PAIS Newsletter - November 2015 (Plain Text Version)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In this issue: |
MILITARY VS CIVILIAN LANGUAGE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
In Europe, most nations have military language schools or language programs in which English is taught. Proficiency in English is a requirement for many military officers because English is the lingua franca of international military operations and peacekeeping missions. My organization, Partner Language Training Center Europe, in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, has the privilege of working with military language teaching specialists throughout Europe. While we traditionally focus our professional development opportunities on classroom teachers and test developers, we realized that we had been overlooking a critical population, the language program administrator (LPA). Military LPAs range from the commandants of military language schools with multiple departments to heads of smaller programs with fewer than 50 students per year. In general military LPAs are appointed to their positions without any preparation for their duties and, as a result, they may feel ill-equipped for their jobs. While they may be either military officers or civilians themselves, their environment is purely a military one. The student population is military, with military-specific requirements for learning English. The majority of the English teachers, on the other hand, are civilians with university degrees in English or related fields and have little exposure to military contexts. In 2014, our language center hosted a 5-day conference for 11 military LPAs from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Georgia, Moldova, Slovenia, and Turkey. The goal of the conference was to discuss common challenges and concerns and to learn from each other. The conference format followed a military style and included briefings by the participants on their national language programs, presentations on designated topics, panel discussions, and focus groups. Using input from those military LPAs planning to attend the conference, the following conference topics were identified:
Conference Participants Of the 11 LPAs at our conference, 9 were military officers and 2 were civilians. Only two of the nine military officers, both from Bulgaria, did not have a background in language teaching before becoming commandants of language schools. The civilians, both from the republic of Georgia, started as English language teachers and were promoted to their positions as LPAs. No one in the group received any kind of training in language program administration. Military vs Civilian Language Program Administration During the conference we examined whether military LPAs approached their jobs in particular ways and if a military background might have an influence on managerial styles. We considered four aspects: 1) responsibilities as LPAs, 2) workplace challenges, 3) managerial soft skills, and 4) military vs civilian leadership principles. This was accomplished by means of questionnaires followed by discussions in focus groups. The following is a summary of the methodologies used and findings of each aspect we analyzed. 1. Responsibilities as Language Program Administrators Methodology: Conference participants completed a 20-item questionnaire based on a longer “Language Program Administrators’ Responsibilities Questionnaire” (Bailey & Llamas, 2012, p. 33–34) and discussed the results, found in Table 1.
2. Workplace Challenges Methodology: Participants completed a 10-item questionnaire to identify their perceived challenges and discussed the results, found in Table 2.
3. Soft Skills Methodology: Participants completed a 10-item questionnaire ranking soft skills in terms of their importance in their jobs and discussed the results, found in Table 3.
Discussion highlights: Because several of the military LPAs were not familiar with the concept of soft skills, a minilesson by one of the conference participants served as a good starting point before completing the questionnaire. Our discussion of the results was quite lively. With only two exceptions, military LPAs felt all the soft skills were important. As for the rationale for why public speaking and strategic planning were rated the lowest, the military LPAs had good explanations. On public speaking, one commented:
Regarding strategic planning, most military LPAs remarked that higher authorities in their military organizations were responsible for all strategic planning and that it was their role just to implement the plans. 4. Military vs Civilian Leadership Principles Methodology: Participants compared the two sets of leadership principles shown in Table 4.
Another commented:
Conclusions Although this survey of military LPAs was small in scope, it was nonetheless reasonably representative, providing a glimpse into the practices at military language schools. Conference participants concluded that even though their military student populations are unique, both military and civilian LPAs have much in common. References Bailey, K. A., & Llamas, C. N. (2012). Language program administrators’ knowledge and skills. In M. Christison & F. L. Stoller (Eds.), A handbook for language program administrators. (2nd ed., pp.19–34). Miami Beach, FL: Alta Book Center. Christison, M., & Murray, D. E. (Eds.). (2009). Leadership in English language education: Theoretical foundations and practical skills for changing times (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Deierlein, T. (2014). 11 timeless principles of leadership (US Army 1948). Retrieved from http://combatleaders.com/2014/06/05/june-2014-11-timeless-principles-of-leadership-us-army-1948/ Ms. Peggy Garza is the chair of the English Language Programs Department in the Partner Language Training Center Europe, located at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. She also presently serves as the secretary for NATO’s Bureau for International Language Co-ordination (BILC). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||