Everything itself is right. As Graves (2000) said “there are multiple possibilities, multiple justifications, and multiple answers.” However, there are considerations that should be accounted for since a curriculum is not an assembly of random choices.
I agree that “designing a course is similar to designing a house” and “you need to have a lot of information in order to design a structure that will fit the context.” (Graves, 2000, p.14) I admit defining context helped me to make decisions about content, objectives, etc. in curriculums in my academy.
I have realized problematizing, though I didn’t know this term, played an important role to make the curriculum for my academy works. There were many constraints for a small private academy. I always tried to identify the challenges that can be met within the context and focus on them, which eventually became the strength of my academy. I think it’s critical to be aware of the context and to respond to it properly.
To me, the most meaningful finding of the lesson is that “beliefs provide a basis for making choices.” (Graves, 2000, p.26) By using Stern’s framework, I was able to articulate my beliefs underlying in curricula I designed, which I was not much aware of nor made explicit then, and surprised to see how much the curricula was affected by my beliefs about language, learning, and teaching.
In sum, I think Graves (2000) wonderfully summarized the formula for a curriculum, emphasizing all these aspects above: “your course design should marry your beliefs with the needs of the students within the context of the course.”