You are on page 1of 2

The article I read is Universal Design for Learning and the Arts by Don Glass, Anne Meyer, and

David H. Rose. The authors address the issue of the “marginali ation of the arts! "Glass, Meyer, # Rose, $.%&, '()*+, and ho, the design of curriculum doesn-t meet the needs of students. The article advocates the use of arts education along ,ith .niversal Design for /earning ".D/+ to hel$ art educators $lan better curricula. The inclusion of both is also suggested to be beneficial for teaching other areas of study. The $ur$ose of .D/ is to assist in the “design and evaluation of curriculum, $rograms, and materials "Glass et al. $. %%, '()*+. In addition, the article reiterates ho, .D/ is ideal for designing curriculum for all students, regardless of their s0ills or talents. This is because .D/ recogni es that every $erson learns differently due to internal factors, li0e “the com$le1 net,or0s! of our brains, "Glass et al., $.)((, '()*+ and e1ternal factors such as classrooms. .D/ recogni es that students ,ill have several different learning environments that can affect ho, they learn. .D/ is based off three $rinci$les, those being2 engagement, re$resentation, and action and e1$ression "Glass et al., '()*+. The $oint of the $rinci$les is to $rovide different o$tions for2 ho, students can be involved "engaged+, varied ,ays of understanding ,hat is being taught "re$resentation+, and ho, students sho, ,hat they have learned "action and e1$ression+. 3hat Glass, Meyer, and Rose tal0 about in the article is ho, .D/ can greatly benefit arts education and vice versa, es$ecially since arts education already follo,s some or all of the .D/ $rinci$les. As Glass et al. states, “In the .D/ frame,or0, the goal for education is that learners develo$ learning expertise! "$.)(), '()*+. As I said before, .D/ also loo0s at ho, the brain ,or0s so that teachers can better facilitate and understand ho, their students learn. “The .D/ guidelines are organi ed around three neural net,or0s that have been associated ,ith learning2 the affective, recognition, and strategic net,or0s! "Glass et al., )(), '()*+. These are the net,or0s of the brain that $ertain to learning. Therefore, understanding that everyone learns differently in terms of the .D/ guidelines of engagement, re$resentation, and action and e1$ression, can hel$ teachers ,hen they create lessons. And so .D/ hel$s in arts education because there ,ill al,ays be students ,ith a ,ide range of s0ills and talents. .D/ is hel$ful to for art teachers to accommodate the diverse students that they ,ill have, and at the same time, design lesson $lans in a ,ay that every student ,ill understand. The goal for using .D/ in arts education is “more 4students5 can understand art, more can create it, and more can value it! "Glass et al., $. )(6, '()*+. As Glass, Meyer, and Rose suggest in the article, arts education can also benefit .D/ because of the ,ay the arts already $rovide a lot of o$tions for the guidelines of .D/. In terms of re$resentation, there are several o$tions available to get art students to understand ,hat they-re learning. 7ne of the o$tions mentioned includes 8T9, ,hich is es$ecially hel$ful ,hen an art teacher has students ,ith varied abilities. In terms of engagement, Glass et al. argues that “the arts:$rovides more o$tions to recruit interest, sustain engagement, and develo$ self;regulation! "$. ))*, '()*+. /astly, for action and e1$ression, the arts $rovide students the ability to sho, ,hat they-ve learned through the many mediums available in art, allo,ing them to be creative and o$en in ,hat they choose to do. .ltimately, Glass et al. ho$e that “through the integration of the arts and .D/ is a better form of education;full and com$le1, cognitive and emotional, and rich ,ith culture and human e1$ression! "$.))<, '()*+.

Research =roblem The goals are clearly stated at the beginning of the article, immediately $ointing out the $ur$ose of $ersuading the reader that .D/ and arts education should be integrated. The authors elaborate on the im$ortance of the effect of .D/ in arts education and vice versa, e1$laining that both can greatly benefit from each other. The authors e1$lained everything ,ell, so that a $erson un0no,ledgeable of .D/ and art can understand the significance the t,o have on students. /iterature Revie, All of the cited sources ,ere relevant to the to$ic, and $rovided the authors ,ith alternate e1$lanations to give the reader different $ers$ectives for understanding. Most of the sources are current, ,ith '6 out of the *( being $ublished ,ithin the years of '(((;'()', and & of those '6 ,ere made ,ithin '()(;'()'. The other 6 sources ,ere $ublished in the )%%(-s. Research >uestions or Hy$otheses The authors clearly state in the beginning of the article ,hat their concerns are and ho, their research ,ill ho$efully benefit the $roblem. Data 9ources?9am$ling There ,as no data source ,here an actual study too0 $lace. The $oint of the research ,as to ta0e ,hat is already 0no,n from .D/ and the arts, $resent that 0no,ledge to the reader, and to $ro$ose the integration of both. The article ,as more about $roviding teachers ,ith the o$tion of utili ing the benefits of .D/ and the arts in their curriculum, rather than actually having teachers change or ad@ust their curriculum to test out those benefits. Measurement Tools 9ince a study did not ta0e $lace, there are no measurement tools. Methodology?=rocedures Aecause this article is not about a study, there are no $rocedures. Results I believe the authors ,ere successful ,ith the selection of their research to hel$ them in their argument. They clearly addressed the $roblem, and $rovided the necessary research for an ans,er to the $roblem. Discussion 9ince this ,asn-t a study, there ,eren-t any conclusions found. Aut again, the research used in the article $rovides an ans,er to the $roblem $resented. Bven though this ,asn-t a study, the research is very relevant to art teachers and educators in general. As Glass et al. e1$lain in the article, there is a lot to benefit from .D/ and the arts.