Cooperative

Language Training Programme Assessments

“Mapping the Road: Success in Language Training”

Keith L. Wert
Associate BILC Secretary for Programme Assessment

Director, Partner Language Training Center Europe

George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies
wertk@marshallcenter.org

1
 Cooperative
Language Training Programme Assessments

• History:
– 2000:
• Requested by a NATO Assistant Secretary General to Chair, Nato
Training Group who wrote BILC secretariat
– 2001
• Conducted first assessment
– 2001-2010
• Before Accession:
– Slovakia , Latvia, Slovenia, Estonia,
• After Accession:
– Czech Rep ., Bulgaria , Romania
• PfP and IPAP countries
– Macedonia, Georgia , Serbia

– Countries that have asked for follow up visits: Czech Republic, Bulgaria,
Slovakia, Georgia, Macedonia and Serbia.
2
 Language Training Programme Assessments

• Team members from:

– Slovenia, Sweden, Germany,
Canada, UK, and US.

• Level of Interest:
– Latvia: Deputy State Secretary
– Slovakia: Director of Military
Education
– Macedonia: Chief of Staff
– Bulgaria: Deputy Chief of Staff
– Georgia: 1st Deputy Minister
of Defense
– Romania: Head of MoD
Human Resources
– Serbia: The J-7 and MoD
Personnel Sector Serbia: May 2009

3
 Items of Interest

 Development of a language policy

 Integrating language policy into military personnel policies
 Development of a language training structure that meets the objectives of the language
policy

 Establishing effective and efficient use of language training resources

- Appropriate emphasis on and balance between intensive and non intensive
programs
- Ensuring resources are allocated in a transparent and ‘objective’ manner
- Effective and efficient language testing programs to NATO standards
- Transparent procedures for faculty professional development
- Harmonizing bilateral support for language training
- Development of a modern military lexicon, based upon agreed NATO
nomenclature
- Development of Syllabi at STANAG 6001 Level 3

4
 Pre-Visit Process

• Provide the potential scope of what you are going to be

looking over to the appropriate coordinating office so that
everyone knows what the objectives are

• Not a check list. You never really know what aspects of the
assessment will require the most attention

• We provide “Outlines” with points for potential discussion and

observation.
– Policies
– Schools
– Testing
Pre-Visit Process (Outlines)
 What is the focus?

• We are generally not: • We are:

– Components – Processes
• Book Orders • Language and Testing
• Teacher training Policies
• Mgt courses • Integration with military
• Technology personnel policies
– Labs, IMI etc • Language Training
Management
• Doing some legwork for
the bilateral donors: • Resource allocation
– Book orders • Faculty Development
– Course plans
recommendations
 Visit Process

• Extensive orientation briefings by MoD/General Staff

– Policy and organization explained
• Visits to schools
• Classroom observations
• Discussions with management
• Discussions with faculty and students
• Meetings with bilateral language assistance responsibles, e.g.
British Council, Offices of Defense Cooperation. (“Donor
countries”)
 Analytical Process:
Overarching Objective

• To review how the language policy fits with military personnel

policies.

• To see if the language training structure meets the policy

objectives.

• To see if the structure can produce the required numbers of

graduates at the required proficiency levels in a somewhat
predictable manner.
 Areas of Interest

• Language Policy (Personnel policies)

• Language resources allocation
• Language laboratories and self-access centers
• Testing policies and processes
• Syllabi standardization or how long does a student take to
reach Level 1,2,3? (and now4!!!!!)
• Teachers contra management
• Management contra teachers
• Military language instruction
• Professional Development (transparency thereof)
• Intensive vs. non intensive language programs
 Language Policy

• A language policy must be an inseparable component of

personnel policy. If it is not, that is the first sign that there is
a problem.

• Does the language policy exist in a vacuum?

– Were the schools involved in making the policy?

– Is the policy realistic?
– Do the policy makers ever check to see if the policy is
successful?
– Are personnel assigned to language training for a reason?
 Language and Personnel Policy
MOD/General/Joint Staff

Language Schoolhouse Management

Are they talking to each other?

 Language Policy

• Simple reality test:

– Visit several classrooms in different locations and ask a

range of teachers and students the same question:

“Why are you in this classroom?”

 Language Resources Allocation

• Why are some locations well resourced and others not?

– Is a language lab at a military unit as important as one at a

school house with a full time intensive language program?
– Who is in charge of language training resources?
– Is the allocation process “transparent”?
 Testing Policies and Processes

• Is there a STANAG 6001 Testing Frenzy?

– Overused STANAG tests?
– Simpler ways to determine Level 1?
– Is testing focus on particular assignments? (Personnel
policy loop)

– Don’t test more than necessary

 Language Labs and
Self-Access Centers
• They have a life of their own: I know this because they keep
reproducing themselves everywhere we go
– Great in concept, difficult in execution
– Tend to draw resources away from more fundamental
needs: like books
 Syllabi Standardization
• There should be evidence of language training predictability,
especially at the lower levels

– If no one knows how long it takes the normal language

student to reach Levels 1 and 2, there is a problem
– If it is known how long it takes and authorities shorten course
lengths anyway, there is a problem
– Course lengths determined arbitrarily
– Stability and predictability at lower levels is important
“ If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.”
Dr. Ray Clifford,
Sweden
October, 2001
 Syllabi Standardization

• Certificates from different courses do not tell you anything

– The students passed the “test” and received credit
• No comparability across classrooms
• No comparability across institutions in the same country
 Teachers contra management

• Highly educated and professional teachers don’t always grasp

the larger scale training management issues and confuse higher
level management with the wrong input:
– “These books are boring, that is why the students are not
succeeding!”
– “The test is bad, not a truly professional test.” (I don’t like
this test format.)
 Management contra teachers

• Senior management has to pay attention to the real results

teachers and school houses produce
– If it is working, leave it alone and let the language
professionals improve it incrementally
– Stability is important
– Having the power to do something is not synonymous with
knowing what to do
 Military language

• Primary warning signs are:

– Teachers who do not feel it is in their profession to teach it
– Courses that introduce highly technical language at low
levels of language ability
– Leaders who think that just the language and terms of the
specialty need to be learned
– Intensive basic courses that rely on military language as the
primary component
 Teacher Professional
Development
• There are limited numbers of opportunities for teachers and
these opportunities must be handled in a rational and transparent
manner

• Professional institutions everywhere have application procedures

and published standards for awarding teachers with research
grants and development opportunities

• There should be a well-thought out process controlled by the

country, not the bilateral (donor) providers
 Intensive vs. Non intensive
Programs
• “Military language training” has unique attributes:
– Large numbers of students/High proficiencies to attain

• Non-intensive basic courses rarely succeed

• Putting language training resources at local military bases

looks good on PowerPoint
– The students are frequently pulled from class

• The issue is diffusion of resources: what percentage is spread

thinly to poor effect
 Line Management

Students not grouped /regrouped by ability

Classes too large
Listening materials not used enough
Teachers not changing classes
Student attrition policies
Working conditions in classrooms poor
Evaluations of teacher performance
 Potential Positive Outcomes

• Country takes fundamental look at language

system

• Country uses “external experts” to help make

hard internal decisions
Questions?