TEXT II

Air Traffic Communication in a Second Language: Implications of Cognitive Factors for Training and Assessment

Candace Farris, Pavel Trofimovich, Norman Segalowitz, and Elizabeth Gatbonton Concordia University Montréal, Québec, Canada

Summary of Findings

We investigated the effects of cognitive workload on L2 speakers’ repetition accuracy and speech production (as judged by listeners) in a simulated pilot navigation task. Results revealed that the NS (native speakers) group repeated messages with greater accuracy than both L2 groups regardless of workload condition, and that the group with the lowest level of L2 proficiency was the one most affected by high cognitive workload. This finding suggests that L2 communications with controllers may be more challenging for pilots when they perform one or perhaps even more concurrent cognitive tasks. Results also revealed that the NS group sounded less accented, more comprehensible, and more fluent than both L2 groups, while the high group, in turn, received higher ratings for all these measures than the low group. In addition, high workload led to lower fluency ratings for the NS group and lower accentedness and fluency ratings for the low group than did low workload. With respect to the fluency ratings, our findings suggest that high workload is associated with the production of dysfluencies such as undue or long pauses, false starts and repetitions, to an extent perceptible by listeners. Although the additional cognitive demands of the high workload condition did not affect repetition accuracy (at least for the NS group), these demands did affect speech fluency, suggesting that fluency measures may be good indicators of the impact of cognitive workload, even when repetition accuracy is stable. With respect to accentedness ratings, the findings suggest that lowproficiency L2 users depart even more from native-like, unaccented speech under high cognitive workload, although this increased workload may not necessarily make their speech less comprehensible.

The finding that workload affects the amount of information retained and influences listener perceptions of speech (especially in the L2) is compatible with existing L2 processing research. For example, this finding is in accordance with conceptualizations of the role of automaticity in language processing. Such conceptualizations hold that well-practiced skills (e.g., L1 perception and production) are more highly automatic and require fewer attentional resources than newly acquired skills, such as L2 perception and production for low-proficiency L2 users. Low-proficiency speakers thus appear to have greater difficulty than highproficiency speakers in using their L2 perception and production skills in an efficient, automatic manner. When low-proficiency learners’ attentional resources are distributed across several tasks, these learners appear to engage in a nonautomatic, effortful form of processing. The result is that less information is accurately retained and more accented and less fluent speech is produced

Implications for L2 training and assessment

The findings have implications for L2 training and assessment, particularly in an ESP context. The current study revealed performance differences as a function of language proficiency, but the distinction between high and low proficiency was only relative here. Clearly, the notion of L2 proficiency needs to be clarified in practical terms, as it applies to thousands of professionals who will be tested according to ICAO’s (International Civil Aviation Organization) language proficiency requirements. The existing ICAO Language Proficiency Rating Scale is a globally recognized instrument reflecting six language skills (pronunciation, structure, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and interactions) and six proficiency levels (pre-elementary, elementary, preoperational, operational, extended, and expert). It may be important to continue fine-tuning this scale, validating it using a large population of pilots and controllers under conditions of varying workload or psychological stress typical of the controller–pilot workplace.

Other implications of the findings are practical in nature. For training and assessment purposes, especially in the ESP context, learners may benefit from practicing their L2 skills under workload conditions similar to those they might face in the workplace. This and other pedagogical interventions can often be accomplished without much specialized equipment. For example, to simulate a concurrent task environment that is similar in its cognitive demands to that of pilots, learners could solve a nonlinguistic puzzle or do an arithmetic task while communicating with a partner or in a group. Another example of increasing the cognitive demands of a language task may be to simulate the constraints of radio communications, such as monitoring and filtering for relevant information while listening to the communications of others and waiting for an opportunity to speak.

Similarly, teachers might design paired communicative activities in which interlocutors do not see one another, as in real controller–pilot communications. In setting up listening activities, teachers could also vary the regional variety of English and expose learners to English spoken by speakers of different language backgrounds, thus simulating the linguistic diversity which characterizes Aviation English. Although the technical requirements may be greater, instructors could set up activities that demonstrate the effects of radio frequency constraints on phonetic perception (e.g., showing that /f/ is often indistinguishable from /s/ in radiotelephonic communications).

Whatever pedagogical decisions ESP instructors make, they need not become absolute experts in the learners’ field. A mere familiarization with the cognitive challenges and the communicative environment of the learners’ workplace would go a long way in helping instructors make sure that learners can cope with the constraints and challenges of real life communications. Ultimately, this will ensure that learners meet their objective– achieving language proficiency adequate for their workplace.

Extracted from: TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 42, no 3, September 2008.

TEXT II

Air Traffic Communication in a Second Language: Implications of Cognitive Factors for Training and Assessment

Candace Farris, Pavel Trofimovich, Norman Segalowitz, and Elizabeth Gatbonton Concordia University Montréal, Québec, Canada

Summary of Findings

We investigated the effects of cognitive workload on L2 speakers’ repetition accuracy and speech production (as judged by listeners) in a simulated pilot navigation task. Results revealed that the NS (native speakers) group repeated messages with greater accuracy than both L2 groups regardless of workload condition, and that the group with the lowest level of L2 proficiency was the one most affected by high cognitive workload. This finding suggests that L2 communications with controllers may be more challenging for pilots when they perform one or perhaps even more concurrent cognitive tasks. Results also revealed that the NS group sounded less accented, more comprehensible, and more fluent than both L2 groups, while the high group, in turn, received higher ratings for all these measures than the low group. In addition, high workload led to lower fluency ratings for the NS group and lower accentedness and fluency ratings for the low group than did low workload. With respect to the fluency ratings, our findings suggest that high workload is associated with the production of dysfluencies such as undue or long pauses, false starts and repetitions, to an extent perceptible by listeners. Although the additional cognitive demands of the high workload condition did not affect repetition accuracy (at least for the NS group), these demands did affect speech fluency, suggesting that fluency measures may be good indicators of the impact of cognitive workload, even when repetition accuracy is stable. With respect to accentedness ratings, the findings suggest that lowproficiency L2 users depart even more from native-like, unaccented speech under high cognitive workload, although this increased workload may not necessarily make their speech less comprehensible.

The finding that workload affects the amount of information retained and influences listener perceptions of speech (especially in the L2) is compatible with existing L2 processing research. For example, this finding is in accordance with conceptualizations of the role of automaticity in language processing. Such conceptualizations hold that well-practiced skills (e.g., L1 perception and production) are more highly automatic and require fewer attentional resources than newly acquired skills, such as L2 perception and production for low-proficiency L2 users. Low-proficiency speakers thus appear to have greater difficulty than highproficiency speakers in using their L2 perception and production skills in an efficient, automatic manner. When low-proficiency learners’ attentional resources are distributed across several tasks, these learners appear to engage in a nonautomatic, effortful form of processing. The result is that less information is accurately retained and more accented and less fluent speech is produced

Implications for L2 training and assessment

The findings have implications for L2 training and assessment, particularly in an ESP context. The current study revealed performance differences as a function of language proficiency, but the distinction between high and low proficiency was only relative here. Clearly, the notion of L2 proficiency needs to be clarified in practical terms, as it applies to thousands of professionals who will be tested according to ICAO’s (International Civil Aviation Organization) language proficiency requirements. The existing ICAO Language Proficiency Rating Scale is a globally recognized instrument reflecting six language skills (pronunciation, structure, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and interactions) and six proficiency levels (pre-elementary, elementary, preoperational, operational, extended, and expert). It may be important to continue fine-tuning this scale, validating it using a large population of pilots and controllers under conditions of varying workload or psychological stress typical of the controller–pilot workplace.

Other implications of the findings are practical in nature. For training and assessment purposes, especially in the ESP context, learners may benefit from practicing their L2 skills under workload conditions similar to those they might face in the workplace. This and other pedagogical interventions can often be accomplished without much specialized equipment. For example, to simulate a concurrent task environment that is similar in its cognitive demands to that of pilots, learners could solve a nonlinguistic puzzle or do an arithmetic task while communicating with a partner or in a group. Another example of increasing the cognitive demands of a language task may be to simulate the constraints of radio communications, such as monitoring and filtering for relevant information while listening to the communications of others and waiting for an opportunity to speak.

Similarly, teachers might design paired communicative activities in which interlocutors do not see one another, as in real controller–pilot communications. In setting up listening activities, teachers could also vary the regional variety of English and expose learners to English spoken by speakers of different language backgrounds, thus simulating the linguistic diversity which characterizes Aviation English. Although the technical requirements may be greater, instructors could set up activities that demonstrate the effects of radio frequency constraints on phonetic perception (e.g., showing that /f/ is often indistinguishable from /s/ in radiotelephonic communications).

Whatever pedagogical decisions ESP instructors make, they need not become absolute experts in the learners’ field. A mere familiarization with the cognitive challenges and the communicative environment of the learners’ workplace would go a long way in helping instructors make sure that learners can cope with the constraints and challenges of real life communications. Ultimately, this will ensure that learners meet their objective– achieving language proficiency adequate for their workplace.

Extracted from: TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 42, no 3, September 2008.

TEXT II

Air Traffic Communication in a Second Language: Implications of Cognitive Factors for Training and Assessment

Candace Farris, Pavel Trofimovich, Norman Segalowitz, and Elizabeth Gatbonton Concordia University Montréal, Québec, Canada

Summary of Findings

We investigated the effects of cognitive workload on L2 speakers’ repetition accuracy and speech production (as judged by listeners) in a simulated pilot navigation task. Results revealed that the NS (native speakers) group repeated messages with greater accuracy than both L2 groups regardless of workload condition, and that the group with the lowest level of L2 proficiency was the one most affected by high cognitive workload. This finding suggests that L2 communications with controllers may be more challenging for pilots when they perform one or perhaps even more concurrent cognitive tasks. Results also revealed that the NS group sounded less accented, more comprehensible, and more fluent than both L2 groups, while the high group, in turn, received higher ratings for all these measures than the low group. In addition, high workload led to lower fluency ratings for the NS group and lower accentedness and fluency ratings for the low group than did low workload. With respect to the fluency ratings, our findings suggest that high workload is associated with the production of dysfluencies such as undue or long pauses, false starts and repetitions, to an extent perceptible by listeners. Although the additional cognitive demands of the high workload condition did not affect repetition accuracy (at least for the NS group), these demands did affect speech fluency, suggesting that fluency measures may be good indicators of the impact of cognitive workload, even when repetition accuracy is stable. With respect to accentedness ratings, the findings suggest that lowproficiency L2 users depart even more from native-like, unaccented speech under high cognitive workload, although this increased workload may not necessarily make their speech less comprehensible.

The finding that workload affects the amount of information retained and influences listener perceptions of speech (especially in the L2) is compatible with existing L2 processing research. For example, this finding is in accordance with conceptualizations of the role of automaticity in language processing. Such conceptualizations hold that well-practiced skills (e.g., L1 perception and production) are more highly automatic and require fewer attentional resources than newly acquired skills, such as L2 perception and production for low-proficiency L2 users. Low-proficiency speakers thus appear to have greater difficulty than highproficiency speakers in using their L2 perception and production skills in an efficient, automatic manner. When low-proficiency learners’ attentional resources are distributed across several tasks, these learners appear to engage in a nonautomatic, effortful form of processing. The result is that less information is accurately retained and more accented and less fluent speech is produced

Implications for L2 training and assessment

The findings have implications for L2 training and assessment, particularly in an ESP context. The current study revealed performance differences as a function of language proficiency, but the distinction between high and low proficiency was only relative here. Clearly, the notion of L2 proficiency needs to be clarified in practical terms, as it applies to thousands of professionals who will be tested according to ICAO’s (International Civil Aviation Organization) language proficiency requirements. The existing ICAO Language Proficiency Rating Scale is a globally recognized instrument reflecting six language skills (pronunciation, structure, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and interactions) and six proficiency levels (pre-elementary, elementary, preoperational, operational, extended, and expert). It may be important to continue fine-tuning this scale, validating it using a large population of pilots and controllers under conditions of varying workload or psychological stress typical of the controller–pilot workplace.

Other implications of the findings are practical in nature. For training and assessment purposes, especially in the ESP context, learners may benefit from practicing their L2 skills under workload conditions similar to those they might face in the workplace. This and other pedagogical interventions can often be accomplished without much specialized equipment. For example, to simulate a concurrent task environment that is similar in its cognitive demands to that of pilots, learners could solve a nonlinguistic puzzle or do an arithmetic task while communicating with a partner or in a group. Another example of increasing the cognitive demands of a language task may be to simulate the constraints of radio communications, such as monitoring and filtering for relevant information while listening to the communications of others and waiting for an opportunity to speak.

Similarly, teachers might design paired communicative activities in which interlocutors do not see one another, as in real controller–pilot communications. In setting up listening activities, teachers could also vary the regional variety of English and expose learners to English spoken by speakers of different language backgrounds, thus simulating the linguistic diversity which characterizes Aviation English. Although the technical requirements may be greater, instructors could set up activities that demonstrate the effects of radio frequency constraints on phonetic perception (e.g., showing that /f/ is often indistinguishable from /s/ in radiotelephonic communications).

Whatever pedagogical decisions ESP instructors make, they need not become absolute experts in the learners’ field. A mere familiarization with the cognitive challenges and the communicative environment of the learners’ workplace would go a long way in helping instructors make sure that learners can cope with the constraints and challenges of real life communications. Ultimately, this will ensure that learners meet their objective– achieving language proficiency adequate for their workplace.

Extracted from: TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 42, no 3, September 2008.

TEXT II

Air Traffic Communication in a Second Language: Implications of Cognitive Factors for Training and Assessment

Candace Farris, Pavel Trofimovich, Norman Segalowitz, and Elizabeth Gatbonton Concordia University Montréal, Québec, Canada

Summary of Findings

We investigated the effects of cognitive workload on L2 speakers’ repetition accuracy and speech production (as judged by listeners) in a simulated pilot navigation task. Results revealed that the NS (native speakers) group repeated messages with greater accuracy than both L2 groups regardless of workload condition, and that the group with the lowest level of L2 proficiency was the one most affected by high cognitive workload. This finding suggests that L2 communications with controllers may be more challenging for pilots when they perform one or perhaps even more concurrent cognitive tasks. Results also revealed that the NS group sounded less accented, more comprehensible, and more fluent than both L2 groups, while the high group, in turn, received higher ratings for all these measures than the low group. In addition, high workload led to lower fluency ratings for the NS group and lower accentedness and fluency ratings for the low group than did low workload. With respect to the fluency ratings, our findings suggest that high workload is associated with the production of dysfluencies such as undue or long pauses, false starts and repetitions, to an extent perceptible by listeners. Although the additional cognitive demands of the high workload condition did not affect repetition accuracy (at least for the NS group), these demands did affect speech fluency, suggesting that fluency measures may be good indicators of the impact of cognitive workload, even when repetition accuracy is stable. With respect to accentedness ratings, the findings suggest that lowproficiency L2 users depart even more from native-like, unaccented speech under high cognitive workload, although this increased workload may not necessarily make their speech less comprehensible.

The finding that workload affects the amount of information retained and influences listener perceptions of speech (especially in the L2) is compatible with existing L2 processing research. For example, this finding is in accordance with conceptualizations of the role of automaticity in language processing. Such conceptualizations hold that well-practiced skills (e.g., L1 perception and production) are more highly automatic and require fewer attentional resources than newly acquired skills, such as L2 perception and production for low-proficiency L2 users. Low-proficiency speakers thus appear to have greater difficulty than highproficiency speakers in using their L2 perception and production skills in an efficient, automatic manner. When low-proficiency learners’ attentional resources are distributed across several tasks, these learners appear to engage in a nonautomatic, effortful form of processing. The result is that less information is accurately retained and more accented and less fluent speech is produced

Implications for L2 training and assessment

The findings have implications for L2 training and assessment, particularly in an ESP context. The current study revealed performance differences as a function of language proficiency, but the distinction between high and low proficiency was only relative here. Clearly, the notion of L2 proficiency needs to be clarified in practical terms, as it applies to thousands of professionals who will be tested according to ICAO’s (International Civil Aviation Organization) language proficiency requirements. The existing ICAO Language Proficiency Rating Scale is a globally recognized instrument reflecting six language skills (pronunciation, structure, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and interactions) and six proficiency levels (pre-elementary, elementary, preoperational, operational, extended, and expert). It may be important to continue fine-tuning this scale, validating it using a large population of pilots and controllers under conditions of varying workload or psychological stress typical of the controller–pilot workplace.

Other implications of the findings are practical in nature. For training and assessment purposes, especially in the ESP context, learners may benefit from practicing their L2 skills under workload conditions similar to those they might face in the workplace. This and other pedagogical interventions can often be accomplished without much specialized equipment. For example, to simulate a concurrent task environment that is similar in its cognitive demands to that of pilots, learners could solve a nonlinguistic puzzle or do an arithmetic task while communicating with a partner or in a group. Another example of increasing the cognitive demands of a language task may be to simulate the constraints of radio communications, such as monitoring and filtering for relevant information while listening to the communications of others and waiting for an opportunity to speak.

Similarly, teachers might design paired communicative activities in which interlocutors do not see one another, as in real controller–pilot communications. In setting up listening activities, teachers could also vary the regional variety of English and expose learners to English spoken by speakers of different language backgrounds, thus simulating the linguistic diversity which characterizes Aviation English. Although the technical requirements may be greater, instructors could set up activities that demonstrate the effects of radio frequency constraints on phonetic perception (e.g., showing that /f/ is often indistinguishable from /s/ in radiotelephonic communications).

Whatever pedagogical decisions ESP instructors make, they need not become absolute experts in the learners’ field. A mere familiarization with the cognitive challenges and the communicative environment of the learners’ workplace would go a long way in helping instructors make sure that learners can cope with the constraints and challenges of real life communications. Ultimately, this will ensure that learners meet their objective– achieving language proficiency adequate for their workplace.

Extracted from: TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 42, no 3, September 2008.

TEXT II

Air Traffic Communication in a Second Language: Implications of Cognitive Factors for Training and Assessment

Candace Farris, Pavel Trofimovich, Norman Segalowitz, and Elizabeth Gatbonton Concordia University Montréal, Québec, Canada

Summary of Findings

We investigated the effects of cognitive workload on L2 speakers’ repetition accuracy and speech production (as judged by listeners) in a simulated pilot navigation task. Results revealed that the NS (native speakers) group repeated messages with greater accuracy than both L2 groups regardless of workload condition, and that the group with the lowest level of L2 proficiency was the one most affected by high cognitive workload. This finding suggests that L2 communications with controllers may be more challenging for pilots when they perform one or perhaps even more concurrent cognitive tasks. Results also revealed that the NS group sounded less accented, more comprehensible, and more fluent than both L2 groups, while the high group, in turn, received higher ratings for all these measures than the low group. In addition, high workload led to lower fluency ratings for the NS group and lower accentedness and fluency ratings for the low group than did low workload. With respect to the fluency ratings, our findings suggest that high workload is associated with the production of dysfluencies such as undue or long pauses, false starts and repetitions, to an extent perceptible by listeners. Although the additional cognitive demands of the high workload condition did not affect repetition accuracy (at least for the NS group), these demands did affect speech fluency, suggesting that fluency measures may be good indicators of the impact of cognitive workload, even when repetition accuracy is stable. With respect to accentedness ratings, the findings suggest that lowproficiency L2 users depart even more from native-like, unaccented speech under high cognitive workload, although this increased workload may not necessarily make their speech less comprehensible.

The finding that workload affects the amount of information retained and influences listener perceptions of speech (especially in the L2) is compatible with existing L2 processing research. For example, this finding is in accordance with conceptualizations of the role of automaticity in language processing. Such conceptualizations hold that well-practiced skills (e.g., L1 perception and production) are more highly automatic and require fewer attentional resources than newly acquired skills, such as L2 perception and production for low-proficiency L2 users. Low-proficiency speakers thus appear to have greater difficulty than highproficiency speakers in using their L2 perception and production skills in an efficient, automatic manner. When low-proficiency learners’ attentional resources are distributed across several tasks, these learners appear to engage in a nonautomatic, effortful form of processing. The result is that less information is accurately retained and more accented and less fluent speech is produced

Implications for L2 training and assessment

The findings have implications for L2 training and assessment, particularly in an ESP context. The current study revealed performance differences as a function of language proficiency, but the distinction between high and low proficiency was only relative here. Clearly, the notion of L2 proficiency needs to be clarified in practical terms, as it applies to thousands of professionals who will be tested according to ICAO’s (International Civil Aviation Organization) language proficiency requirements. The existing ICAO Language Proficiency Rating Scale is a globally recognized instrument reflecting six language skills (pronunciation, structure, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and interactions) and six proficiency levels (pre-elementary, elementary, preoperational, operational, extended, and expert). It may be important to continue fine-tuning this scale, validating it using a large population of pilots and controllers under conditions of varying workload or psychological stress typical of the controller–pilot workplace.

Other implications of the findings are practical in nature. For training and assessment purposes, especially in the ESP context, learners may benefit from practicing their L2 skills under workload conditions similar to those they might face in the workplace. This and other pedagogical interventions can often be accomplished without much specialized equipment. For example, to simulate a concurrent task environment that is similar in its cognitive demands to that of pilots, learners could solve a nonlinguistic puzzle or do an arithmetic task while communicating with a partner or in a group. Another example of increasing the cognitive demands of a language task may be to simulate the constraints of radio communications, such as monitoring and filtering for relevant information while listening to the communications of others and waiting for an opportunity to speak.

Similarly, teachers might design paired communicative activities in which interlocutors do not see one another, as in real controller–pilot communications. In setting up listening activities, teachers could also vary the regional variety of English and expose learners to English spoken by speakers of different language backgrounds, thus simulating the linguistic diversity which characterizes Aviation English. Although the technical requirements may be greater, instructors could set up activities that demonstrate the effects of radio frequency constraints on phonetic perception (e.g., showing that /f/ is often indistinguishable from /s/ in radiotelephonic communications).

Whatever pedagogical decisions ESP instructors make, they need not become absolute experts in the learners’ field. A mere familiarization with the cognitive challenges and the communicative environment of the learners’ workplace would go a long way in helping instructors make sure that learners can cope with the constraints and challenges of real life communications. Ultimately, this will ensure that learners meet their objective– achieving language proficiency adequate for their workplace.

Extracted from: TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 42, no 3, September 2008.

TEXT II

Air Traffic Communication in a Second Language: Implications of Cognitive Factors for Training and Assessment

Candace Farris, Pavel Trofimovich, Norman Segalowitz, and Elizabeth Gatbonton Concordia University Montréal, Québec, Canada

Summary of Findings

We investigated the effects of cognitive workload on L2 speakers’ repetition accuracy and speech production (as judged by listeners) in a simulated pilot navigation task. Results revealed that the NS (native speakers) group repeated messages with greater accuracy than both L2 groups regardless of workload condition, and that the group with the lowest level of L2 proficiency was the one most affected by high cognitive workload. This finding suggests that L2 communications with controllers may be more challenging for pilots when they perform one or perhaps even more concurrent cognitive tasks. Results also revealed that the NS group sounded less accented, more comprehensible, and more fluent than both L2 groups, while the high group, in turn, received higher ratings for all these measures than the low group. In addition, high workload led to lower fluency ratings for the NS group and lower accentedness and fluency ratings for the low group than did low workload. With respect to the fluency ratings, our findings suggest that high workload is associated with the production of dysfluencies such as undue or long pauses, false starts and repetitions, to an extent perceptible by listeners. Although the additional cognitive demands of the high workload condition did not affect repetition accuracy (at least for the NS group), these demands did affect speech fluency, suggesting that fluency measures may be good indicators of the impact of cognitive workload, even when repetition accuracy is stable. With respect to accentedness ratings, the findings suggest that lowproficiency L2 users depart even more from native-like, unaccented speech under high cognitive workload, although this increased workload may not necessarily make their speech less comprehensible.

The finding that workload affects the amount of information retained and influences listener perceptions of speech (especially in the L2) is compatible with existing L2 processing research. For example, this finding is in accordance with conceptualizations of the role of automaticity in language processing. Such conceptualizations hold that well-practiced skills (e.g., L1 perception and production) are more highly automatic and require fewer attentional resources than newly acquired skills, such as L2 perception and production for low-proficiency L2 users. Low-proficiency speakers thus appear to have greater difficulty than highproficiency speakers in using their L2 perception and production skills in an efficient, automatic manner. When low-proficiency learners’ attentional resources are distributed across several tasks, these learners appear to engage in a nonautomatic, effortful form of processing. The result is that less information is accurately retained and more accented and less fluent speech is produced

Implications for L2 training and assessment

The findings have implications for L2 training and assessment, particularly in an ESP context. The current study revealed performance differences as a function of language proficiency, but the distinction between high and low proficiency was only relative here. Clearly, the notion of L2 proficiency needs to be clarified in practical terms, as it applies to thousands of professionals who will be tested according to ICAO’s (International Civil Aviation Organization) language proficiency requirements. The existing ICAO Language Proficiency Rating Scale is a globally recognized instrument reflecting six language skills (pronunciation, structure, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and interactions) and six proficiency levels (pre-elementary, elementary, preoperational, operational, extended, and expert). It may be important to continue fine-tuning this scale, validating it using a large population of pilots and controllers under conditions of varying workload or psychological stress typical of the controller–pilot workplace.

Other implications of the findings are practical in nature. For training and assessment purposes, especially in the ESP context, learners may benefit from practicing their L2 skills under workload conditions similar to those they might face in the workplace. This and other pedagogical interventions can often be accomplished without much specialized equipment. For example, to simulate a concurrent task environment that is similar in its cognitive demands to that of pilots, learners could solve a nonlinguistic puzzle or do an arithmetic task while communicating with a partner or in a group. Another example of increasing the cognitive demands of a language task may be to simulate the constraints of radio communications, such as monitoring and filtering for relevant information while listening to the communications of others and waiting for an opportunity to speak.

Similarly, teachers might design paired communicative activities in which interlocutors do not see one another, as in real controller–pilot communications. In setting up listening activities, teachers could also vary the regional variety of English and expose learners to English spoken by speakers of different language backgrounds, thus simulating the linguistic diversity which characterizes Aviation English. Although the technical requirements may be greater, instructors could set up activities that demonstrate the effects of radio frequency constraints on phonetic perception (e.g., showing that /f/ is often indistinguishable from /s/ in radiotelephonic communications).

Whatever pedagogical decisions ESP instructors make, they need not become absolute experts in the learners’ field. A mere familiarization with the cognitive challenges and the communicative environment of the learners’ workplace would go a long way in helping instructors make sure that learners can cope with the constraints and challenges of real life communications. Ultimately, this will ensure that learners meet their objective– achieving language proficiency adequate for their workplace.

Extracted from: TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 42, no 3, September 2008.

TEXT I

Accreditation in Aviation

Marjo Mitsutomi and Jerry Platt University of Redlands (California)

Data

There is substantial anecdotal evidence to suggest that language miscommunication has been a contributing factor in several airplane crashes, and in even more nearmisses. Unfortunately, the coding mechanisms for recording cause of failure often obscure the role of language. Worse, there is evidence of deliberate withholding of such data, presumably to avoid increasing fears among an already skittish flying public. The result is surprisingly scant hard evidence to systematically support any claim that language communication “in global airspace is an important safety issue today”.

Growth

By contrast, there is substantial evidence to support the claim that “effective communication in global airspace … will become even more important tomorrow”. In projecting air traffic for the year 2026, the Boeing web site indicates that traffic within the Asia-Pacific region, with its great variety of native languages, will exceed air traffic within North America – the historically-dominant region that is comprised of but three native languages. Additionally, there are clear indicators that per capita air travel traffic, which increases with wealth, is about to undergo dramatic shifts in demography.

Accreditation

The goal of accreditation is to ensure that the education provided by schools, institutions and programs meets the minimum acceptable levels of quality. The value proposition of Aviation English is best advanced through an accreditation process for its training programs. Just what is accreditation? Why does it matter? How can it help?

Accreditation is “the stamp of approval” for schools and/ or programs in a particular discipline or industry. Institutions that seek accreditation recognize its importance by agreeing to a set of commonly adopted industry standards for quality assurance. The accrediting process is done by one’s peers. Accrediting agencies are private educational associations of regional, national or international scope. The agencies develop evaluation criteria and conduct peer evaluations to assess whether or not those criteria are met. In terms of the so-called Level-4 proficiency benchmark, accreditation can address both general and specific questions of common interest.

The Education Specialty Analogy

Accreditation is a common element of education systems all over the world. Some accreditation agencies are general, and assess overall performance, while others are specific to a particular task.

Our interest is in a specific, specialized, programmatic accreditation. It would not assess the overall effectiveness of a flight school, an air traffic controller program, or an English language school. Instead, it would focus only on the Aviation English component of that school or program, and assess it only with respect to the stated ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) standards and benchmarks for Aviation English. An analogy may help.

There are thousands of universities around the world, and most countries have national or regional accreditation bodies to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the universities in meeting their educational goals. Many of these universities have schools of business as one patch of its educational fabric. There are only two global bodies for the accreditation of business programs within universities – EQUIS and AACSB. These two bodies accredit the business training subset of an institution, according to quite specific global standards that have been set by peers at business schools worldwide.

Accreditation for Aviation English It is proposed that an international body be established to accredit schools and programs that purport to train and prepare pilots and controllers to be proficient in Aviation English by ICAO standard

Necessary and/or Desirable Ingredients The accreditation process should examine not only the measurement instrument(s) and output from the testing process for demonstrating proficiency in Aviation English, but also the inputs (recruitment; student support; organization structure; financial resources; personnel) and the processes (training; testing; certification). It is essential that accreditation be established as a holistic enterprise.

While it is both premature and presumptuous to specify standards today that should be set in agreement among peer schools and programs at some future date, there are certain ingredients that transcend specific criteria and can help guide in the formulation and establishment of the accreditation unit. It should be an independent, not-for-profit federation of schools and programs, with broad global representation that reflects the rich diversity in native languages and cultures across member states. Accreditation must be limited to Aviation English, and must be based upon a peer-review process that emphasizes absolute standards for performance while also recognizing relative advancement toward the absolute standard, thereby acting as a supportive organization that actively helps all programs improve.

TEXT I

Accreditation in Aviation

Marjo Mitsutomi and Jerry Platt University of Redlands (California)

Data

There is substantial anecdotal evidence to suggest that language miscommunication has been a contributing factor in several airplane crashes, and in even more nearmisses. Unfortunately, the coding mechanisms for recording cause of failure often obscure the role of language. Worse, there is evidence of deliberate withholding of such data, presumably to avoid increasing fears among an already skittish flying public. The result is surprisingly scant hard evidence to systematically support any claim that language communication “in global airspace is an important safety issue today”.

Growth

By contrast, there is substantial evidence to support the claim that “effective communication in global airspace … will become even more important tomorrow”. In projecting air traffic for the year 2026, the Boeing web site indicates that traffic within the Asia-Pacific region, with its great variety of native languages, will exceed air traffic within North America – the historically-dominant region that is comprised of but three native languages. Additionally, there are clear indicators that per capita air travel traffic, which increases with wealth, is about to undergo dramatic shifts in demography.

Accreditation

The goal of accreditation is to ensure that the education provided by schools, institutions and programs meets the minimum acceptable levels of quality. The value proposition of Aviation English is best advanced through an accreditation process for its training programs. Just what is accreditation? Why does it matter? How can it help?

Accreditation is “the stamp of approval” for schools and/ or programs in a particular discipline or industry. Institutions that seek accreditation recognize its importance by agreeing to a set of commonly adopted industry standards for quality assurance. The accrediting process is done by one’s peers. Accrediting agencies are private educational associations of regional, national or international scope. The agencies develop evaluation criteria and conduct peer evaluations to assess whether or not those criteria are met. In terms of the so-called Level-4 proficiency benchmark, accreditation can address both general and specific questions of common interest.

The Education Specialty Analogy

Accreditation is a common element of education systems all over the world. Some accreditation agencies are general, and assess overall performance, while others are specific to a particular task.

Our interest is in a specific, specialized, programmatic accreditation. It would not assess the overall effectiveness of a flight school, an air traffic controller program, or an English language school. Instead, it would focus only on the Aviation English component of that school or program, and assess it only with respect to the stated ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) standards and benchmarks for Aviation English. An analogy may help.

There are thousands of universities around the world, and most countries have national or regional accreditation bodies to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the universities in meeting their educational goals. Many of these universities have schools of business as one patch of its educational fabric. There are only two global bodies for the accreditation of business programs within universities – EQUIS and AACSB. These two bodies accredit the business training subset of an institution, according to quite specific global standards that have been set by peers at business schools worldwide.

Accreditation for Aviation English It is proposed that an international body be established to accredit schools and programs that purport to train and prepare pilots and controllers to be proficient in Aviation English by ICAO standard

Necessary and/or Desirable Ingredients The accreditation process should examine not only the measurement instrument(s) and output from the testing process for demonstrating proficiency in Aviation English, but also the inputs (recruitment; student support; organization structure; financial resources; personnel) and the processes (training; testing; certification). It is essential that accreditation be established as a holistic enterprise.

While it is both premature and presumptuous to specify standards today that should be set in agreement among peer schools and programs at some future date, there are certain ingredients that transcend specific criteria and can help guide in the formulation and establishment of the accreditation unit. It should be an independent, not-for-profit federation of schools and programs, with broad global representation that reflects the rich diversity in native languages and cultures across member states. Accreditation must be limited to Aviation English, and must be based upon a peer-review process that emphasizes absolute standards for performance while also recognizing relative advancement toward the absolute standard, thereby acting as a supportive organization that actively helps all programs improve.

TEXT I

Accreditation in Aviation

Marjo Mitsutomi and Jerry Platt University of Redlands (California)

Data

There is substantial anecdotal evidence to suggest that language miscommunication has been a contributing factor in several airplane crashes, and in even more nearmisses. Unfortunately, the coding mechanisms for recording cause of failure often obscure the role of language. Worse, there is evidence of deliberate withholding of such data, presumably to avoid increasing fears among an already skittish flying public. The result is surprisingly scant hard evidence to systematically support any claim that language communication “in global airspace is an important safety issue today”.

Growth

By contrast, there is substantial evidence to support the claim that “effective communication in global airspace … will become even more important tomorrow”. In projecting air traffic for the year 2026, the Boeing web site indicates that traffic within the Asia-Pacific region, with its great variety of native languages, will exceed air traffic within North America – the historically-dominant region that is comprised of but three native languages. Additionally, there are clear indicators that per capita air travel traffic, which increases with wealth, is about to undergo dramatic shifts in demography.

Accreditation

The goal of accreditation is to ensure that the education provided by schools, institutions and programs meets the minimum acceptable levels of quality. The value proposition of Aviation English is best advanced through an accreditation process for its training programs. Just what is accreditation? Why does it matter? How can it help?

Accreditation is “the stamp of approval” for schools and/ or programs in a particular discipline or industry. Institutions that seek accreditation recognize its importance by agreeing to a set of commonly adopted industry standards for quality assurance. The accrediting process is done by one’s peers. Accrediting agencies are private educational associations of regional, national or international scope. The agencies develop evaluation criteria and conduct peer evaluations to assess whether or not those criteria are met. In terms of the so-called Level-4 proficiency benchmark, accreditation can address both general and specific questions of common interest.

The Education Specialty Analogy

Accreditation is a common element of education systems all over the world. Some accreditation agencies are general, and assess overall performance, while others are specific to a particular task.

Our interest is in a specific, specialized, programmatic accreditation. It would not assess the overall effectiveness of a flight school, an air traffic controller program, or an English language school. Instead, it would focus only on the Aviation English component of that school or program, and assess it only with respect to the stated ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) standards and benchmarks for Aviation English. An analogy may help.

There are thousands of universities around the world, and most countries have national or regional accreditation bodies to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the universities in meeting their educational goals. Many of these universities have schools of business as one patch of its educational fabric. There are only two global bodies for the accreditation of business programs within universities – EQUIS and AACSB. These two bodies accredit the business training subset of an institution, according to quite specific global standards that have been set by peers at business schools worldwide.

Accreditation for Aviation English It is proposed that an international body be established to accredit schools and programs that purport to train and prepare pilots and controllers to be proficient in Aviation English by ICAO standard

Necessary and/or Desirable Ingredients The accreditation process should examine not only the measurement instrument(s) and output from the testing process for demonstrating proficiency in Aviation English, but also the inputs (recruitment; student support; organization structure; financial resources; personnel) and the processes (training; testing; certification). It is essential that accreditation be established as a holistic enterprise.

While it is both premature and presumptuous to specify standards today that should be set in agreement among peer schools and programs at some future date, there are certain ingredients that transcend specific criteria and can help guide in the formulation and establishment of the accreditation unit. It should be an independent, not-for-profit federation of schools and programs, with broad global representation that reflects the rich diversity in native languages and cultures across member states. Accreditation must be limited to Aviation English, and must be based upon a peer-review process that emphasizes absolute standards for performance while also recognizing relative advancement toward the absolute standard, thereby acting as a supportive organization that actively helps all programs improve.

TEXT I

Accreditation in Aviation

Marjo Mitsutomi and Jerry Platt University of Redlands (California)

Data

There is substantial anecdotal evidence to suggest that language miscommunication has been a contributing factor in several airplane crashes, and in even more nearmisses. Unfortunately, the coding mechanisms for recording cause of failure often obscure the role of language. Worse, there is evidence of deliberate withholding of such data, presumably to avoid increasing fears among an already skittish flying public. The result is surprisingly scant hard evidence to systematically support any claim that language communication “in global airspace is an important safety issue today”.

Growth

By contrast, there is substantial evidence to support the claim that “effective communication in global airspace … will become even more important tomorrow”. In projecting air traffic for the year 2026, the Boeing web site indicates that traffic within the Asia-Pacific region, with its great variety of native languages, will exceed air traffic within North America – the historically-dominant region that is comprised of but three native languages. Additionally, there are clear indicators that per capita air travel traffic, which increases with wealth, is about to undergo dramatic shifts in demography.

Accreditation

The goal of accreditation is to ensure that the education provided by schools, institutions and programs meets the minimum acceptable levels of quality. The value proposition of Aviation English is best advanced through an accreditation process for its training programs. Just what is accreditation? Why does it matter? How can it help?

Accreditation is “the stamp of approval” for schools and/ or programs in a particular discipline or industry. Institutions that seek accreditation recognize its importance by agreeing to a set of commonly adopted industry standards for quality assurance. The accrediting process is done by one’s peers. Accrediting agencies are private educational associations of regional, national or international scope. The agencies develop evaluation criteria and conduct peer evaluations to assess whether or not those criteria are met. In terms of the so-called Level-4 proficiency benchmark, accreditation can address both general and specific questions of common interest.

The Education Specialty Analogy

Accreditation is a common element of education systems all over the world. Some accreditation agencies are general, and assess overall performance, while others are specific to a particular task.

Our interest is in a specific, specialized, programmatic accreditation. It would not assess the overall effectiveness of a flight school, an air traffic controller program, or an English language school. Instead, it would focus only on the Aviation English component of that school or program, and assess it only with respect to the stated ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) standards and benchmarks for Aviation English. An analogy may help.

There are thousands of universities around the world, and most countries have national or regional accreditation bodies to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the universities in meeting their educational goals. Many of these universities have schools of business as one patch of its educational fabric. There are only two global bodies for the accreditation of business programs within universities – EQUIS and AACSB. These two bodies accredit the business training subset of an institution, according to quite specific global standards that have been set by peers at business schools worldwide.

Accreditation for Aviation English It is proposed that an international body be established to accredit schools and programs that purport to train and prepare pilots and controllers to be proficient in Aviation English by ICAO standard

Necessary and/or Desirable Ingredients The accreditation process should examine not only the measurement instrument(s) and output from the testing process for demonstrating proficiency in Aviation English, but also the inputs (recruitment; student support; organization structure; financial resources; personnel) and the processes (training; testing; certification). It is essential that accreditation be established as a holistic enterprise.

While it is both premature and presumptuous to specify standards today that should be set in agreement among peer schools and programs at some future date, there are certain ingredients that transcend specific criteria and can help guide in the formulation and establishment of the accreditation unit. It should be an independent, not-for-profit federation of schools and programs, with broad global representation that reflects the rich diversity in native languages and cultures across member states. Accreditation must be limited to Aviation English, and must be based upon a peer-review process that emphasizes absolute standards for performance while also recognizing relative advancement toward the absolute standard, thereby acting as a supportive organization that actively helps all programs improve.