1 / 29

Introduction Czech training and testing system In-the-field inspections Findings Steps taken

Commercial vs. in-house language training and testing in the Czech Republic Vilnius, Lithuania 10 May, 2011 LTC Jan Šmíd. Outline. Introduction Czech training and testing system In-the-field inspections Findings Steps taken Research Conclusion. Czech training and testing system.

kiet
Download Presentation

Introduction Czech training and testing system In-the-field inspections Findings Steps taken

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Commercial vs. in-house language training and testing in the Czech RepublicVilnius, Lithuania10 May, 2011LTC Jan Šmíd

  2. Outline Introduction Czech training and testing system In-the-field inspections Findings Steps taken Research Conclusion

  3. Czech training and testing system + Contracted Instructors + Contracted Examiners

  4. Czech training and testing system Sites Outsourcing

  5. Outsourcing + DLI Czech DLI

  6. Success rate

  7. In-the-field inspections • Low awareness of STANAG 6001 descriptors • Low awareness of exam format • Frequent poor instructor preparation • Textbooks not sufficiently/effectively supplemented • 90 minute lessons • Lack of homework • Lack of homework feedback

  8. Research • General information: • Years 2008 – 2010 • 790 questionnaires distributed • 651 returned • Research questions in Czech: closed –ended qs, open-ended qs • 43 questions + 9 sub questions in 3 sections • General characteristics of a respondent • Feedback on language training • Feedback on language testing

  9. Part I – General characteristics Motivation for studying English? Position requirement 66.0% Work-related reasons 0.5% Personal reasons 7.1% Part of curriculum 4.6% NATO position requirement 7.8% Studies abroad requirement 3.6% Deployment 9.5% EU battle group 0.9%

  10. Part I – General characteristics What is the language requirement? No SLP/other 3.0% SLP 1100 1.5% SLP 1111 31.0% SLP 2211 7.0% SLP 2222 46.8% SLP 3322 1.8% SLP 3333 8.9% 10

  11. Part I – General characteristics How do you perceive the requirement? SLP 0 Low 43.8% Adequate 37.5% High 0.0% Irrelevant 18.7%

  12. Part I – General characteristics How do you perceive the requirement? SLP 1100 Low 0.0% Adequate 25.0% High 25.0% Irrelevant 50.0%

  13. Part I – General characteristics How do you perceive the requirement? SLP 1111 Low 11.8% Adequate 71.7% High 6.4% Irrelevant 10.1%

  14. Part I – General characteristics How do you perceive the requirement? SLP 2211 Low 5.4% Adequate 27.1% High 37.8% Irrelevant 29.7%

  15. Part I – General characteristics How do you perceive the requirement? SLP 2222 Low 3.2% Adequate 71.8% High 18.7% Irrelevant 6.3%

  16. Part I – General characteristics How do you perceive the requirement? SLP 3322 Low 0.0% Adequate 63.6% High 36.4% Irrelevant 0.0%

  17. Part I – General characteristics How do you perceive the requirement? SLP 3333 Low 0.0% Adequate 78.0% High 22.0% Irrelevant 0.0%

  18. Part II – Language Training The course was taught by DLI 18.5% Komorní Hrádek 3.3% Defence University 1.1% Outsourcing 74.6%

  19. Part II – Language Training Satisfaction with instructors Absolutely no 4.6% No 23.3% Yes 53.1% Absolutely yes 19.0%

  20. Part II – Language Training Absolutely no – reasons: No info on the exam 25.0% Poor instructor preparation 40.0% Unsuitable demeanour 5.0% Not relevant education 5.0% Too many instructors 5.0% Not specified 20.0%

  21. Part II – Language Training No – reasons: No info on the exam 12.8% Poor instructor preparation 22.1% Unsuitable demeanour 9.3% Not relevant education 3.5% Too many instructors 7.0% Too few instructors 1.1% No native speaker 3.5% Not specified 40.7%

  22. Part II – Language Training Yes – reasons: Appropriate methodology 9.3% Suitable demeanour 8.8% Not specified 81.9%

  23. Part II – Language Training Absolutely yes – reasons: Appropriate methodology 20.0% Suitable demeanour 36.3% Not specified 43.8%

  24. Part II – Language Training Satisfaction with course books used Absolutely no 22.9% (Face to face, Headway) No 34.9% (Headway, Face to face) Yes 36.8% (Headway, ALC, Face to face) Absolutely yes 5.4% (ALC, Headway)

  25. Part III – Language Testing Source of information on the STANAG 6001 exam Czech DLI website 53.0% Colleague, friend 10.0% Instructor 28.1% Examiner 1.0% No information 7.9%

  26. Part III – Language Testing Was the information sufficient? Yes 56.6% No 43.4%

  27. Part III – Language Testing Have you read the STANAG 6001 descriptors? Yes 28.7% No 25.9% What are they? 45.4%

  28. Conclusion • MoD level – suggestions: • Selecting procedures • On-site inspections • DLI level – stepstaken: • Frequent inspections • More user-friendly DLI website • STANAG 6001 exam familiarization guide • Seminars for language instructors – both MoD and outsourcing

  29. Questions?Thank you.

More Related