security-related terminology Best practices and challenges Study Group 2 Teaching military and security-related terminology Best practices and challenges BILC Conference 2017 – Vienna; Study Group 2

Guidance Questions Military content integrated into general language courses? “General” Military English should be integrated, (branch-specific) specialized military English rather in dedicated seminars/courses AUT: integration is paramount (milE as USP of AAF LNG INST!) Natural part of general English Percentage depends on level and topics (master programme vs. basic training) BILC Conference 2017 – Vienna; Study Group 2

Guidance Questions Language teachers with military background, and how much of a background? Academic training as prerequisite Is definitely an advantage (officer training, basic training, training for English teachers, …) In some cases a credibility issue Operational experience “Talk the talk, walk the walk” BILC Conference 2017 – Vienna; Study Group 2

Guidance Questions Military English integrated into language testing? IAW 6001 Level 1: courtesy, accommodation needs, identification requirements, workplace, … Level 2: workplace situations, describe people, places, things, instructions, directions, job procedures, … Level 3: professional topics, meetings, briefings, monologues, abstract concepts in professional fields BILC Conference 2017 – Vienna; Study Group 2

Guidance Questions Military English as a career requirement? Testing means focussing, weighing! Goal: communication in mil environment Depends on jobs and careers Should also be obligatory for national postings! BILC Conference 2017 – Vienna; Study Group 2

Guidance Questions (How) Do you deal with military content in your domestic language training programmes? Integrated or stand-alone (or absent, or predominant) Problem: lack of adequate material (POL, USA, …) Needs analysis (prescriptive and descriptive) Authentic and realistic material! SMEs in language training; language trainer system (AUT), … BILC Conference 2017 – Vienna; Study Group 2

Guidance Questions What does/did work, what doesn‘t/didn‘t? Why? Lessons learned? Approaches One suits all No military background at all ESP without L1SP ESP without general E Native speaker without teaching background Military hierarchy in class BILC Conference 2017 – Vienna; Study Group 2

+ authentic, relevant ESP + authentic teachers + combination with related courses + mentoring, guiding, giving feedback + practical applicability, awareness of necessity + ESP task complexity IAW general E + involvement of E teachers in practical activities (map reading, live firing, staff work, …) + native speakers as supplements + tactical decision games, role plays, briefings, etc. + wordlists as reference (not as training material) + fulfilling student’s demands + prescriptive and descriptive approach + national solutions BILC Conference 2017 – Vienna; Study Group 2

Contact: COL Herwig Preining, Mag.phil. Head of Tactical English Section AAF Lng Inst herwig.preining@bmlvs.gv.at Jürgen Kotzian, Mag.phil. Chief Training Officer English AAF Lng Inst juergen.kotzian@bmlvs.gv.at BILC Conference 2017 – Vienna; Study Group 2