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

1

Commercial vs. in-house language training and testing in the Czech

Republic

Vilnius, Lithuania10 May, 2011

LTC Jan Šmíd

2

1. Introduction

2. Czech training and testing system

3. In-the-field inspections

4. Findings

5. Steps taken

6. Research

7. Conclusion

OutlineOutline

3

Czech training and testing systemCzech training and testing system

Czech DLI

Language Teaching

Dept.

Methodology and

Testing Dept.

English Language

Other Languages

English Language

Other Languages

+ Contracted Instructors + Contracted Examiners

4

Czech training and testing systemCzech training and testing system

MoD and GS

Czech DLI

MoD Training Centre

Defence University

MoD Secondary School

Outsourcing

Sites

Outsourcing

5

Outsourcing + DLIOutsourcing + DLI

Number of Courses Number of StudentsYear 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total 2008 2009 2010 2011 TotalLanguageEnglish 115 113 129 44 401 1788 1931 1792 713 6224German 3 2 3 8 24 12 12 48French 16 11 7 34 118 81 49 248Russian 1 1 1 3 6 9 7 22Albanian 2 2 39 39Serbian 1 1 18 18Arabic 1 1 1 3 7 4 4 15Portuguese 1 1 7 7Pashto 1 1 10 10

Total 136 129 145 44 454 1943 2037 1928 713 6621

English 62 61 46 ? 536 496 381 ?

Other L. 9 13 8 ? 69 108 51 ?

Czech DLI

6

Success rateSuccess rate

Year Institute Level 2

2007MoD Training Centres 62-68 %

Outsourcing 42-65 %


Outsourcing 32-52 %


Outsourcing 11-44 %

7

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

In-the-field inspectionsIn-the-field inspections

8

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

ResearchResearch

9

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%

Part I – General characteristicsPart I – General characteristics

Position requirement

Work-related reasons

Personal reasons

Part of curriculum

NATO positionrequirement

Studies abroadrequirement

Deployment

EU battle group

10

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%


No SLP

SLP 1100

SLP 1111

SLP 2211

SLP 2222

SLP 3322

SLP 3333

11

How do you perceive the requirement?

SLP 0

Low 43.8%Adequate 37.5%High 0.0%Irrelevant 18.7%


Low

Adequate

Irrelevant

12


SLP 1100



Low

Adequate

High

Irrelevant

13


SLP 1111



Low

Adequate

High

Irrelevant

14


SLP 2211



Low

Adequate

High

Irrelevant

15


SLP 2222



Low

Adequate

High

Irrelevant

16


SLP 3322



Low

Adequate

High

Irrelevant

17


SLP 3333



Low

Adequate

High

Irrelevant

18

The course was taught by

DLI 18.5%Komorní Hrádek 3.3%Defence University 1.1%Outsourcing 74.6%

Part II – Language TrainingPart II – Language Training

DLI

Komorní Hrádek

Defence University

Outsourcing

19

Satisfaction with instructors

Absolutely no 4.6%No 23.3%Yes 53.1%Absolutely yes 19.0%


Absolutely no

No

Yes

Absolutely yes

20

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%


No information onthe language exam

Poor instructorpreparation

Unsuitabledemeanour

Not relevanteducationalbackground

Too many instructors

Not specified

21

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%


No info on theexam

Poor instructorpreparation

Unsuitabledemeanour

Not relevanteducation

Too manyinstructors

Too fewinstructors

No nativespeaker

Not specified

22

Yes – reasons:

Appropriate methodology 9.3%Suitable demeanour 8.8%Not specified 81.9%


Appropriatemethodology

Suitabledemeanour

Not specified

23

Absolutely yes – reasons:

Appropriate methodology 20.0%Suitable demeanour 36.3%Not specified 43.8%


Appropriatemethodology

Suitabledemeanour

Not specified

24

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)


Absolutely no

No

Yes

Absolutely yes

25

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%

Part III – Language TestingPart III – Language Testing

Czech DLIwebsite

Colleague,friend

Instructor

Examiner

No information

26

Was the information sufficient?

Yes 56.6%No 43.4%


Yes

No

27

Have you read the STANAG 6001 descriptors?

Yes 28.7%No 25.9%What are they? 45.4%


Yes

No

What arethey?

28

MoD level – suggestions:

Selecting procedures

On-site inspections

DLI level – steps taken:

Frequent inspections

More user-friendly DLI website

STANAG 6001 exam familiarization guide

Seminars for language instructors – both MoD and outsourcing

ConclusionConclusion

29

Questions?

Thank you.

Documents

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