Teaching languages to students with special educational needs 4100-4SMKSPEO

Knowledge: the graduate knows and understands
K_W01 to an advanced degree selected facts, theories, institutions, processes, and phenomena related to the study areas: linguistics and pedagogy and education studies, relevant to the field of studies - teaching foreign languages, which have practical application in teaching foreign languages in kindergartens and at the first and second educational stages or teaching

K_W03 - the methods, norms, procedures and standards of good practice in educational institutions, related to teaching foreign languages

K_W04 - to a significant extent, human development in biological, psychological, social and cultural terms and its various determinants

K_W07 - to an advanced degree the purpose, organization, legal basis and functioning of educational, caregiving, therapeutic and cultural institutions

K_W08 - various participants involved in educational, caregiving, and cultural activities

K_W09 - the methodology to perform common tasks; the standards and procedures used in various educational areas

K_W10 - to a significant extent, the learners (recipients of educational services) and the methods of diagnosing their needs and assessing the quality of educational services

Skills: the graduate is able to

K_U02 - independently plan and implement typical projects related to foreign language teaching environments (including kindergartens and primary schools) and other institutions related to teaching foreign languages

K_U03 - diagnose the needs, abilities and aptitudes of every learner, as well as design and implement individually tailored teaching and educational programs

K_U06 - use basic theories in psychology and education and other related disciplines to analyse, interpret and resolve educational, social and cultural issues, as well as understand the motives and patterns of human behaviour

K_U08 - apply ethical norms in all of the activities undertaken, identify and analyse ethical dilemmas in the academic, educational, care-giving and therapeutic aspects of their profession

K_U10 - work with children from various cultural backgrounds and those with limited knowledge of the Polish language

K_U12 - communicate in Polish and in a foreign language, using a variety of channels and techniques, with all participants in the teaching-learning process and experts in the academic disciplines and subjects that are
relevant to the field of studies in foreign language teaching, both in Polish and another language

K_U20 - perform the various roles required for working as a team, is willing to accept and assign tasks, and possesses the elementary organisational skills necessary in designing and implementing professional educational activities

Social competence: the graduate is prepared to

K_K07 - correctly identify and resolve dilemmas associated with the teaching profession

COURSE COMPLETION REQUIREMENTS
A prerequisite for obtaining credit is:
1. attendance at on-campus classes (one absence is allowed; unexcused absences exceeding this limit result in an NK grade and the necessity to repeat the course);
2. timely and instruction-compliant completion of written and/or oral partial assignments carried out during on-campus classes as well as on the e-learning platform.

ASSESSMENT METHODS
The course is completed on the basis of:
1. The grade from the test administered at the end of the semester, assessing knowledge of issues discussed during the course related to inclusive education, universal design for learning, individual accommodations, and methods of language instruction for students with special educational needs (learning outcomes assessed: K_W01, K_W03, K_W04, K_W07, K_W08, K_W09, K_W10, K_K07) – weight in the final course grade: 60%.

2. The grade for the individual student project – a case study (learning outcomes assessed: K_U02, K_U03, K_U06, K_U08, K_U10, K_U12, K_U20, K_K07) – weight in the final course grade: 40%.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA:
1. Assessment criteria for the end-of-semester test – correctness of answers.
95–100% → very good (5)
90–94% → very good minus (5–)
85–89% → good plus (4+)
80–84% → good (4)
75–79% → good minus (4–)
70–74% → satisfactory plus (3+)
65–69% → satisfactory (3)
60–64% → satisfactory minus (3–)
0–59% → unsatisfactory (2)

2. Assessment criteria for the individual student project – case study:
The project is assessed in the following areas:
a) Description of the student case (characteristics of functioning, educational needs, school context).
b) Diagnosis of needs and barriers (based on literature, educational law, and the core curriculum).
c) Proposed didactic and educational solutions (accommodations, methods, forms of work, tools, solutions related to inclusive education and UDL).
d) Theoretical justification (current literature, pedagogical concepts, UDL, inclusive education).
e) Author’s reflection (critical analysis, conclusions, alternative solutions).
The following criteria are taken into account when assessing the project: deadline for task completion, compliance with instructions, completeness and substantive accuracy, organization and presentation of content, quality of argumentation and justification, clarity and logic of reasoning, linguistic correctness.

Grading scale and detailed criteria:
90–100% → very good (5.0)
The work meets all requirements in an exemplary manner.
• the case description is complete, multidimensional, and based on reliable data;
• the diagnosis of needs and barriers is in-depth, coherent, and uses numerous diverse sources;
• the didactic solutions are creative, realistic, detailed, and adequate to the student’s needs;
• the theoretical justification is based on current literature and well-chosen concepts;
• the reflection is mature, critical, and demonstrates independent thinking;
• the work is written very correctly, clearly, and logically, without formal errors;
• full compliance with instructions is maintained;
• excellent organization of content and argumentation.

85–89% → good plus (4.5)
A very good work, with minor shortcomings.
• the case description is reliable, though somewhat less detailed;
• the diagnosis is correct and well-argued, but requires deeper elaboration in some places;
• the didactic solutions are appropriate, but less extensive or not very detailed;
• the literature is current and adequate, though somewhat narrower in scope;
• the reflection is present, but could be more critical;
• single, insignificant linguistic or formal errors;
• the content is logical and organized, though less coherent than in a 5.0-level work.

75–84% → good (4.0)
A solid work, but with clear shortcomings.
• the case description is partially general or incomplete;
• the diagnosis is correct, but does not include all important aspects;
• the didactic solutions are adequate but general or insufficiently justified;
• the literature is used to a limited extent or not always appropriately;
• the reflection is superficial or schematic;
• linguistic or structural errors appear, but do not disrupt the whole;
• the logic of reasoning or argumentation is occasionally disrupted.

70–74% → satisfactory plus (3.5)
An acceptable work, but weak in substance.
• the case description is fragmentary or unclear;
• the diagnosis is incomplete or based on too few sources;
• the didactic solutions are correct but very general or not very practical;
• the literature is minimal or partly unrelated to the content;
• the reflection is short and not very analytical;
• noticeable linguistic and formal errors;
• disrupted coherence of content.

60–69% → satisfactory (3.0)
The work meets the minimum requirements.
• the case description is incomplete, unclear, or oversimplified;
• the diagnosis is very general, superficial, or inconsistent;
• the didactic solutions are schematic and not adequately matched to the student’s needs;
• the literature is poor or poorly chosen, with possible misinterpretations;
• the reflection is minimal or schematic;
• numerous formal and linguistic errors;
• low coherence and readability of reasoning.

0–59% → unsatisfactory (2.0)
The work does not meet the basic requirements.
• the case description is incomplete, inconsistent, or inadequate;
• the diagnosis is incorrect, inconsistent, or missing;
• the didactic solutions are entirely inadequate or impractical;
• lack of proper references to literature;
• lack of reflection;
• serious formal or linguistic errors preventing evaluation;
• the work may be non-independent or non-compliant with instructions.

GRADING SCALE:
The final grade is determined based on the results obtained within the assessment methods and criteria defined above, according to the assigned weights.
A student must obtain an overall result (based on the final test and the individual project – case study) of at least 60% in order to receive a passing grade and complete the course.
90–100% → very good (5.0)
85–89% → good plus (4.5)
75–84% → good (4.0)
70–74% → satisfactory plus (3.5)
60–69% → satisfactory (3.0)
0–59% → unsatisfactory (2.0)

The use of AI tools and technologies supporting language processing is allowed only in a manner that does not contradict the achievement of the intended learning outcomes and only with the instructor’s consent and prior approval of the scope of their use. Using such tools without the instructor’s consent and prior arrangements will be treated as a violation of the principles of independent work, resulting in the work being considered non-independent and in a failing grade.

Not applicable

Compulsory (selected chapters from the following books):
Nijakowska, J., Kormos, J., Hanusova, S., Jaroszewicz, B., Kálmos, B., Imrene Sarkadi, A., Smith, A. M., Szymańska-Czaplak, E., Vojtkova, N., Alexiou, T., Košak Babuder, M., Mattheoudakis, M., Pižorn, K. (2016). DysTEFL2 – Dyslexia for teachers of English as a foreign language. Łódź: Department of Pragmatics, University of Łódź.
Delaney, M. (2016). Special Educational Needs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Daloiso, M. (2017). Supporting learners with dyslexia in the ELT classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kormos, J., & Smith, A. M. (2024). Teaching languages to students with Specific Learning Differences (2nd ed.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Students are required to read/familiarize themselves with the didactic materials posted on the platform or provided for classes by the lecturer. These are articles, chapters, studies, and electronic materials (e.g. presentations, videos).

Optional:
Kormos, J. (2017). The second language learning processes of students with specific learning difficulties. New York: Routledge.
Nijakowska, J. (2010). Dyslexia in the foreign language classroom. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Kormos J., & Kontra, H. E. (2008). (Eds.), Language learners with special needs: An international perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
British Council. (2012). Creating an inclusive learning experience for English language learners with specific needs: Case studies from around the British Council’s global network. https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/B480_Special%20Need_Publication_A4_V5_Final_MR.pdf
Domagała- Zyśk E. (red.), (2013). English as a foreign language for the deaf and hard of hearing persons in Europe. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.
Olechowska, A. (2019). Specjalne potrzeby edukacyjne. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Piskorska A., Krzeszowski T., Marek B. (2008). Uczeń z dysfunkcją wzroku na lekcji angielskiego Wskazówki metodyczne dla nauczycieli. Warszawa: Uniwersytet Warszawski.
Domagała-Zyśk E. (2011). Strategie nauczania i wspierania ucznia ucznia z niepełnosprawnością na lekcjach i zajęciach językowych. H. Komorowska (red.) Nauka języka obcego w perspektywie ucznia. Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza Łośgraf, 297-311.
Ośrodek Rozwoju Edukacji (ORE). Wydział Specjalnych Potrzeb Edukacyjnych. https://www.ore.edu.pl/category/wydzialy/wydzial-specjalnych-potrzeb-edukacyjnych/
Cybulska, R., Dryjańska, J., Gotlin, K., Kłoda, M., Pomorska, K., Pyzikiewicz, A. (2016). Uczeń z zespołem Aspergera w szkole ogólnodostępnej. Warszawa: Ośrodek Rozwoju Edukacji. http://www.bc.ore.edu.pl/Content/887/Uczen_z+zespolem_Aspergera_w_szkole_ogolnodostepnej.pdf
ORE. (2017). Uczeń ze specjalnymi potrzebami edukacyjnymi w systemie edukacji w świetle nowych przepisów prawa oświatowego. Warszawa: Ośrodek Rozwoju Edukacji. file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/Uczen-ze-specjalnymi-potrzebami-edukacyjnymi-w-systemie-edukacji.pdf

Additional information (registration calendar, class conductors, localization and schedules of classes), might be available in the USOSweb system:

• Description of 4100-4SMKSPEO in USOSweb