Giving English Teachers Autonomy and Choice: Coping with Curriculum Change in Poland

  • Małgorzata TetiurkaEmail author
Part of the International Perspectives on English Language Teaching book series (INPELT)


Tetiurka focuses on the challenges posed for English teachers and learners by the move to a more decentralised education system, which gives teachers unprecedented freedom to make their own choices about the methodologies and materials that they use in order to enable their learners to achieve the goals of the new Core Curriculum. While such freedom seemed initially attractive to the teacher interviewed, she now considers the additional responsibilities that such decentralisation entails as more of burden than a liberation. Policy makers’ lack of communication with or involvement of stakeholders at the initiation stage resulted in insufficient recognition of the challenges posed and inadequate professional support provision. These omissions have contributed to teachers’ feelings of uncertainty about and discomfort with the choices they are expected to make.


  1. Alexander, C. 2003. English language teachers’ attitudes to the Polish 1998 educational reform. Retrieved from:
  2. Baidak, N., O. Borodankova, D. Kocanova and A. Motiejunaite. 2012. Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe. Education, audiovisual and culture executive agency, European commission.Google Scholar
  3. Bolitho, R. 2012. Projects and programmes: Contemporary experience in ELT change management. In Managing change in English language teaching: Lessons from experience, ed. C. Tribble. London: British Council.Google Scholar
  4. Borg, S., M. Birello, I. Civera, and T. Zanatta. 2014. The impact of teacher education on pre-service primary English language teachers. London: British Council.Google Scholar
  5. CKE. 2014. Informator o egzaminie maturalnym z języka angielskiego. Kraków: CKE.Google Scholar
  6. Chin, R., and K.D. Benne. 1969. General strategies for effecting changes in human systems. Human Relations Centre Boston University.Google Scholar
  7. Council of Europe. 2006. Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of Europe on key competences for lifelong learning.Google Scholar
  8. De Lano, L., L. Riley, and G. Crookes. 1994. The meaning of innovation for ESL teachers. System 22 (4): 487–496.Google Scholar
  9. Duff, P.A. 2012. How to carry out case study research. In Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide, ed. A. Mackey, and S.M. Gass. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission/EACEA/ Eurydice. 2012. Developing key competences at school in Europe: Challenges and opportunities for policy—2011/12. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission/EACEA/. 2015. Languages in secondary education: An overview of national tests in Europe—2014/15. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  12. Fisiak, J. 1992. English language teacher training in Poland: Past legacy and present challenge, English—a world language. Journal of the English Speaking Union 2: 6–14.Google Scholar
  13. Fives, H., and M.M. Buehl. 2010. Teachers’ articulation of beliefs about teaching knowledge: Conceptualizing a belief framework. In Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice, ed. L.D. Bendixen, and F.C. Feucht. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fives, H., and M.M. Buehl. 2012. Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers’ beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In APA educational psychology handbook. Vol. 2: Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors, 471–499, eds. K.R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J.M. Royer, and M. Zeidner. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  15. Fullan, M. 2001. Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  16. Fullan, M.G. 2007. The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gorzelak, M. 2002. INSETT, Young learners, Delfort – programy z Europejskim Znakiem Jakości. Języki Obce w Szkole. (5/2002). 34–38.Google Scholar
  18. Gabryś-Barker, D. 2010. On teacher beliefs, self-identity and the stages of professional development. Lingvarvm Arena 1 (1): 25–42.Google Scholar
  19. Hutchinson, T., and E. Torres. 1996. The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal 48 (4): 315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Karavas, E. 2014. Implementing innovation in primary EFL: A case study in Greece. ELT Journal 68 (3): 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Komorowska, H. (ed.). 2000. Nauczanie języków obcych w zreformowanej szkole. Warsaw: IBE.Google Scholar
  22. Komorowska, H. 2007. Metodyka nauczania języków obcych w Polsce (1957-2007). Warsaw: CODN.Google Scholar
  23. Komorowska, H. 2012. The teacher training colleges project in Poland. In Managing change in English language teaching: Lessons from experience, ed. C. Tribble. London: British Council.Google Scholar
  24. Komorowska, H. 2013. Nauczanie języków obcych wczoraj, dziś i jutro. [Video file] Available from:
  25. Leather, S. 2012. The English Language Teachers’ Association (ELTA) project for newly-qualified teachers in Azerbaijan. In Managing change in English language teaching: Lessons from experience, ed. C. Tribble. London: British Council.Google Scholar
  26. McIntyre, J., and S. Jones. 2014. Possibility in impossibility? Working with beginning teachers of English in times of change. English in Education 48 (1): 26–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marciniak, Z. 2009. O potrzebie reformy programowej kształcenia ogólnego. In Podstawa Programowa z komentarzami, T.3. Języki obce w szkole podstawowej, gimnazjum i liceum. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej. Available from
  28. Paczuska, K., and M. Szpotowicz. 2014. Nauczyciele języków obcych. In Raport o stanie edukacji 2013. Liczą się nauczyciele,ed. M. Federowicz, J. Choińska-Mika, and D. Walczak. Warsaw: Instytut Badań Edukacyjnych.Google Scholar
  29. Podstawa programowa z komentarzami. Tom 3. Języki obce w szkole podstawowej, gimnazjum i liceum. 2008. Warszawa: MEN.Google Scholar
  30. Polyzoi, E., M.G. Fullan, and A.P. Anchan. 2003. Change forces in post-communist Eastern Europe: education in transition. London: Routledge Falmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rada Europy. 2003. Europejski System Opisu Kształcenia Językowego: uczenie się, nauczanie, ocenianie. Warszawa: Centralny Ośrodek Doskonalenia Nauczycieli.Google Scholar
  32. Rozporządzenie Ministra Edukacji Narodowej z dnia 30 maja 2014 r. Dz.U. 2014 poz. 803.Google Scholar
  33. Swan, M. 1992. The textbook: Bridge or wall? Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching 2 (1): 32–35.Google Scholar
  34. Szymański, M.J. 2001. Kryzys i zmiana. Studia nad przemianami edukacyjnymi w Polsce w latach dziewięćdziesiątych. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pedagogicznej w Krakowie.Google Scholar
  35. Szyszkowiak, A. 1998. Supporting the educational reform in Poland-the role of college teacher trainers. Network 1: 45–48.Google Scholar
  36. TNS Global. 2015. Znajomość języków obcych. Available from
  37. The System of Education in Poland. 2014. Warszawa: Fundacja Rozwoju Systemu Edukacji.Google Scholar
  38. Wall, D. 1996. Introducing new tests into traditional systems: Insights from general education and from innovation theory. Language Testing 13 (3): 334–354.Google Scholar
  39. Waters, A. 2009. Managing innovation in English language education. Language Teaching. (42)/4, 421–458.Google Scholar
  40. Wedell, M. 2003. Giving TESOL change a chance: Supporting key players in the curriculum change process. System 31 (4): 439–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wedell, M. 2009. Planning for educational change: Putting people and their contexts first. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  42. Woods, P. 2012. A summary of key lessons from the case studies. In Managing change in English language teaching: Lessons from experience, ed. C. Tribble. London: British Council.Google Scholar
  43. Zarębska, J. 2011. Nauczyciele języków obcych w roku szkolnym 2010/2011. Warszawa: Ośrodek Rozwoju Edukac.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.John Paul II Catholic University of LublinLublinPoland

Personalised recommendations