Graves (2000) highlighted the organic process of teaching by positing “ Designing a language course is a work in progress in its whole, in its parts, and in its implementation” (p. 9). As a first step, defining the learning and teaching context for a language curriculum project provides teachers with opportunities to know students’ actual needs beforehand. Teachers can decide where to start and what to focus on by challenging taken-for-granted contexts and knowledge through the process of problematizing (Freire, 1973). Defining a challenge is doing great service to teachers to produce a feasible solution. In this way, “how problematizing often shapes teacher’s approach to designing a course” (Graves, 2000, p. 21).
Graves also indicates the interrelatedness between teacher’s beliefs and their choices they make. Teacher’s beliefs about language, the social context of learning, learning and learners, and teaching all impact every step of course design. Thus, it is noteworthy that teachers need to design a course that matches their educational beliefs reflecting on students’ needs with a careful consideration to the context of learning. As an EFL educator, I highly value learner-centeredness promoting learner autonomy; thus, hope to make continuous endeavor to develop learner-driven curriculum in a way that ensures the students actively negotiate to solve the problems based on shared decisions and eventually participate in making meaning of the world themselves and discovering knowledge as more autonomous learners.
More importantly, teachers need to consider the broader social, cultural, and historical implications in defining the context in designing a course. As the focus of teaching has been shifted from product-oriented teaching to process-oriented teaching in the TESOL profession, teachers are encouraged to produce a more flexible curriculum. Brown (1991) explains that these trend-setting shifts had created a new state of awareness in this profession. Thus, teachers are encouraged to develop their own theory, “awakened to the multiplicity of learner identities, awakened to the complexity of teacher beliefs, and awakened to the vitality of macrostructures-social, cultural, political, and historical-that shape and reshape the microstructures of our pedagogic enterprise” (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p.75). Above all, “Curriculum emerges from the interactions between teacher, student, and world” (Miller, 2006, p. 3).
