Reconceptualizing language teaching: an in-service teacher education course in uzbekistan

Two views of curriculum. Graves (2014, p. 51) contrasts two views of 
curriculum: an enactment view in which curriculum is viewed as expe-
riences created by learners and teachers in the classroom and an imple-
mentation view where curriculum is designed by assigned specialists and 
implemented by the teachers and learners. The implementation view puts 
curriculum designers at the top and learners and teachers at the end of the 
chain. According to Graves (2014, p. 51) the chain goes like this: 
Policy makers set curriculum policy; a curriculum committee analyses 
needs, decides on methodology, and produces a curriculum plan; materi-
als writers produce materials according to the plan; teacher trainers train 
the teachers to use the materials; and the teachers and learners use the 
materials in the classroom.
If implementation of the curriculum is not successful those who are at 
the top of the hierarchical chain blame teachers for their incompetence or 
resistance to new curriculum. Schwarts (2006) notes that implementation 
view is problematic as “What happens in the learning experience is an out-
come of the original, creative, thinking-on-your-feet efforts of the teacher – 
which often lead the class in directions far, far away from anticipated goals 
of the curriculum writers” (as cited in Graves, 2014, p. 50).
In contrast, recursive process, consisting of planning, enacting and 
evaluating, places learning and teaching in the classroom in the center of 
the dynamic system of enactment. Planning and evaluation are in close re-
lationship, influencing each other. Planning is used as guidance to support 
enactment and provision of evaluation. Evaluation aiming at evaluation ef-
fectiveness learning and teaching affects planning. 

---

167
CHAPTER FIVE: FROM SYLLABUS DESIGN TO LESSON PLANNING