1. 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, DEN Ms Catrine Modig, SWE BILC Conference, Vilnius May 12, 2011

2. HEADQUARTERS Outline Background Purpose Method Findings Conclusions Future studies?

3. HEADQUARTERS Background Job 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

4. 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)

5. HEADQUARTERS Method 1.Initial contact via e-mail, attached a questionnaire, including a simplified table of the STANAG 6001 descriptors 2.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

6. HEADQUARTERS Interviews Based 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

7. 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?).

8. 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?).

9. 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...

10. 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?).

11. 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+.

12. 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.

13. 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?

14. 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

15. 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

16. HEADQUARTERS Questions?