Bridging the Gap Language Requirements vs Language Reality Roma 2009

Outline BILC Gaps Bridges Leaps Fords Interruptions

Background History Governance Mandates

Bridging the Gap Teaching and Learning Youth and Experience Policy and Practice Military and Civilian Education and Training

Bridging the Gap General Proficiency and Specific Skill National and International Expectation and Reality Time and Resources Yesterday and Tomorrow

Language Requirements vs. Language Reality · Coping with evolving needs during training; · Doing more with less… (Time on Task, resources, etc.); · Challenges of training to higher levels; · Defining requirements; · Conducting language needs analyses;

· Helping students overcome aptitude limitations; · Tailoring training towards varying learning styles; · Programme effectiveness evaluation; · Anticipating future NATO requirements. Language Requirements vs. Language Reality

Attenzione allo spazio tra treno e branchina

Language Requirements vs. Language Reality Sometimes one just has to dare to exceed, sometime a bridge just isn’t enough...

Programme Testing (5) BAT Terminology (2) Economies (2) Proficiency standards (2) Training (2) Operations Motivation

Context MC has identified Common Language as a shortfall in interoperability “… improved language skills lead to improved interoperability.”

Context Activity 3 in Road-Map Annex A Same language and common understanding of underlying terms, and knowledge of cultural and military background. Standards and directives need particular attention. ACT to develop BAT

Context Annex C Consistant use of NATO terminology Assignment of only suitable personnel Effect exchanges and joint training Apply NATO Standards and terminology NATO tasks integrated into language T&E CB model for terminology

Welcome to Rome Welcome to BILC Share, Learn, Enjoy!