Michael Wills

TuesdayOct 24 at 5:39am

Manage Discussion Entry

Learning should be at the forefront of any curriculum model during preparation for live instruction (Diamond, 2008). This aspect is vital as the author believes this is lacking in the current curriculum design published for students in today’s education facilities (Diamond, 2008). The model proposed by the author provides a framework for curriculum development that easily integrates into any format of education (Diamond, 2008). Following the order of “Statement of Need…Statement of Goals…Design of Instruction, Assessment…Implementation and Assessment…Revision as Needed” (Diamond, 2008, p. 10) provides an easy-to-follow agenda for the newest of course developers to use. This format is critical when designing a new program if there is no historical data or curriculum that could potentially serve as a guide in the development process. This area is like a curriculum the researcher works through for his children’s school. Part of the researcher’s duties is to serve on the school board, and part of those duties is working with the administration on education programming and curriculum. His children’s school needs a new Family Ministry and Discipleship Program. This program entails a new discipleship curriculum for the school. The researcher is partnering with a teacher on staff to develop the curriculum. Until now, the researcher and the teacher were coming up with ideas on what to put into the new curriculum with little thought toward goals and needs. This model provides a framework for the researcher and the teacher to follow when developing the curriculum for potential integration into the 2024-2025 academic year. This program is the researcher’s first time designing and implementing a curriculum, so this model provides the potential for an easier and more efficient design process. Finally, holding this theory up Yount’s discipler’s model provides an interesting case study for the collision of discipleship, the intent behind any new curriculum, and the goals of the design process. The first barrier the researcher sees is in the statement of need. This area could potentially be a problem in any Christian school that de-emphasizes the role of the Gospel while teaching specific courses. If the school does not view a subject as Gospel-centric, then there is the potential for conflict with this theory because it cannot relate the needs of the children through a biblical lens (Yount, 2010). It exacerbates because the Bible states, “All scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness” (
New American Standard Bible, 1960/2000, 2 Timothy, 3:16). The Bible should stay at the center of an education process when it is being developed and implemented by Christians at a Christian institution.

References

Diamond, R.M. (2008).
 Designing and assessing courses and curricula: A practical guide. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Life Application Study Bible, New American Standard Bible. (2000). The Lockman Foundation (original work published 1960).

Yount, W. R. (2010). 
Created to learn: A Christian teacher’s introduction to educational psychology (2nd ed.). B&H Academic.

Matt Engel

YesterdayOct 28 at 8:03pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Diamond’s Curriculum Design Framework

Diamond (2008) advocates for a learning-centered approach to course design that focuses on constructively aligning learning goals, assessments, and learning activities to promote student achievement of desired outcomes (pp. 15-18). This approach ensures high coherence and intentionality in course planning to optimize student learning. However, biblical principles and research findings in practice reveal potential gaps between Diamond’s ideal methodology and common educational realities.

Alignment between goals, assessments, and activities is fundamental to Diamond’s framework, yet the Bible upholds the importance of goals and outcomes originating from Christ-centered foundations. Colossians 1:28 instructs, “Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ” (
English Standard Version Bible, 2009). Learning objectives rooted in biblical wisdom will differ markedly from secular aims. Christian educators must ensure proper origins and orientation of goals, deriving intended outcomes from Scripture and the character of God Himself (Estep, 2008). Without this biblical grounding, alignment to humanistic learning aims will severely distort course design.

Regarding learning activities, Diamond (2008) prioritizes active, student-centered methods over passive lecturing (p. 57). However, research confirms instructors often default to teacher-centered delivery, violating biblical principles of discipleship. Deuteronomy 6 (
English Standard Version Bible, 2009) commands direct, active teaching of God’s truth, not passive reception alone. Lecture-dominated class time can breed student disengagement and superficial learning. Best practices require time-intensive revamping of instructional strategies to implement student-focused learning (Brewer & Movahedazarhouligh, 2018). This major shift in workload and planning poses challenges.

Institutional inertia and entrenched habits also hinder adoption of optimal course design (Yount, 2010). As Diamond acknowledges, “Old practices die hard” (p. 4). Instructors tend to imitate past models from their own educational experiences, lacking biblical discernment. Despite its challenges, the holy calling of Christian education demands pursuing exceptional, Christ-glorifying instructional design (Korniejczuk & Kijai, 1994). Settling for comfortable tradition or worldly educational norms shortchanges students. Congruence with Diamond’s principles is secondary to fulfilling biblical teaching mandates.

Administrative requirements like standardized assessments may also constrain the implementation of ideal course alignment. Diamond focuses mainly on individual course optimization, while programs must balance multiple factors. Still, within limitations, instructors should innovate to enhance learning. The study of learning sciences equips educators to maximize outcomes amidst constraints (Ambrose et al, 2010).

In summary, Diamond presents research-supported methods to maximize learning through intentional course alignment. Yet biblical principles and transformational priorities may necessitate adaptation. With Spirit-guided effort, redemptive learning-centered design can equip students for godly service. “Conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt” (
English Standard Version Bible, 2009, Colossians 4:5-6). The calling to Christian discipleship compels excellence, even when difficult.

References

Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). 
How learning works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. John Wiley & Sons.

Brewer, R., & Movahedazarhouligh, S. (2018). Successful stories and conflicts: A literature review on the effectiveness of flipped learning in higher education. 
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 
34(4), 409–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12250

English Standard Version Bible. (2009). Crossway. (Original work published 2001)

Huckaby, C. (2015). Estep, Anthony, and Allison’s “A Theology for Christian Education” (Book Review). 
The Christian Librarian, 
58(2). https://doi.org/10.55221/2572-7478.1331

Korniejczuk, R. I., & Kijai, J. (1994). Integrating Faith and Learning: Development of a stage model of teacher implementation. 
Journal of Research on Christian Education, 
3(1), 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/10656219409484801

Yount, W. R. (2010). 
Created to learn: A christian teacher’s introduction to educational psychology. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic.