategies were practical, only 20% agreed that they had adequate time, resources, professional learning, technology, materials, and collaboration to use them consistently. The median rating for implementation conditions was 2.5, the lowest rating among the survey items.
Figure 2
The Value–Capacity Gap in Teacher Implementation.
Note. Although 70% of participants considered the strategies practical, only 20% reported having adequate conditions for consistent implementation.
This finding changed how I interpreted teacher responses. Most educators were not rejecting multimodal or responsive instruction. Instead, they were describing the difficulty of implementing these approaches within real classroom conditions. Teachers identified planning time, class size, curriculum pacing, feedback demands, technology, organization, and limited collaboration as common barriers.
This finding also reminded me to make realistic recommendations. It is easy to suggest that teachers differentiate every lesson, collect continuous data, provide individualized feedback, and use multiple technologies. It is much harder to sustain those practices across several classes and diverse learning needs. Effective recommendations must support students without placing unrealistic demands on teachers.
Responsive Teaching in Practice
Qualitative Findings
The veteran educator interview organized responsive teaching into five interconnected processes:
1. Know the learners and context.
2. Define one rigorous common target.
3. Select and adapt resources and technology.
4. Structure participation and dialogue.
5. Observe, regulate, repair, and adjust.
Table 1
Five Processes of Responsive Teaching: Interview Evidence and UNESCO Alignment
Note. The five instructional processes were identified through analysis of the qualitative educator interview conducted in Module 8. The findings are connected to UNESCO’s four pillars of learning
The first process involves learning about students’ prior knowledge, interests, experiences, language resources, access needs, and responsibilities. This information helps teachers respond to evidence rather than make assumptions based on labels or behavior.
The second process keeps the intellectual goal visible. Supports may change, but students should still work toward a meaningful common target.
The third process involves selecting resources that improve learning. The participant used print and digital materials, videos, text-to-speech, parallel tasks, and flexible groupings according to student and lesson needs. Technology was useful when it offered a genuine learning advantage, not simply because it was available.
The fourth process focuses on participation. Think-pair-share, anonymous questions, flexible grouping, and partner preparation provided students with different ways to enter academic conversations.
The fifth process makes instruction responsive. Assessment evidence informed regrouping and instructional adjustments. When conflict occurred, the educator allowed students time to regulate before returning to the situation through private conversation and reflection.
The interview showed me that responsive teaching is not a menu of disconnected strategies. It is a decision-making process. The educator began with learners, context, and the intended outcome. Only then did she select resources, participation structures, and supports.
Keep the Challenge, Change the Path
One of the most significant changes in my thinking involved the meaning of rigor. Rigor is not simply the amount of work assigned, the speed of instruction, or the complexity of vocabulary. Rigorous instruction requires students to make sense of ideas, apply knowledge, evaluate evidence, explain relationships, and revise their thinking.
For example, students may identify the nucleus, ribosome, endoplasmic reticulum, and Golgi apparatus. A more rigorous task asks them to explain how these structures work together to produce and export a protein. The second task requires systems thinking and causal reasoning.
Differentiation should not automatically change that intellectual destination. Students might use an annotated diagram, a physical model, an audio-supported text, a vocabulary guide, a partner rehearsal, or a process organizer. These supports can reduce barriers related to reading, memory, organization, language, or written expression while preserving the reasoning required by the learning target.
This distinction is particularly important for students with disabilities, multilingual learners, and students with attention or executive-function needs. A barrier in the learning environment should not be mistaken for a lack of ability. My responsibility is to identify the essential thinking and determine whether unrelated task demands are preventing students from demonstrating that thinking.
Access Cannot Be an Afterthought
Universal Design for Learning and differentiated instruction recognize that learner variability is predictable. I should therefore anticipate common barriers during planning rather than wait until students struggle before adding support (CAST, 2018).
Potential supports include visual models, audio paired with written text, chunked directions, visible task sequences, vocabulary support, graphic organizers, partner rehearsal, flexible grouping, sentence frames, text-to-speech, and multiple response formats.
These supports are most effective when they address an identified barrier and remain aligned with the same success criteria. Module 9 led me to select whole-group supports as a sustainable starting point. Spoken and posted directions, print and digital text, visible task sequences, concise organizers, partner rehearsal, and brief formative checks can benefit many learners without requiring a separate lesson for every student.
Universal supports do not eliminate the need for individualized accommodations. Some students will still require specific supports based on documented or observed needs. The larger lesson is that access should be planned deliberately, monitored through evidence, and adjusted over time.
Belonging Is an Instructional Condition
Belonging develops through daily instructional decisions. Students are more likely to ask questions, seek help, test an idea, and revise their thinking when they believe their contributions will be treated respectfully.
The interview provided several practical examples. The educator admitted mistakes, responded positively to questions, allowed anonymous questions, and used partner or small-group preparation before public reporting. These practices lowered the social risk of participation without lowering expectations.
Culturally responsive teaching also requires teachers to examine how personal experiences influence interpretations of student behavior (Bradshaw et al., 2018). Silence may reflect language processing, uncertainty, or communication preferences rather than disengagement. Incomplete work may reflect executive-function challenges, employment, family responsibilities, or confusion about the task.
Curiosity does not require teachers to ignore expectations. Instead, it encourages us to gather evidence before deciding what a behavior means. Students need both care and transparent accountability. They should understand what they are expected to learn, how to seek help, how to disagree respectfully, and how to return to learning after a mistake.
Management Starts With Design
This course changed how I think about classroom management. Many classroom difficulties begin when the learning process is unclear. Students may struggle when they do not understand the task, time limit, movement expectations, group responsibilities, help procedures, or required evidence.
Before collaborative or independent work, I should make these conditions visible. Predictable opening activities, visual directions, defined roles, brief comprehension checks, clear transitions, and individual accountability reduce uncertainty.
Collaborative learning also requires structure. Asking students to form groups and discuss a question is not enough. A structure such as prepare, pair, synthesize, and prove gives students time to develop an idea, compare reasoning, contribute to a shared response, and demonstrate individual understanding.
Conflict management also affects belonging. When students are upset, an immediate public conversation may not be productive. Private redirection, time to regulate, reflection, and a later restorative conversation can protect student dignity while maintaining accountability.
Technology Needs a Reason to Be There
Technology can expand access, representation, feedback, collaboration, and student creation. However, novelty is not evidence of learning. A simulation, video, podcast, virtual investigation, or digital organizer belongs in a lesson when it helps students see, do, or understand something connected to the learning target.
My review showed that simulations can make abstract biological processes more visible. It also showed that connectivity problems, navigation demands, accessibility barriers, and unclear follow-up tasks can reduce their value (Kohnke, 2026).
Before using technology, I now ask:
What learning advantage does this tool provide?
Can all students access it?
Does it protect student privacy and dignity?
What is my backup plan if the technology fails?
These questions keep the instructional purpose ahead of the platform.
From Evidence to the Next Instructional Move
The findings from Modules 4, 5, 8, and 9 can be organized into a five-step responsive planning cycle.
Figure 4
Five-Step Responsive Planning Cycle
Note: The cycle maintains a rigorous learning target while adjusting access according to formative evidence.
Step 1: Identify One Rigorous Target
Determine what students should understand, explain, evaluate, create, or transfer. Separate the intellectual goal from the assignment format.
Step 2: Identify Likely Barriers
Consider prior knowledge, language, reading demands, vocabulary, working memory, organization, technology, sensory access, time, group dynamics, and the social risk of participation.
Step 3: Offer a Manageable Support Menu
Select a small number of supports that address anticipated barriers. Examples include models, visible directions, graphic organizers, partner rehearsal, and multiple response formats.
Step 4: Collect Brief Evidence
Use questioning, an annotated model, a concept map, a CER response, a one-minute explanation, a confidence check, or an exit ticket. Collect only the evidence needed to make the next instructional decision.
Step 5: Adjust the Next Move
Continue, clarify, regroup, reteach, change a representation, repair a participation problem, or fade a scaffold. Then collect evidence again.
This cycle is intentionally manageable. The survey showed that teachers value responsive instruction but often lack the capacity to implement complex systems. Beginning with one lesson and one coherent set of supports is more sustainable than redesigning an entire curriculum at once.
This cycle also provides a practical structure for lesson-plan development. Rather than beginning with an activity or technology, the teacher begins with the learning target, anticipates barriers, selects aligned supports, plans a formative check, and identifies possible instructional responses.
What This Looks Like in Biology
Consider the target: Explain how the nucleus provides genetic instructions and how ribosomes, the rough endoplasmic reticulum, the Golgi apparatus, transport vesicles, and the cell membrane work together to make, modify, package, and export a protein.
Students may know the function of each organelle but struggle to sequence the process or explain how the structures operate as a system. Vocabulary and the organization required for a written response may hide what students understand.
I could provide a color-coded organelle model, an annotated process organizer, audio paired with text, and partner rehearsal. Students could then complete a one-minute annotated model tracing the protein pathway and explain one relationship between the structures.
If students explain the process accurately and independently, I can reduce the support. If they continue to struggle, I can regroup them, model the pathway again, or introduce another representation. The rigorous target remains constant while the pathway responds to evidence.
Figure 5
Keeping the Target, Changing the Support
Note. Students work toward the same rigorous learning target while using different supports to organize, process, and communicate their understanding. Infographic showing four supports—labeled diagram, sequence cards, sentence frames, and verbal explanation—leading to the same protein-export learning target.
Recommendations for Educators
Based on the combined findings, I recommend the following practices:
Begin with one meaningful, rigorous learning target. Define the knowledge and reasoning students must demonstrate before selecting an activity or technology.
Design universal access into the first version of the lesson. Use visual directions, models, predictable routines, processing time, and multiple response pathways when they support the whole group.
Use knowledge of learners and formative evidence to select additional supports. Respond to actual barriers rather than make assumptions based on a label.
Make formative assessment the anchor of instructional adjustment. Formative evidence allows teachers to identify what students understand and determine the next instructional move (Lupoli, 2017). Brief checks should reveal misconceptions, readiness, task-management barriers, and the need for reteaching or extension.
Keep rubrics and success criteria concise. Well-designed rubrics can clarify expectations, guide revision, and support self-regulated learning when they focus on meaningful criteria (Brookhart, 2018; Panadero et al., 2023). Survey participants valued criterion-referenced assessment less consistently than formative assessment and expressed concern about complexity. Criteria should therefore focus on a small number of essential outcomes and remain available during planning and revision.
Teach task and participation structures explicitly. Make time limits, transitions, help procedures, group roles, and individual accountability visible.
Use technology only when it offers a clear learning advantage. Confirm access, privacy, and a workable alternative before implementation.
Build revision into student learning and teacher planning. Students should use feedback to improve models and explanations. Teachers should use classroom evidence to refine the next version of a lesson.
Protect teacher capacity. Sustainable implementation requires adaptable exemplars, concise planning tools, time for collaboration, realistic pacing, and focused professional support. Teacher commitment cannot compensate indefinitely for missing conditions.
Include student evidence in the next research cycle. Student work, formative patterns, task completion, confidence ratings, reflections, and student voice are necessary to determine whether a strategy improves access and learning.
What This Research Can—and Cannot—Tell Us
This action research provided useful local evidence, but the conclusions must remain modest. The survey included only 10 general education science teachers. It did not include special educators, multilingual learner specialists, students, or families. The survey measured perceptions rather than observed implementation or student achievement. One item had nine valid responses, and some open-ended responses were incomplete.
The qualitative findings came from one experienced educator. Her responses offered depth and practical insight but cannot represent every teacher, school, or community. In addition, self-reported perceptions do not prove that a strategy was implemented consistently or improved student learning.
The next research cycle should connect teacher perceptions with direct evidence, including student models, concept maps, CER responses, exit tickets, task completion, confidence ratings, reflections, classroom observations, and student interviews.
Bringing the Findings To Life
My Module 9 audiovisual presentation brings together quantitative and qualitative evidence. Creating the presentation reinforced an important principle from this research: academic information can remain rigorous while being communicated through narration, visuals, examples, and data displays.
Video 1
Rigor With Access: Action-Research Findings and Recommendations
Note.Narrated action-research presentation about rigorous and accessible instruction for diverse secondary learners.
The medium may change, but the research expectations remain. Technology is most valuable when it helps an audience understand evidence and connect findings to practice.
What I Will Carry Forward
CI6103 helped me understand that equitable instruction is not about making learning easier. It is about creating classroom conditions that enable more students to participate in meaningful learning and demonstrate what they know.
The quantitative findings showed strong teacher support for purposeful multiple representations and formative assessment. They also revealed a significant gap between the perceived value of responsive instruction and the conditions available for consistent implementation.
The qualitative interview showed how an experienced educator responded to this complexity by knowing learners, defining a common target, adapting resources, structuring participation, and adjusting instruction based on evidence.
The title Rigor, Access, and Belonging captures the central lesson I will carry forward: students should never have to choose between being challenged and being supported. Thoughtful curriculum and instructional design can provide both.
These findings reach beyond my own classroom and speak to the broader school community. When a school is dedicated to rigorous and inclusive learning, it is important to support teachers with time to collaborate, flexible resources, meaningful professional development, and expectations that are both high and realistic. Strong instructional leadership helps ensure that the values we share as educators are matched by the support we need to put them into practice. When a school’s mission centers on achievement, equity, and belonging, it is essential that teachers are given the tools and support to bring that mission to life for students each day.
References
American College of Education. (2019a). CI6103 analyzing action research: Module 5 [Part 1 presentation transcript]. Canvas.
American College of Education. (2019b). CI6103 pedagogical change through ethnographic interviewing: Module 5 [Part 2 presentation]. Canvas.
American College of Education. (2019c). CI6103 critiquing resources and materials: Module 8 [Part 1 presentation transcript]. Canvas.
American College of Education. (2019d). CI6103 engagement and rigor: Module 8 [Part 2 presentation transcript]. Canvas.
Boyle, J. R., Watson, L., Frith, D. M., & Robinson, H. E. (2026). Teaching students with and without learning disabilities to use a scientific argumentative writing strategy in inclusive science classes.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 41(1), 48-64. https://doi.org/10.1177/09388982251359640
Bradshaw, C. P., Pas, E. T., Bottiani, J. H., Debnam, K. J., Reinke, W. M., Herman, K. C., & Rosenberg, M. S. (2018). Promoting cultural responsivity and student engagement through Double Check coaching of classroom teachers. School Psychology Review, 47(2), 118-134. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0119.V47-2
Brookhart, S. M. (2018). Appropriate criteria: Key to effective rubrics. Frontiers in Education, 3, Article 22. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00022
CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org
Ciullo, S., Falcomata, T. S., Pfannenstiel, K., & Billingsley, G. (2015). Improving learning with science and social studies text using computer-based concept maps for students with disabilities. Behavior Modification, 39(1), 117-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445514552890
International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century. (1996). Learning: The treasure within: Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century. UNESCO Publishing.
Karaer, G., Melekoglu, M. A., & Hand, B. (2024). Examining the use of embedded generative strategies with graphic organizers to improve science achievement of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Science Education for Students with Disabilities, 27(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.14448/jsesd.16.0002
Kohnke, S. (2026). The effect of browser-based 360-degree VR on the science achievement gap between students with and without disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 41(1), 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434251318007
Lupoli, C. (2017). I want it now! Three effective teaching strategies in an age where we want it all. Now. Leadership, 46(4), 20-22.
Mertler, C. A. (2020). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
New Hampshire Department of Education. (2025). Science assessment data (participation and proficiency) [Data set]. NH SAS iReport. https://jwt.nh.gov/
Panadero, E., Jönsson, A., Pinedo, L., & Fernández-Castilla, B. (2023). Effects of rubrics on academic performance, self-regulated learning, and self-efficacy: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 35, Article 113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09823-4
Thompson, J. R., Walker, V. L., Carlson, S. R., Carpenter, M. E., & Edyburn, D. L. (2025). Does planning and arranging individualized supports for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities influence educator confidence and competence in universal design for learning? International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 71(5), 733-746. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2023.2286407
Comments