HEADQUARTERS

”A Language Needs Assessment (LNA) Study at SHAPE/NATO HQ:

What Lies Behind the Standardised Language Profiles (SLPs) in the Job Descriptions?"

Ms Ulla Gudnason, DENMs Catrine Modig, SWE

BILC Conference, Vilnius

May 12, 2011

HEADQUARTERS

Outline

BackgroundPurposeMethod

FindingsConclusions

Future studies?

HEADQUARTERS

BackgroundJob descriptions – Reality check: Do SLPs align, correspond

with, and/or define operational tasks?

Lessons Learned from assignments and feedback into training

Part of the NORDEFCO language cooperation study

HEADQUARTERS

Purpose• Compare SLPs in job descriptions to the experiences of the individuals

holding NATO positions. Is there an alignment or correlation between the ”theory” and practice in the operational setting?

• Information to be fed back into:- national recruitment process- curriculum design

- content-based Training (non-Linguistic and/or performance related)- Testing and Evalution

• Trialing of an LNA procedure

• Joint effort in the NORDEFCO framework (DEN, FIN, NOR, SWE)

HEADQUARTERS

Method1. Initial contact via e-mail, attached a questionnaire, including

a simplified table of the STANAG 6001 descriptors2. Officers sent their Job Descriptions

SLP’s were 3,2,3,2 – 4,3,4,3, - 3,3,3,3, - 4,3,4,3 (EUMS)

One month later:3. Interviews with officers on site at SHAPE

4. Data is evaluated

5. Report to SWE HQ and to the Training establishments

HEADQUARTERS

InterviewsBased on the responses in the questionnaires

Dialogue/discussion, informal, in Swedish

Focus was on detailed descriptions of tasks regarding: 1. frequency, 2. criticality, 3. levels required

- Using native language - Common understanding of training background allowed for an informal and constructive dialogue

HEADQUARTERS

Findings LISTENING

• Meetings• Briefings• Phone calls• Leading roles (eg staff work, working groups)• Social situations

On the whole, the levels of language of the situations varied from 2/2+ to 3+(4?).

HEADQUARTERS

Findings SPEAKING

• Meetings• Briefings• Phone calls• Leading roles (eg staff work, working groups)• Social situations

On the whole, the levels of language of the situations varied from 2/2+ to 3+(4?).

HEADQUARTERS

Findings All interviewees mentioned the dynamics of the above situations

being the most challenging regarding the LISTENING and SPEAKING skills.

E g shortcomings when the speakers’ rate of speech goes up, either due to time pressure, or due to some individuals having high(er) proficiency (both natives and non-natives).

They also mention staff work being slowed down when members have lower proficiency levels than the majority/or leader(s) of that group.

The effect is that some information may not be shared, misunderstood or even disregarded...

HEADQUARTERS

Findings READING 

• E-mails• (drafts of) official NATO documents, submissions for

comments• Current affairs (News articles, web-based military related

sources, etc)• Shorter reports (L2), longer reports (L3+/4)• Minutes from meetings

On the whole, the levels of language of the situations varied from 2/2+ to 3+(4?).

HEADQUARTERS

Findings WRITING • E-mails • Shorter reports (L2)• Longer reports (L3+) • Own briefings• (parts of) briefings to be given by others (e g a general)• Media releases (support to PIO)• Minutes from meetings

On the whole, the levels of language of the situations varied from 2/2+ to 3+.

HEADQUARTERS

Findings The levels here, too, varied from L2 all the way up to 3+/4 for a

few specific texts. The interviewees all said that the challenges were different from those regarding LISTENING and SPEAKING because the demand for accuracy is higher (WRITING) since there are limitations to clarifying your points in real time.

For the READING, none of the interviewees mentioned experiencing any major problems. Challenges were sometimes understanding the writing of non-natives (e g e-mails), where occasionally there was a need to ask for clarification.  

The interviewees mentioned WRITING being the skill they were mostly challenged with. It took some time for them to feel comfortable producing writing of the level expected of them.

HEADQUARTERS

Conclusions

• The proficiency levels (SLPs) do provide an important linguistic platform from which the individual can operate.

BUT…

• …most (?) job descriptions do not say much/enough regarding the specific linguistic requirement for the tasks (proficiency vs performance).

• If level 3 proficiency is not enough to define operational profciency – is a level 4 the solution?

HEADQUARTERS

Conclusions

• Interviews with a few individuals provide more profound information than a vast number of (sometimes impersonal) questionnaires

• In-depth discussions are possible because:

- both parties use their native language

- there is a shared understanding of the officers’ background

• STANAG-levels can be discussed: e g: ”what does a 3 mean?” in connection with detailed descriptions of the real-life tasks

HEADQUARTERS

Suggestions for future studies• Can/should job descriptions be complemented by a description

of the most critical/frequent tasks? (e g note-taking in a meeting with attendants representing many nations, time critical, no room for questions) Performance as a complement to proficiency?

• Can/should SLPs in job descriptions be ”refined” regarding criticality and/or frequency of the separate skills? Relative importance of the 4 skills?

• Trials of (common) LNA procedures

HEADQUARTERS

Questions?