To me it seems that Muhammed proposed curriculum as instruction and vice versa. The difference between the two is that of the level not organisational princple. While his hierarchy may seem obvious to some, I would have thought that the division between the goals and the method is more along the lines of the principles rather than detail. Goals, i.e. curriculum, in my view, seems like naming what we want the course to achieve.
Instructional phase seems to require an explication of the relationship between goals and the means.
In Muhammed though the instructional box is nothing else but mentioning of the subcategories of the goals again. The lack of organisational principles which would mark a division between curriculum and instruction shows in his paper as he puts tasks, teaching strategies, and thematic units in the same slot. The instructional phase thus is nothing else but explication of what is assumed that speaking a language involves. In my view though, we may think what we want about the issue what it means to speak a language. I do not understand this point because linear processing has not been explained.