1 / 47

Designing and Assessing ESP f or F orward A ir C ontrollers

BILC CONFERENCE 2012. Prague, Czec h Republic. Designing and Assessing ESP f or F orward A ir C ontrollers. Maj F. Gratton - MJ Di Biase Italian Army Language School. SUMMARY. ‘ THE PROBLEM ’. IMPLICATIONS FOR ESP TESTING. MILITARY OPERATIONAL ENGLISH. THE PROBLEM:.

ramla
Download Presentation

Designing and Assessing ESP f or F orward A ir C ontrollers

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. BILC CONFERENCE 2012 Prague, Czech Republic Designing and Assessing ESP for Forward Air Controllers Maj F. Gratton - MJ Di Biase Italian Army Language School

  2. SUMMARY • ‘THE PROBLEM’ • IMPLICATIONS FOR ESP TESTING • MILITARY OPERATIONAL ENGLISH

  3. THE PROBLEM: INCREASED LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS 3333 • 3797 vs 6001 COMPARATIVE STUDY • NEEDS ANALYSIS • SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS and how weaddressedit:

  4. Who is a FAC and what does he do?

  5. Mission statement A soldier from a forward position can deliver joint indirect fires and direct the actions of joint combat aircraft engaged in operations in close proximity to friendly fires

  6. COMMUNICATIVE EVENT BETWEEN: Pilot and FAC sometimes FAC and FAC In which they: • Acknowledge message • Ask and/or provide information • Ask pilot or FAC to…… • Check, confirm and clarify • Give and/or ask for approval

  7. LINGUISTIC REQUIREMENTS STANAG 3797 “ English is the language to be used when controlling NATO aircraft. Therefore FACs need adequate knowledge of and proficiency in the English language to the EQUIVALENT OF NATO STANAG 6001 Level 3. The competency examination should be biased towards military, particularly FAC, terminology ”

  8. Proficiency ‘Infinite number of unique instances…. with negotiation of meaning’ (Bachman)

  9. FAC tasks • Plan CAS mission • Build and maintain Situation Awareness • Maintain personal safety

  10. In doing these tasks, FACs… Plan Advise Analyze Request Detect Describe Provide

  11. Stanag vs Stanag

  12. STANAG 3797 vs. 6001

  13. STANAG 3797 vs. 6001

  14. Needs analysis • Questionnaire • Visits to FAC schools • Assistance from Ramstein • Interviews with SubjectMatterExperts

  15. NEEDS ANALYSIS QUESTIONNAIRE • Players involved • Physical setting • Human context • Linguistic setting • Hierarchy of skills • Technical terminology • Strategic competence • reference material

  16. NEEDS ANALYSIS QUESTIONNAIRE

  17. FCS Mission“Improve quality and quantity of NATO Forward Air Controllers” Remember ….. “the problem”???

  18. HQ AC RAMSTEIN TV Francesco “Spike” SPINOSA FAC Capability Section NATO FAC Standardisation Team Leader HQ AC Ramstein - DEU FAC Capability Section Mission & Update Briefing 06-07 Jul 11

  19. StakeholdersmeetingJULY 2011 • AGREEMENT REACHED • TIMELINE

  20. IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS NEW NEEDS NEW COURSE NEW SYLLABUS NEW TEST ACADEMIC PRACTICAL

  21. Specific purpose language ability “…results from Interaction btwn specific purpose background knowledge and language ability by means of strategic competence engaged by specific purpose input in the form of test method characteristics…” (Douglas)

  22. LINGUISTIC REQUIREMENTS • IMMEDIATE • CLEAR • EFFECTIVE • CONFIDENT COMMUNICATION

  23. WEATHER, TERRAIN FEATURES ETC CONTENT: DESCRIBE, GIVE INSTRUCTIONS AND DIRECTIONS TASKS: READILY, EFFECTIVELY, WITH EASE AND CONFIDENCE ACCURACY:

  24. Interpretation of level needed Level 3 accuracy: ….make ideas easily understandable to native speakers… ….occasional errors in pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary are not serious enough to distort meaning ….. ….can use the language clearly and relatively naturally ….conveys meaning correctly and effectively…. …with considerable ease… (confident?) ….but can easily repair the conversation…. …reliably….(effective?) ….pronunciation may be obviously foreign…. ….speaks readily…. (immediate?)

  25. SUMMARY • ‘THE PROBLEM’ • IMPLICATIONS FOR ESP TEACHING AND TESTING • MOE

  26. TEACHING & TESTING(JOB-RELATED, TASK-BASED) The result is Mixed skills to simulate authentic communicative event and tasks proficiency requirements? accuracy

  27. SKILLS-BASED SYLLABUS • HIERARCHY OF SKILLS • ADAPT EXISTING TEXTS • DEVISE ACTIVITIES TO TEACH SKILLS • FOCUS ON PRONUNCIATION

  28. SYLLABUS • Corpus of specificterminology/phraseology • Emphasis on Pronunciation • No procedures and listening

  29. MOE MilitaryOperationalEnglish • ESP Syllabus • Compilation of material • Authentic unclassified videos • Authentic unclassified documents (SPINS, 9 liners etc)

  30. SCREENING • ENTRY TEST AT LEVEL 2 ALL FOUR SKILLS • PROFICIENCY TESTING TO DETERMINE BASELINE

  31. MOE MilitaryOperationalEnglish • TWO INSTRUCTORS • 6 STUDENTS PER CLASS • TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM (Ipads, PCs, etc.)

  32. 5 WEEK COURSE 1. Teach Morning Lexical domains & language functions Teaching style: traditional-frontal 2. Test Early afternoon Putting the morning activity into practice Teaching style: “native speaker” (teacher speak to be avoided). Peer collaboration. Listening & Speaking 3. Teach (consolidate) - Late afternoon Feedback on activity Points on where and how to improve (language focus on errors). Teaching style: peer-learning/ correction. Teacher monitors

  33. Ex. skills-based:task, language and content are drawn from input (video, simulation etc)

  34. LEXICAL / TASK BASED SYLLABUS • Terrain / Structures • Weather / Visibility • Urban / Non-Urban Areas • Target Identification • Friendly / Enemy Forces • Threats / Obstacles • Aircraft / Ordnance • Vehicles / Equipment SITUATIONAL AWARENESS

  35. CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES • COURSE BOOK: Compiled material • FOCUS : Listening - Speaking • VIDEOS • SIMULATIONS • MAP READING (Authentic / Google Maps) • MISSION REPORT / BDA (Filling in forms) • Job Manuals

  36. RADIO COMMUNICATION • EXPRESS • Clear, concise communications • Unpredictable situations • Acronyms and Brevity Terms • UNDERSTAND • Pronunciation • Variety of accents • Speed of delivery • Colloquial/Established Protocol • Background Interference

  37. FACE TO FACE CLASSROOM TALK ONS • PRACTICE: • Describe • Request • Direct • Clarify • Confirm • RADIO SIMULATED TALK ONS • w/out background interference • w/ background interference (battle sounds)

  38. SUMMARY • ‘THE PROBLEM’ • IMPLICATIONS FOR ESP TESTING • MOE

  39. IMPLICATIONS FOR TESTING • ESP (CONTINUUM SPECIFICITY) • TASK-BASED • PERFORMANCE-BASED • LEVEL 3 ACCURACY, LEVEL 2 CONTENT AND TASKS

  40. TEST SPECIFICATIONS SPEAKING USING GOOGLE EARTH • Task: guide pilot to pre-defined target unknown to the pilot • Emphasis on description of places and things (terrain, weather, coordinates, directions) • FAC phraseology

  41. TEST SPECIFICATIONS: LISTENING • Direct testing of discrete phonological elements • Gap-filling – tapescript or summary • MCQ to assess understanding of authentic communicative events

  42. TEST SPECIFICATIONS: READING • AUTHENTIC MATERIAL • MCQS TO ASSESS UNDERSTANDING OF SPINS

  43. SPECIFICATIONS Dear Abby… TEST SPECIFICATIONS WRITING:

  44. FEEDBACK QUESTIONNAIRE

  45. Limitations/challenges • Classified material? • Train the trainer? • Informants as FAC experts and have language awareness • Authentic tasks (and responses)

  46. THANK YOU francesco.gratton@gmail.com maryjo.dibiase@gmail.com

  47. REFERENCES • Canadian FAC info • Douglas, D (2005) Assess.Lang.for Spec. Purp. • Hutchington, E (2005) Eng.for Spec.Purp. • JTAC MOA 2007 • Pub. 3093 – Tatt., tecn.e proc.per supp.aereo • STANAG 3797 • STANAG 6001 ed. 4

More Related