ARI Research Note 86-69

0) REVIEW OF NON-RESIDENT LANGUAGE TRAINING

M FOR LINGUISTS IN THE U.S. ARMY

0

Clinton L. Anderson

Kinton, Incorporated D T IC

ELECTE

for S

Contracting Officer's Representative

Ray S. Perez

Instructional Technology Systems Technical Area

Zita I. Simutis, Chief

TRAINING RESEARCH LABORATORY

Harold Wagner, Acting Director

0-

C--

LAJ U. S. Army

tZResearch Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

June 1986

Approved for Public release: distribution unlimited.

86, ' 18 2
UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Date Enterdc)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFRE BEFORE CMPLTINGORM COMPLETING FORM

1. REPORT NUMBER 12. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPiENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

ARI Research Note 86-69 162 4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

Review of Non-Resident Language Training Final Report

for Linguists in the U.S. Army January - December 85

5. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(.) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(&)

OPM Work Order

Clinton L. Anderson 3029-003

9. PERFOR ING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK

AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

Kinton, I rporated 2Q162722A791

Bailey'S C roads, VA 22041

11. CONTFOLNGOFC NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral June 1986

and Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 153

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(If different from Controllind Office) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

Unclassified

IS.. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thl Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the ebstract eitered in Block 20, It different from Report)

II. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Ray S. Perez, contracting officer's representative

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reveree side if neceeary and Identify by block number)

Army Linguists Language Proficiency

Language Acquisition Fnreign Language Training

Language Maintenance

Language Refreshing

20. ANSTRACT (xmit ae am revwrse se if necewy and iderlfy by block number)

This report reviews the status of language proficiency for Army linguists in

field environments. It concludes that the Army needs: a centralized refresher

program, involvement of the Training and Doctrine Command in promotion of

language awareness among Army personnel, updated curricula, refresher training

programs at initial training sites, an incentive award system, monitoring of

language proficiency in tactical settings, and ongoing assessment efforts.

Wo,,, 1473 coro, OF' NOV ISIS OBSOLETE

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THtS PAGE (When Date Entered)
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WM. DARRYL HENDERSON

EDGAR M. JOHNSON COL, IN

Technical Director Commanding

Peer Review by:

Joan Harman

This report. as submitted by the contractor, has been cleared for release to Defense Technical Information Center

(DTIC) to comply with regulatory requirements. It has been given no primary distribution other than to DTIC

end will be available only through DTIC or other reference services such as the National Technical Information

Service (NTIS). The vicws, opiniens. and/or findings contained in this report are those of the author(sl and

should not be construej as an officia; Coepatmeni of the Army position, policy, or decision, unless so designated

by other official documentation.

v'.. vv* S, . * ,. ,,, 'f... " ,. '. ,. * * ., '.. *.. .,.. ,.. . € ,. ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page

Executive Summary

Section I: Introduction 1

A. General 1

B. Tasks l

C. Methodology 2

D. Personnel Contacted 2

E. Literature Reviewed 3

Section II: Overview of Non-Resident Foreign Language 4

Training in the U.S.Army

A. Definitions 4

B. Target Groups 5

C. Regulatory Guidance 7

D. Linguist Learner 7

E. Current Program Status 8

Section III: Issues 9

A. Army Program Management 10

B. Command Support 10

C. Motivation of Learners 10

D. Use of Linguists 11

E. "Strategic" vs. "Tactical" Linguists 12

F. Career Management 12

G. Documentation of Spaces 13

H. General versus Technical Language 13

I. Curricula/POI/Instructinnal Materials 13

J. Use of Advanced Instructional Technology 14

i iii
Page

K. Learning Strategies and Methods of Instruction 14

L. Role of Army Continuing Education System (ACES) 15

Section IV: Possible Research Topics 16

A. Doctrine and Army Planning Guidance 16

B. Assessment of Foreign Language Proficiency 19

C. Selection, Recruitment and Retention of Army Linguists 23

D. The Linguist Learner 25

E. Organization and Administration 27

F. Curriculum and Instruction 30

G. Language Instructor Qualifications and Staff Development 36

H. Applications of Technology 38

Section V: Conceptual Models 42

Section VI: Conclusions and Recommendations 51

Section VII: Annotated Bibliography 54

Appendix:

A. Chronicle of Work Accomplished by Principal

Investigator A-1

B. Language Requirements By Documentation (prepared by

FORSCOM) B-1

C. Active Army Personnel Statistics C-I

D. DLIFLC Candidate Research Projects D-1

E. Berlin Foreign Area Studies Program E-1

Accezion For

NTIS CRA&I

DlIC TAB 0

U,amno'j ced 0

4 By ............

D,t ibution I

Availability Codes

Avail and/or

iv Dist Special

" I,
Executive Summary

This review of non-resident foreign language training

for U.S.Army linguists is exploratory in nature. The

leadership of the U.S.Army Research Institute perceived an

Army need for research in this area but precise research

questions based on specific training deficiencies were not

available. This situation lead to a request to the Office of

Personnel Management for assistance in (1) investigating

perceived problems and concerns in this area, (2) reviewing

current policies, regulatory guidance, program activities,

and initiatives, (3) researching available data bases, and

(4) identifying possible research and development areas.

Based on an ARI-approved work management plan, this study

was conducted using a historical research methodology and

employing such qualitative research techniques as interviews

with key personnel and observations of field practices. In

gaining concurrence of the work management plan, the study

was ex'panded to include a requirement to outline some

conceptuals models that may improve current operational

efforts and to develop an annotated bibliography to assist

present and future researchers and practitioners in the area

of non-resident foreign language training.

The study identifies twelve major issues that influence

non-resident foreign language training for linguists, eight

broad research areas, and ten conceptual models. Primary

concerns center around Army program management, command

support, use of linguists in field enviornments, the

integration of general and technical language, and the use

of advanced instructional technology.

This study recommends the following: (1) the

development of a functional, cohesive non-resident language

program for linguists, under a centralized leadership; (2)

increased involvement of U.S.A. Training and Doctrine

Command; (3) development of instructional materials using

advanced technology to incorporate learning strategies and

motivaional techniques; (4) establishment of a non-resident

instructional expertise base at the Defense Language

Institute, Foreign Language Center; (5) development and

implementation of a language R9D plan using the fifty-two

research questions outlined in this report; (6) development

of an effective incentive award system to recognize

outstanding performance by linguists; and (8) the

establishment of a technical language proficiency inspection

to ensure Military Intelligence units' capability to perform

its language-related missions, particularly in tactical

settings.

V
I

3Section I: Introduction

A. General

The Army Research Institute (ARI) requested the Office

of Personnel Management (OPM) to conduct an exploratory

study to determine what research areas were appropriate with

regard to non-resident foreign language training for United

States Army linguists. The basis for this request was a

Iarea. perceived lack of current and programmed research in this

In the initial phases of coordinating the Work

Management Plan with the Office of the Assistant Chief of

Staff for Intelligence, Headquarters, Department of the Army

(OACSI,HFQDA) and the Defense Language Institute, Foreign

Language Center (DLIFLC), the need was made apparent for

conceptual models to improve operational efforts and for an

annotated bibliography to assist current and future

researchers and practitioners.

An OPM contractor, Kinton Incorporated, was assigned

the job of accomplishing this study. Dr. Clinton L.

Anderson, Kinton's principal investigator for this work,

outlined the main issues involved in this complex area of

concern. From these issues, fifty-two possible research

topics in eight categories were identified. In addition,

this study outlines ten conceptual models aimed at improving

non-resident foreign language training and unit technical

language training in operational settings.

This study attempts to provide the Army Service Program

Manager and other key agents with information needed to

develop an Army Research and Development Plan regarding

non-resident foreign language training. It also offers ideas

to key Army personnel regarding ways in which non-resident

foreign language training may be more effectively

implemented.

B. Tasks: I..

This study involves the following tasls:

1. Investigate perceived problems and concerns inherent

in non-resident foreign language training for Army linguists

as currently provided.

;2. Review and become thoroughly familiar with existing

policies, regulatory guidance, instructional techniques,

needs assessments, selected curricula and instructional

materials, program implementation, evaluation procedures,

and on-going improvement initiatives.

i
3. Research available empirical data that may be

pertinent to foreign language training for linguists.

4. Identify possible research and development needs tc

include use of advanced instructional technology,

instructional methodologies, learning strategies and

motivational techniques

C. Methodology:

The principal investigator used W. Gray's (1956) six

simple steps in historical research methodology as

"- guidelines for this study. These steps were (1) select an

appropriate topic (in this case the topic was a given), (2)

track down all relevant evidence, (3) take notes, (4)

evaluate evidence, (5) arrange evidence into a meaningful

pattern, and (6) present evidence in an interesting manner

that will communicate to readers the fullest possible

understanding of the subject. The investigator first

developed a Work Management Plan which was submitted to ARI

N for approval on 31 December 1984. The following specific

work task-s were detailed in this plan: (1) acquire

government-furnished materials; (2) conduct a selected

literature review; (3) become familiar with perceived

problems and concerns, instructional techniques, program

implementation procedures, and on-going improvement

initiatives by (a) discussing non-resident foreign language

training with key personnel and (b) personal observation in

some field environments; (4) explore alternative model(s)

for non-resident foreign language training; (5) provide

assistance to ARI; and (6) develop a report of findings.

After the approval of the Work Management Plan, the

Investigator began the literature review and discussions

with key individuals. Observation in field environments

occurred in United States Army, Europe (USAREUR) and

United States Army Forces Command (FORSCOM), specifically at

Fort Stewart, Georgia. A detailed chronicle of work

accomplished is incorporated into this report as Appendix A.

A briefing was given to the Army Service Program Manager

(Major J. Cox, OACSI,HQDA) near the beginning of the project

and his concurrence obtained in the conduct of the study.

Two formal "In Progress Reviews" were submitted to ARI (31

October 1985; 31 December 1985). Detailed trip notes

FORSCOM, DLIFLC, USAREUR) were also developed and Submitted

to ARI.

D. Personnel Contacted:

V Key personnel who were contacted as part of this study

are noted by name and agency at Appendix A. In each case

these personnel were intimately familiar with foreign

language training. A summary of agencies in which personnel

2%
WYYUWWVUWU UTM A1 %r

were contacted include: HQDA(OACSI, Office of the Deputy

Chief of Staff, Personnel (ODCSPER), Office of the Deputy

Chief of Staff, Operations (ODCSOPS)); USAREUR; FORSCOM;

United States Army Intelligence and Security Command

(INSCOM); DLIFLC; ARI; National Security Agency (NSA);

United States Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)

(Training Technology Agency (TTA), Office of Education,

Soldier Support Center, Command & General Staff College

(C&GSC), United States Army Intelligence Center and School

(USAICS)); United States Army Military Personnel Center

(MILPERCEN); Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC). Some

brief discussions occurred with personnel associated with

the University of Maryland, University of Southern

California, and Boston University. Enlisted linguists in

97D, 97E, 98C and 98G MOSs were included in discussions.

Although no attempt was made to attain a representative

sample in talking with linguists, some were from (1) a field

station (fixed site),(2) a continental United States (CONUS)

divisional Military Intelligence Battalion, (3) an outside

continental United States (OCONUS) divisional Military

Intelligence Battalion, (4) Military Intelligence

Battalions which were part of a Military Intelligence Group

(non-divisional), and a field detachment operating in an

OCONUS environment.

E. Literature Reviewed:

The annotated bibilography in Section VII reflects the

selected review of the literature conducted as part of this

study. Special emphasis was given to documents directly

related to non-resident foreign language training in the

U.S.Army. A thorough review of documents maintained by the

Training Division, ODCSOPS HODA, revealed a wealth of

information on nearly every aspect of foreign language

training and initiatives contemplated over the past ten

years. The Pentagon Library was used extensively during the

literature review. Also, Stanford University, Teachers

College Columbia University, University of Virginia,

Virginia Military Institute and Washington and Lee

- University libraries were used. Many key personnel who were

- contacted during this study contributed documents, books and

other materials to the literature review. Primary source

documents included regulations, circulars, pamphlets,

letters, notes, instructional materials, booklets, forms,

and other memoranda. Only a very selective review of

secondary sources (books and journal articles) was conducted

V' regarding foreign language education and training in

general. A major consideration given to including or

excluding a source was whether it seemed to have specific

relevance to foreign language training for linguists in the

U. S. Army.

3

l*I *
A

Section II: Overview of Non-Resident Foreign Language

Training in the U.S.Army

A. Definitions:

1. Defense Language Program (DLP): All foreign language

and English (as a second language) training programs

conducted by, or under contract to, Department of Defense

(DOD) Components, except language training conducted at the

National Cryptologic School, NSA, and language training

provided cadets and midshipmen at Service academies,

dependents in dependent schools operated by DOD, and

individuals pursuing programs conducted strictly for the

purpose of voluntary personal development or obtaining

academic credit. (AR : 5 c)- 2 0 ,pl-l)

2. Defense Foreign Language Program (DFLP): The foreign

language element of the DLP. AR350-20 differentiates between

resident and non-resident training: " DLIFLC conducts

I full-time, intensive foreign language training in

residence..."(p2-1) "Field activities may conduct

nonresident training under the technical control of DLIFLC.

Normally, this training provides elementary language

training, maintains/refreshes language skills, and provides

job-related language skills..." (p2-1)

S .3. Non-resident Foreign Language Training (AR

611-6,19851: This regulation differentiates between

non-resident foreign language training and unit training.

"Nonresident foreign language training is usually conducted

at or through the Army Education Center (AEC). This training

includes individual and unit programs using Headstart,

Refresher Maintenance, Professional Development Program

Extension Courses (PDPEC), Training Extension Courses(TEC),

and other materials provided for in AR 350-2." (p8) On the

other hand, unit training is described as follows: ."a. Commanders at all levels, whose unit mission

accomplishment depends on the foreign language skills of

assigned personnel, will establish on-duty refresher

*." maintenance training programs per AR 350-20. Sufficient

refresher/ maintenance training will be given in units

training programs under the BTMS to ensure maintenance of

minimum job specialty language proficiency.

"b. Commanders, at all levels, whose mission accomplishment

does not depend on language skills but who consider language

training necessary for other reasons, may establish training

programs under AR350-20.

"c. Commanders will set up close liaison with the

installation language coordinator normally located at the

AEC. The AEC has the expertise and the resources to help

commanders conduct training programs." (pp8-9)

.

l 4
4. As can be noted from the official definitions and

descriptions of non-resident foreign language training

outlined above, no clear definition of non-resident language

training exists. For the purposes of this study,

non-resident language training is defined broadly as foreign

language training and testing that occurs in the Army

outside of DLIFLC (which is considered "resident training").

'N This includes general (global) and technical (directly job

related) language training and testing. This includes unit

language training, training in Foreign Language Training

Center, Europe and other such field organizations, contract

training provided by MACOMs and ACES through its

installation AECs and other support agencies, testing by

-." Military Personnel Testing sections and academic degree

programs that have a direct relevance to maintaining and/or

enhancing language proficiency.

5."Linguist" is equally a difficult term to define. A

. key person in HOS USAREUR stated that every soldier

stationed in that Command (outside of the United Kingdom)

required some proficiency level of a foreign language. Then

at what level of proficiency is one considered a "linguist"?

FORSCOM reviewed AR 611--10; AR 611-112 and AR 611-201 to

-.. determine language requirements by MOS and specialty.

* (Results of that review are included at Appendix B.)

Documentation of language requirements is sketchy and

indicates the lack of doctrine in the use of linguists in

Ui how the U.S.Army intends to fight. As will be shown below,

the major consideration in this study is given to enlisted

soldiers trained at DLIRLC and sent through Advanced

%4 Individual Training (AIT) and to the field as 97Bs

(Counterintelligence (CI) Agents), 97Es (Interrogators),

9SCs (Electronics Warfare/ Signal Intelligence (EW/SIGINT)

qAnalysts), and 98Gs (EW/SIGINT Voice Intercept Operators).

B. Target Groups:

1. Personnel engaged in survival foreign lanquaQe and

acculturation programs. This group consists of those

individuals taking (a) Headstart in CONUS, (b) Gateway at

*.'" DLIFLC (Commanders Course) (normally could be considered

"resident training"), (c) Headstart/Gateway I,I,&4 il1 in

USAREUR, (d) orientation course in Korea, and (e) other such

programs, courses and activities. In FY1984, ACES recorded

L102,661 individual enrollees in this type of program in its

system with funds expended in the amount of

$2,889,45:. (Department of the Army (DA) Form 1621 HODA

Consolidated Report, Education Division (DAPE-MPE)). This

effort represents the major element in non-resident foreign

language training conducted at AECs. This group is rarely

addressed in this study with one exception: use of

technology in the DLIFLC Gateway course. Nevertheless, this

group has a bearing on non-resident language training in

* 5

. .. 29
|*

terms of the Army Continuing Education System's (ACES's,

Acontribution.

2. Personnel engaged in foreign language training for

the purposes of "interoperability" with allied forces. Often

U.S. soldiers and units must work as an intergal part of an

allied force whose language is other than English. USAREUR,

in particular, has developed courses to facilitate this

training. ArmFL annin Guidance (1992-20C05) (1985)

emphasizes the need to "fight as part of joint and combined

forces" (p9); "rationalization, standardization, and

interoperability will continue as guidelines..."(p12) This

group was rarely addressed except in USAREUR Trip Notes.

" Personnel engaged in foreign language training -or

the purposes of being a Foreign Area Officer or Specialist,

a MAAG officer, and/or service with an embassy or mission or

assigned against security assistance spaces. Army Planninq

Guidance emphasizes the need for "appropriate training " for

these personnel (p21). This group was rarely addressed in

this study except in regard to U.S.Army Russian Institute

(USARI) and C&GSC and perhaps in general discussions with

military intelligence (MI) personnel.

4. Personnel engaged in foreign language training for

,the purpose of service in Special Operations Forces (SOF).

Although documents were included in the literature review

regarding this group, it was not addressed in detail in this

study. The use and role of foreign languages in the mission

of this element of the Army appeared not well defined. From

a cursory review, there seems to be a lack of emphasis on

foreign language training or on achieving and maintaining a

required language proficiency among this group. Perhaps

doctrinal questions in this area persist for SOF.

5. Linguists engaged in foreign language training for

duty in the counterintelligence field. This group was

briefly addressed with a discussion with some 97B personnel

in the 21st Support Command, USAREUR.

6. Linguists engaged in foreign language training for

duty in divisional Military Intelligence battalions both in

CONUS and OCONUS. This group was addressed extensively with

discussions with linguists and command personnel at Fort

Stewart and in USAREUR.

6. Linguists engaged in foreign language training for

duty in non-divisional field units. This group was addressed

with discussions with linguists and command personnel within

the 66th MI Group (Munich/Augsburg).

7. Linguists engaged in foreign language training for

duty in fixed strategic sites. This group was addressed with

| 6
I

discussions with linguists and command personnel at Field

Station Berlin.

C. Regulatory Guidance.

DOD Directive 5160.41 (2 August 1977) and AR 350-20 (15

July 1978) appeared to be the lastest offical DOD regulatory

guidance. A draft revision of AR 350-2!') was also reviewed.

AR 611-6 (Army Linguist Management (16 October 1985) seemed

to represent the latest Army guidance regarding the Army

Linguist Program. Yet, it is primarily a personnel selection

and classification document. Even its name was changed from

"Army Linguist Program" to "Army Linguist Management" with

the 1985 AR revision. Little regulatory guidance exist

regarding non-resident foreign language training in the

U.S.Army.AR 350-20 states that the Commandant,DLIFLC, is

" responsible for exercising technical control over

non-resident language programs". (p4-2) Yet little guidance

is given as to what "technical control" really means and how

it is to be enforced effectively to insure timely,quality

job-related opportunities for language learning at numerous

locations throughout the world, operated by elements of all

military services. Neither do Army planning documents nor

Army doctrinal concepts (e.g. ,AirLand Battle 2000/ Army 21

address the role and use of linguists or need for foreign

language proficiency. The dearth of guidance at HQDA and

TRADOC suggests a failure of the Army leadership to face

the issues regarding foreign language training and develop

guidelines for their resolution.

D. The Linquist Learner.

Characteristics of the typical linguist learner were

*. difficult to determine from the quantitative data derived

from the enlisted and officer master files. The Language

Skills Change Project, now in progress, has a large

demographic and attitudinal component which is expected to

provide considerable information in this area.

Arriving at mere numbers of individuals in MOSs that may

have a foreign language requirement is a matter of

conjecture. USAISC provided the latest active Army

statistics (see Appendix C). FORSCOM personnel who were

involved in reserve component language training stated that

there were over 300 Reserve Component Units (MI, Civil

Affairs, Psychological Operations (PSYOPS)) with between

three to five thousand positions requiring foreign language

proficiency. Then there are the linguist learners who are

not filling any authorized language identified positions and

who are attempting to maintain their language s.ills.

i Bas.d on observations of linguists who were involved

with this study, the following characteristics were noted:

(1) linguists appear to be intelligent and articulate in

3 7

r - - -II- i - I . -. ".. * . * * .- *" ' . ' "* 1 -
FW f M~ _ rWp~i.x r r.r ,ET~ r~I r r-.

I

conversation concerning themselves and their work; (2) many

have one or two years of college, some are college

graduates, most are interested in continuing college at

either the bachelors or masters level; (3) all wanted to

work in positions which emphasized use of their language

skills (a major complaint was lack of use of language skills

for which the linguist had been trained); (4) most were more

interested in incentives involving self esteem and

recognition rather than in monitary compensation; (5) all

seemed dedicated to doing a professional job (many in the

tactical area were distressed that they did not have a

professional job and could not recall any mission that

required foreign language proficiency in practice, what they

said was, that "If the balloon goes up, the Army will

bomb-out on language"); (6) most felt that DLIFLC Basic

Course gave them at least an apprentice status as linguists;

(7) most felt that more job-relevant military scenerios

could be included in the last third of the Basic Course; (8)

most felt that the DLPT had little or nothing to do with job

performance as linguists; (9) participants in Foreign

Language Training Center, Europe (FLTCE) felt that

experience in foreign language training to be excellent but

many other non-resident courses, particularly in CONUS, were

found to be less than satisfactory...often, no non-resident

instruction was available... even when instruction was

available, the chain of command would not permit linguists

to attend because of higher priority functions.

E. Current Frogram Status.

The non-resident foreign language program in the Army,

as it currently exists, is not a program but, rather, is a

series of fragmented activities. Often it consists, at

.1 installation/community level, of nothing more than an

occasional instructor offering a class where students come

if they can. Some installations/communities, however, such

as Munich and Berlin, seem to have a rich and varied program

of opportunities for linguist maintenance

-refresher-enhancement training and education. Many

installations/communities have large language laboratories

but usage appears minimal. Linguists complain that

conventional language instruction, particularly listening to

tapes, is boring and fails to achieve desired results.

INSCOM and FORSCOM recent directives have required units to

address command language activities. Whether this will

result in improved command language programs in actual

practice remains to be seen. Little if any evaluation

efforts were noted in the non-resident training area. A wide

gap appeared to exist between technical language training

and general language refresher-maintenance needed to pass

the DLPT, which was not perceived to be relevant to linguist

military job performance (tea and cookies vs guns and

tactics). The DLIFLC technical control is undefined and

8

'-C.....
appears to be ineffective. Instructional materials, if

available from DLIFLC, were not considered adequate in field

environments.

Yet there were also some bright spots among the program

activities observed. First, key personnel in the various

commands and agencies appeared concerned about program

shortcomings and seemed to be working toward improved

opportunities for linguists to maintain and enhance their

language proficiency. FLTCE appears to be a successful

initiative worthy of emulation in other theaters. The

intensive language training offered by FLTCE's exceptionally

well-qualified instuctors and staff has made a most positive

impression on all linguists interviewed who had participated

in the school. Second, HOS TRADOC seems to be increasing its

interest in foreign language training as evidenced by

General Richardson's Memorandum For Record (Department of

the Army,1985,Nov.7). This emphasis can bring benefits not

only to DLIFLC and its resident courses but also to

non-resident activities throughout field commands. For

example, if DLIFLC can produce basic course graduates who

score at a 2 level of proficiency on the DLPT,

refresher-maintenance training in field commands will become

a more managable problem. Third, there has been a recent

up-surge in research and development in foreign language

training both at DLIFLC and USAICS. For example, Language

Needs Assessment and the five part approach to sustaining

and enhancing the mission competencies of MI linguists

appear to be steps in the right directions. The Language

Skills Change Study has potential for making a major

contribution to the knowledge base essential to implementing

an effective non-resident foreign language program for

linguists. These and other initiatives indicate that

considerable thought and effort are being expended in this

area to overcome past and current problems. Generally, an

optimistic feeling exists concerning the future of foreign

language training, in part, because of the perceived strong

leadership and cooperation currently being exhibited among

the various agencies and commands.

U 9 o.7
Section III: Issues

A. Army Program Management.

There appears to be no one agency fully responsible for

the Army Foreign Language Program which has the authority

and resourses to bring together a cohesive, functional

effort. Because of this perceived situation, weaknesses in

planning, doctrinal development, testing, training and

education, evaluation and technical language proficiency of

linguists persist. DLIFLC is a Defense schoolhouse. It has

not taken its role of "technical control" of non-resident

foreign language training seriously. In part, the Army

probably has resisted and resented DLIFLC playing a

significant role in its internal operations. DLIFLC insists

on developing "global" language (which makes it easier on it

and its staff) when Army units feel a need for linguists to

be capable of performing their linguist functions in the

context of their military jobs. Army Program Mangement (even

though the Army exercises Executive Agent responsibility for

DLIFLC and perhaps because of it) has not provided effective

guidance in this crucial area, consequently a gulf exists

between Army users and DLIFLC. Until the Army Management

issue is further clarified, the program will continue to

Nsuffer from the lack of effective leadership and guidance.

p B. Command Support.

A common complaint heard among linguists is the lack of

command recognition and support for linguists in their role

as linguists. Often command personnel are non-linguists and

have little appreciation for the jobs linguists are

supposedto perform and the training needed to maintain

language proficiency. This lack of recognition is a serious

detriment to sustainment of language skills. If commanders

and first sergeants find foreign language proficency to be

of little importance in their concept of unit operations,

then their linguists and their language capabilities will

almost invaribly suffer from neglect. Little if any

sensitization or familiarization is provided in officer,

warrant officer and non-commissioned officer education

systems as to the role, function, or importance of linguists

and language proficiency in the performance of Army

missions. This whole matter seems smothered by a cloak of

secrecy which common soldiers are not allowed to understand

much less appreciate. Perhaps non-linguists tend to resent

this separateness and aloofness. They will instead emphasize

mission requirements that they do understand and can relate

to as soldiers and human beings.

C. Motivation of Learners.

"10

?, * t . ~ g:.,.'. ,- , -,. 1 , o.,o** . .'...~ * . . t, V. . . .-.-- . '... - -. , ..". .., .. -' - - - -
T

Motivation of linguist learners is, in large part,

contingent on chain of command interest and recognition. Use

of lanuguage constitutes a major motivational factor in

maintaining and enhancing language proficiency. Intrinsic

motivational factors are affected by extrinsic motivational

incentives built into the personnel and training systems.

Self-esteem and image building incentives appear to be the

most wanted by linguists. Development of an effective

decorations and awards system may prove to be the most

effective and least costly of all the incentive measures

under consideration. Education is an especially attractive

incentive for intelligent, upward mobile linguists, who are

intent on improving themselves and their families. Bonuses

are attractive, but Veap and Army College Fund appear to be

disincentives for retention. Some linguists feel compelled

to get out of the Army in order to take advantage of these

"Army incentives". Promise of working in a field station

("where the real action is") seems to be a motivating factor

for tactical linguists. Return from field station duty to

tactical duty seems to be a disincentive and a reason for

not reenlisting. Promotion points for E-4s and E-5s seem to

be motivating factors. Promotion to E-7 was viewed as a

disincentive since E-7s were often removed from using

language skills to becoming "people pushers". At the point

were individuals in their careers could be expected to be

master linguists and linguist technical language teachers,

E-7s are removed from the language area and made platoon

sergeants in tactical units. Incentive pay (pro-pay) was

viewed as a positive measure. Who would reject more money!

But this incentive received the least favorable reception

particularly if the perception is that the chain of command

is to continue to give such low priority to language

proficiency and the role of linguists. (Soldiers seem to

know when they are being bought off.) Linguists were

Yespecially concerned that incentive pay would be based on

DLPT scorces which many felt did not reflect technical

language proficiency needed to perform military jobs. In

some cases, such as Arabic, the job required a dialect that

the DLPT did not test. Consequently soldiers would get Army

pay to maintain a language which was not used and no pay to

% sustain proficiency in a language which was essential for

job performance. All these factors point to the complicated

nature of foreign language training and use of language.

D. Use of Linguists.

Perhaps the greatest complaint was the lack of use of

language skills by linguists. Linguists operating live

peacetime missions were apparently using their language

skills at least to a degree. Even in this area, a 97E

Russian linguist admitted the subject she was debriefing was

better in English than she was in Russian so most of the

debriefing was actually occurring in English. In divisional

* 1

ll

) , "" ''d ' • ' .'.. ,.'' ,''""." '''','' -'' '#'"4 " "." ".", " ",, '4 " " '" ''' '' '.' ,," '' '" • " " " " " " " " "- '
MI units the usage complaint was loud. "No one cares if you

can do your job as a 98G or 98C." "The Army does not have a

mission for tactical linguists." "Tactical linguists cannot

gain recognition by doing their jobs within the MOS." One

98G (Russian linguist) stated that he was graduated from

DLIFLC, came to Germany, never used his Russian language

skills in his MI unit, lost much of his proficiency, was

sent to FLTCE where he regained proficiency to a point

nearly equivalent to where he was when he originally left

DLIFLC, came back to his tactical MI unit where he continued

not using his language. He felt that he had again lost his

proficiency needed to be an effective linguist. Until the

problem of usage of the target languages in MI organizations

( is properly addressed, sustainment of language proficiency

is nearly impossible to achieve.

PO E. "Strategic" vs. "Tactical" LinQuists.

Many linguists distinguish between strategic and

tactical assignments. Strategic assignments appear to be

with fixed sites or field stations. These assignments

generally require daily usage of their language skills in

the performance of peacetime missions. On the other hand,

tactical assignments are generally with Division MI units

who are preparing for anticipated wartime requirements.

Tactical unit missions are not as well defined, with regard

to language usage, as strategic missions. Tactical MI

linguists must perform many and diverse tasks in order to

survive and function effectively in a modern battlefield

situation. Consequently, language training and usage differ

markedly between tactical and strategic situations. For

example, tactical situations demand troop leadership and

vehicular maintenance, whereas, the supervisory requirements

of a field station may necessitate a shift leader who is

more technically qualified in specialized language skills.

Difficulties appear to arise when linguists are transferred

between tactical and strategic assignments. The charge has

b been made, that linguists who arrive at field stations from

tactical assignments, are generally not qualified to perform

their linguist functions. When the reverse of this situation

. is experienced, some tactical unit personnel claim that

strategic linguists "don't want to get their hands dirty".

The training and assignment of linguists between tactical

and strategic units appears to be a serious career

management issue.

F. Career Management.

The principal issue in career management is whether to

form a linguist career management field where the technical

military specialties are additional identifiers. The current

management system is based on military technical jobs with

12

5%7
I

language being the additional identifier. A thorough review

of the advantages and disadvantages of both management

systems is required.

6. Documentation of Spaces.

Authorization of linguists should be based on Army

doctrine and planning, whereby requirements are identified

for language usage. Weaknesses in these areas are reflected

in poor documentation and specification of spaces both

within the active and reserve components. This area is

particularly weak in the reserve components. The entire

issue of documentation of spaces deserves to be addressed.

H. General vs. Technical Lanquage.

This issue divides the Army Foreign Language Program

into two distinct camps. Most linguists, teachers, and

administrators, fully understand the need for each linguist

to have "a basic load" of general (global) language. No

agreement exists as to how much this basic load should be

(1+ to 3 levels on the DLPT). DLIFLC emphasizes only the

general or global language skills. The DLPT measures general

language. Non-resident instruction, whether provided by

instructors hired by AECs or by FLTCE, emphasize general

language. Units with military missions using linguists

require considerable technical vocabulary.

Counterintelligence units require their agents to use target

languages in rather standard scenarios. These military units

would like linguists to come prepared to operate at least at

a minimal level in this area. Military commanders often feel

that technical language proficiency is neglected throughout

the system. On the other hand, those who provide

-" non-resident training claim they would prefer to use more

relevant military scenarios as contexts for target language

training and to emphasize actual vocabulary needed for job

performance. They are, however, prevented from doing this

because of the classified nature of the subject matter.

Nearly all linguists, linguist trainers and managers,

indicated that linguists needed, in the final analysis, a

"good" grounding in general language proficiency. For

example, one warrant officer stated: "What sentence is it

that tells when the war is going to start?".

Integration of general and technical language is probably

the weakest area in linguist development.

I. Curricula/POl/Instructional Materials.

DLIFLC attempts, in part, to provide some general

(global) language instructional materials. USAICS and other

military agencies are attempting to provide some technical

* 13
I

language materials. Instructors in command language programs

and FLTCE are using commercial materials, which they find

more relevant to local linguist needs. Target language

newspapers, magazines and broadcasts, etc. , are used

extensively to make language instruction a live and real

time experience. Linguists complain that conventional

curricula/POI/instructional materials are an adventure in

boredom and drudgery. One linguist warrant officer stated

emphatically: "Spruce up language training; see as well as

hear; it is no fun to sit and refresh your language skills

using current tapes".

-J. Use of Advanced Instructional Technology.

Some key personnel contacted in this study were opposed

to Computer-assisted Language Instruction. Their argument

was that in areas so highly dependent on interactive

person-to-person communications development only people are

appropriate to teach other people language skills. Yet the

capabilities of advanced instructional technology should not be overlooked. Computers have considerable numbers of strong

features in language training. Interactive video disc

systems can provide situational contexts for language

learning and require interactive communications. Drill and

practice can be made fun. "Sprucing up" non-resident

training can become commonplace using advanced instructional

systems. The problem often is inflated expectations

concerning use of technology. The expense in development of

quality products is high. Often instructional developers

fail to use the full capabilities of the technology that are

available to them. Both formative and summative evaluations

are omitted, hence little if any determination of valve or

lack thereof is made and few "lessons learned" are

systematically feed into future developments. Army 21

doctrine and Army planning guidance stresses the important

role of technology. Language training needs its fair share

of research and development, particularly in the applied

research area.

K. Learning Strategies and Methods of Instruction.

Oxford-Carpenter(1985) developed an excellent review

concerning the status of learning strategies in foreign

languages. This paper will not duplicate her work.

Development and use of learning strategies by linguists are

extremely important in acquiring and sustaining language

proficiency. This area is particularly rich for research

and may be enhanced when combined with advanced

instructional technology. Methods of instruction also

present challenges for personnel working in non-resident

instruction. DLIFLC has considerable expertise in resident

training. Its exposure to non-resident training has been

14

-- U - . . . . ..- *.* *-
limited. Are methods used in classrooms at the Presidio of

Monterey applicable in field environments? Some

practitioners think not. Some key personnel in the field

advocated that DLIFLC develop an expertise in non-resident

training and its methods and then provide instructor

training for field personnel. Currently DLIFLC provides

periodically an instructor training course for FORSCOM and

other personnel.

L.Role of Army Continuing Education System (ACES).

ACES through its 369 Army Education Centers and

subcenters can provide considerable support to command

language programs. AEC can be a place on an installation/or

on a community where a linguist who is not in a linguist

space can always go to find where help in maintaining

language proficiency can be found. Army education personnel

are strong in counseling, and in providing college and basic

skills education programs. Most AEC personnel are

non-linguists. They have no charter to assume responsibility

for unit language training. Target language proficiency is a

direct responsibility of the linguist's chain of command,

not of the AEC. The AEC can merely serve in a support role.

AR611-6 directs linguists to the AEC for non-resident

training but fails to give responsibility to the Army agency

which operates ACES for language training for linguists. In

some situations observed, excellent support was being

provided through ACES channels. In other cases, ACES

language personnel did not even know where the MI personnel

were located even though they suspected they were in the

same building.

. d 

.

,

15

qw B -7
I

Section IV

Possible Research Topics

A. Doctrine and Army Planning Guidance.

1. Research Question:What technical foreign language

needs are inherrent in "Army 21" doctrine?

Rationale: Army 21 doctrine is being used extensively in

long range Army planning. Army.21 Interim Operational

Concept(June,1985) omits technical foreign language needs in

its contents. If consideration of technical foreign language

requirements were included in sections on "The

Soldier","Intelligence, Electronic Warfare",

"Communications", and "Special Operations Forces" there

would exist a basis for priority planning and technology

focus. This inclusion in Army 21 doctrine would also provide

the necessary recognition of the technical foreign language

requirements throughout the entire Army organizational

structure and provide a basis for priority inclusion in Army

Planning Guidance, Program Objectives Memorandum (POM) and

the Command Operating Budget (COB). Additionally, technical

foreign language proficiency of Army linguists could easily

be considered intergal to combined arms excercises,

interoperability training, and other major training and goperations functions.

Suqqested Approach: ACSI through OCSA task Cdr TRADOC to

form an in-house committee from USAISC, DLIFLC, SOF and

other concerned service schools and agencies to review Army

21 doctrine and determine what technical foreign language

requirements are inherent in this concept of warfare and

Wdocument those needs in later Army 21 editions.

Expected Outcomes: Definition of the role and mission of

Army linguists performing their military jobs using their

target language skills. Increased awareness of the

importance of Army linguists by non-linguists and

recognition that maintenance of target language skills by

linguists is a critical responsibility of the entire Army

chain of command.

2. Research Question: How do Foreign Armies develop,

maintain and use linguists (e.g., Russian, German, Chinese,

Canadian, and British)?

Rationale: Although DLIFLC attempts to provide a center of

excellence in foreign language training for the

U.S.Department of Defense, its personnel and the key

individuals charged with the responsibility to oversee its

operations appear to lack any clear understanding as to

alternative methods employed by foreign armies/nations in

16
I

A! the development, maintenance and employment of their

a linguist assets. A thorough review in this area may reveal a

wealth of valuable information useful in assisting the DFLF

to develop recommended changes to improve the U.S. posture

regarding language training and use to protect and promote

the national interests. In addition, both interoperability

among allied forces and OFFOR operations involving potential

enemy forces seem to demand basic knowledge and

understanding regarding how other armies develop, maintain

and use their linguists.

Suqested Approach: Training Division, ODCSOPS HQDA, acting

on behalf of the Executive Agent of DLIFLC, commission the

Commandant,DLIFLC, to contract for such a study to be

performed and to report on recommended DFLP changes as a

result of this study. The study should entail an in-depth

- literature review, case studies with interviews with key

personnel and on-site observation of use and training of

linguists in foreign armies.

V Expected Outcomes: A detailed analysis of various national

policies and underlying assumptions regarding the

development, maintenance and use of linguists. Selected case

•'p studies of national defense foreign language programs or strategies with specific consideration given to (1) setting

and history, (2) philosophy, purpose, and goal setting

process, (3) linguists' characteristics, (4) needs

assessment procedures, (5) recruitment and/or selection of

linguists, (6) curriculum, curriculum development,

instructional methodologies, learning strategies, (7)

* . support services (e.g. , counseling, language resource

* centers, sustainment activities and strategies), (8)

linkages ( internal within the defense structures and

* external to full scope of national linguist assets), (9)

evaluation and assessment of proficiency, (10) key roles,

positions or personal characteristics that are critical to

the functioning of the program or strategy. .-o.

..:..Research Question: How do the U.S. Navy, Air Force

and Marine Corps develop, maintain and use linguists after

graduation from the Basic Course at DLIFLC?

Rationale: Other services, especially the Navy, have

-: developed foreign language maintenance proficiency programs,

scenario training units and military job-related proficiency

assessment instruments. Some of these materials and concepts

may be relevant to Army needs.

Sucested Approach: Army Service Program Manager (OACSI)

obtain concurrence for such a study from the other service

program managers, then task LSAICS through TRADOC to conduct

it. An in-house team from USAICS with some contractor

support should review in-depth how these services develop,

maintain and use linguists. Instructional materials and

17 .4i

'p.. " r'.'.
tests should be reviewed by subject matter experts. Study

report to the Army Service Program should include

recommendations for improving the Army's program based on

"lessons-learned " from the other services, whether some

instuctional material and tests that have been developed by

other services can be used or modified for use within the

Army, recommendations for improving DLIFLC and its foreign

language training operations, linguist career management

suggestions, etc.

Expected Outcomes: Valuable insights for USAICS and the Army

Service Program Manager on how to improve the Army's program

based on what works and doesn't work well with the other

services. Recommendations from all services on how to

improve DLIFLC which can be given to Training Division,

ODCSOPS, for consideration and appropriate action.

4.Research Question: What is the optimal mix of target

language training in relation to other tactical and

technical training infield units? In fixed-station unitsRationale: Army 21 Interim Operational Concept calls for

small and self-sufficient units that are highly mobile and

agile, firepower intensive, less manpower reliant, capable

of rapid strategic mobility, more easily logistically

supportable, and capable of real-time intelligence

acquisition. Army linguists in tactical field MI units mL'st

prepare to operate in a wartime environment. Tactical and

technical training in response to various, perhaps

'*' competing, unit mission requirements must be appropriately

"* managed by MI commanders and training officers. Yet little

guidance is available to assist these officers in

establishing training priorities. Often non-resident

language training and even unit technical language training

and target language use receive low priority.

Su aested Approach: UACSI, through OCSA, task CDR, TRADOC to

develop MI (CEWI) BN training management guidelines which

incorporate non-resident foreign language training and unit

technical foreign language training and perhaps even

'arrival training" based on a thorough review of all CEWI

unit and individual mission requirements.

Expected Outcomes: Needed guidance which will help

standardize CEWI unit training and establish a priority for

refresher/maintenance/enhancement target language training

for linguists in relation to other training and operational

functions.

5.Research Question: At what general language

proficiency level (basic load) can technical language be

effectively and efficiently taught and learned by Army

linguists in order to perform their military jobs properly?

18

-. ~**-** ~ (~ VC C -*-. -
i

Rationale: Army Lanquaeproqram 20 (draft) mentions that

the Army should start providing the service members with an

Army language program which combines and reinforces all the

skills required in performance of job related tasks as

his/her career progresses. DLIFLC, FLTCE, and ACES only

provide general language training. The DLFT only measures

general language proficiency. Linguists need technical

language proficiency to do their respective military jobs.

The question becomes how much general language is enough and

techrical, military job-relevant language should be the

order of the day.Subject matter e-perts will say from I+ to

3 level on DLPi.

SUQgested Approach: OALSI arrange for ARI, in conjunction

with DLIFLC and FLTCE, to develop an empirical research

project as a follow-on to the Language Skills Change FProjEct

designed to determine an appropriate mix of general and

technical language that should be taught initially by LLIFLL

and maintained through non-resident instruction or a return

to DLIFLC/FLTCE for advanced instruction.

E>_,_ected Uutcomes: Data whereby the Army leadership could

mare major decisions on the fundamental character of foreign

language training in the Army and at DLIFLC.

B.Assessment of Foreign Language Proficiency

l.Research Question: What is the proper mechanism(s) to

test linguistically the technical ability of an Army

qlinguist to do his/her military job?

Rationale: 7here is a need to develop the characteristics

and specifications of a mechanism to test linguistically the

technical ability of an Army linguist to do his/her military

job (97B,97E,98C,98G minimum). The DLPT measures general

language ability.

Suqested _Apprpoach: ASCI through OCSA task TRADOL to

develop the characteristics and specifications of a model

Imechanism (perhaps employing advanced systems technology).

The DLIFLC Language Needs Assessment for 97B, 97E, 98C, and

98G perhaps could be used as front-end analysis documents

for such a project.

. ,_2ected Outcomes: The basis for SOT, IIEF, ARTEP,

interoperability training for Army linguists.

2.Research Question: Can the Job Performance Language

*-. Tests, developed by USAICS, be validated as psychometrically

sound and reliable measurement instruments for use with Army

linguists?

19
Rationale: USAICS is in the process of designing and

developing JPLTs. They need to be validated psychometrically

to insure their reliability and validity.

Suqqestedpppoach: OACSI/TRADOC arrange with ARI or other

third party research organization to conduct validation

testing. DLIFLC should have a major consultant role in such

an effort.

x ected Outcomes: Validated testing instruments to be used

in the short term upon which to base Army linguists' EER,

incentive pay and other military personnel management

decisions.

S.Research Question: Are there other measures besides

the DLFT that can provide valid and reliable general

language proficiency data regarding Army linguists?

Rationale: The DLFT III appears to be a much improved DLPT

version than previous ones. Yet it is very time-consuming,

not easily administered, and results are not readily

available for the oral portion. A study of off-the-shelf

test instruments, both US and foreign developed, may produce

some valuable information on ways to improve or replace the

DLPT.

It is recognized that DLIFLC developed the DLF'T with the

help and coordination among many governmental and civilian

.= agencies and may be the standard for the United States. 'Yet

a fresh look periodically at other measures may prove

helpful.

Suqested Approach: Training Division, ODCSOFS, (acting as

the Executive Agent's representative) arrange a comparative

*'- analysis study of existing language testing instruments to

determine ways to improve the DLPT.

*- xected Outcomes: A comprehensive analysis (such as

"" contained in the Mental Measurement Yearbook) of general

language proficiency testing instruments in use today, and

their ratings regarding their validity, reliability, ease of

administration, adaptability to automated administration,

etc. This effort may prove highly beneficial in developing

the next version of the DLPT.

4.Research OL.?stion: What usage factor is required to

retain linguistics skills once they have been attained at

the L2, R2 level as measured by the DLPT III? At the LI, R1

level?

[] 20

i" , -. , - -. ? -> '.":i? .,,-; . ., .5.. 5.-.- .-- .5 .. . .- i . h. 5 ,v5*5.-i *5 :- - -. ", - -,.- ,5 - -
I

Rationale: Army Linguist Personnel Study (1976) stated:

"Once a linguistic skill has been attained, constant use is

required to retain this perishable skill. Programs for this

maintenance of proficiency must be provided as well as on

duty training time, to keep the linguist as proficient as

possible for his next utilization assignment"(p.4). This

basic assumption that "constant use is required" seems

unchallenged yet undocumented through research. The idea

that, in linguist documentation of positions, two positions

should be authorized as a minimum (even though only one may

be required to perform the mission) so that the opportunity

is afforded for constant interpersonnel communications in a

target language.

Suqqested Approach: DLIFLC/ARI conduct a follow-on

empiricial research project using results of the Language

Skills Change Study as a starting point. Experimental and

control groups of Army linguists should be developed to

provide the necessary data for this research.

Expected Outcomes: Guidelines in terms of time, learning

environment, interpersonnel communications requirements

needed to retain linguistic skills at spcific levels once

attained (as measured by the DLFT).

5.Research Question: If linguists maintain a minimum of

S2 as measured by DLF'T III, can they better maintain a L2,

R2 than those linguists who don't maintain a high level of

speaking ability?

Rationale: The premise raised by personnel at FLTCE is that

emphasizing the requirement for speaking (i.e. the

requirement to interactively communicate effectively)

facilitates the development of the ability to think in the

target language. Listening and reading skills more or less

trailor speaking skills.

Suaaested Approach: DLIFLC, in conjunction with FLTCE,

explore this hypothesis with contractor assistance using

experimental and control groups and analyzing the results.

Expected Outcomes: New insights into structuring foreign

language training which may have long term benefits both for

linguists and the military services.

4..

'.

m 21

,,-Z, .? ,.' 4,' ' -':.; -?: -.4..,;.,;2- -:: -:.--, ; -,'.; ;,'-? .--:-. -;,:x,: 4- ., ;-;-::;->', :y ,:? ;;:;--.-..- .-:-:: :': h :'.". ;.,-.,
I

6. Research Question: What level of language

proficiency (as measured by DLPT III) is the minimum

required by most user agencies for DLIFLC graduates?

Rationale: FORSCOM Cir. 350-64-11 lists the following

minimum scores as required:

MOS Speak ing Listening Reading

96C 2.0 2.0 1. 0

97CL 2.0 2.0 1.0

98CL 1.0 2.0 2.0

98G 1.0 2.0 2..(- (p.2-1)

FORSCOM also provides specific linguist training profile

guidance to include enrollment in an "Arrival Iraining Program" if linguists arriving in the command score below

the maximum DLPT standard listed above. Research is needed

to validate FORSCOM's minimum required scores and establish

minimum standard scores throughout the Army. This effort

would provide the Executive Agent for the Defense Foreign

Language Program with a charter to either insure that

graduates of DLIFLC meet those minimum standards or to

insure that appropriate non-resident training is available

to user commands in order for linguists to meet those

minimum standards.

Suggested Approach: OACSI, through OCSA, task TRADOC to

produce a report which addresses this question, which would

be based at least in part on the Military Intelligence

Foreign Language Survey and Analysis now in progress and the

Language Needs Assessment already conducted by DLIFLC. OACSI

should then staff this report through user agencies and

establish standard guidance in AR 611-6.

Expected Outcomes: By MOS, the minimum scores, as measured

- by DLPT III, in terms of speaking, listening, reading and

writing proficiency required for Army linguists in order to

perform their military duties.

7.Research Question: How much time to proficiency is

there for each major language group with listening,

speaking, reading, with repeated measures as criteria? (See

DLIFLC Candidate Research Projects, p.D-1C.)

8.Research Question: What guidelines/exemplars can be

developed to aid user specifications of end-of-course

proficiency level? (See DLIFLC Candidate Research Frojects,

22

V- * * t.h .. . ~ CC
p.D-11.)

C. Selection, Recruitment and Retention of Army Linguists

1.Research Question: How valid and reliable is the DLAB

as a selection instrument?

Rationale: Some graduates from DLIFLC have extreme

difficulty in achieving DLPT III scores of S2, L2, R2.

Reports from field agencies indicate some DLIFLC trained

linguists do not have a working ability in the target

language throughout the entire first enlistment. The charge

is being made that some of these individuals do not have the

basic ability to learn a second language. These individuals

should have been screened out during the recruitment

process. The validity and reliability of the DLAB as a

selection instrument is being questioned.

Suggested Approach: DLIFLC should revalidate the DLAB on a

current population using standard validation procedures. A

relationship between the DLAB and the current DLIFLC student

pop,.tlation should be established.

Expected Outcomes: Valuable insights toward development of a

new DLAB version.

2.Research Question: How does the student/linguist "motivation" variable affect the validity and reliability of

the DLAB?

Rationale: A hypothesis provided by I.ey practitioners in the

field is that the motivation variable is the key to success

for those students who score below average on the DLAB. This

hypothesis does not appear to have been proven through

research. The Language Skill Change Project (now in

progress) may provide this answer. If it does not, then such

a project is needed.

Suqested Approach: This research effort could be a part of

3A above or a separate research project based on qualitative

research methods (interviews, observations, etc.).

Expected Outcomes: A more in-depth understanding of

motivation as a selection variable. Input toward development

of a new DLAB version or a supplementary selection criterion

instrument.

3.Research Question: Are there other measures besides

the DLAB that can provide valid and reliable language

training aptitude data upon which to base selection of * .~students?

23

"
I

Rationale: An in-depth review of language aptitude and

student selection instruments both U.S. and foreigndeveloped would be helpful in dL-veloping a new version of

the DLAB.

Suggested Approach: Training Division, ODCSOF'S, task DLIFLC

to conduct an in-depth comparative analysis of other U.S.

and foreign-developed language aptitude and student

selection instruments and mechanisms. TRADOC TTA may be able

to provide valuable assistance in such a project to

determine if an alternate theoretical concept can be devised

that makes sense.

Expected Outcomes: Valuable insights into ways to improve

current student selection procedures.

a,

4.Research Question: With empirical supporting data,

what are the advantages and disadvantages in recuitment and

selection of native speakers for Army linguists?

Rationale: The hypothesis is that recruitment of native

speakers would greatly lessen the target language

proficiency problem because the Army would have natural

bi-linguals. Possible disadvantages include difficulties in

acquiring background security investigations and in English S language proficiency. These assumptions have not been

varified by research.

Sucaested Approach: OACSI arrange with ARI Manpower and

• iPersonnel Research Laboratory to conduct a research project

to determine the advantages and disadvantages in terms of

language proficiency development and maintenance savings,

retention rates of general and technical language,

administrative problems, attrition, job performance, and

English language proficiency.

E, xpected Outcomes: Guidelines to Recruiting Command for

selection of recruits for linguist positions. Data for

DLIFLC in training native speakers vs. non-native speakers.

5.Research Ouestion: How can an Army linguist

information network be properly established and maintained

which will best facilitate job ulilization and total force

career retention (Active, Reserve and Civilian Components)

of this valuable national asset?

Rationale: Currently neither the ARNG nor the Reserves to

include the IRR systematically recruit highly qualified and

experienced Army linguists who are departing active duty. An

appropriately established and maintained Army linguists'

information network could provide essential and timely

information to network members which could allow for

systematic career development with choices of regular,

24
I

reservist, ARNG and/or civilians to include NSA for

individuals within the system. Such an effort could provide

support for a comprehensive National Defense total force

strategy. A review of the current effort being done through

the Defense Documentation Center could serve as a starting

point for such a project.

Suggested Approach: ODCSPER task CDR MILFERCEN to develop a

detailed conceptual plan. If that plan shows such a network

to be feasible, task MILPERCEN and other FERCENs to

implement this network.

Expected Outcomes: A feasilibility study regarding the

development of an Army (or Defense) linguist information

network. Based on that study, an implemented network.

6.Research Question: What effect does non-language

utilization have on retention of Army linguists?

Rationale: MILPERCEN reenlistment data indicate that the

Army has not been very successful in retaining linguists in

the military service. One hypothesis is that linguists are

dissatisfied with the Army because they do not use their

language skills as part of their military jobs.

Suggested Approach: Information being received from the

Language Skill Change Study may resolve this research

question. If not, OACSI could arrange a pinpoint survey with

the Soldier Support Center Survey Branch to all Army

linguists. Results of this survey could then serve as a

basis for a study whereby a representative sample of

linguists are interviewed in-depth. Such an approach could

also be used to validate and/or eloborate on information

received from the Language Skill Change Study.

Expected Outcomes: Input for an improved career management

& system for linguists and use of linguists. Long term result

would be greater retention of linguists not only in the

Active Component but also extending over to the ARNG,

Reserves, and Civilian Component.

D. The Linguist Learner

1.Research Question: What motivational factors or

"softer aspects" are involved in language training and

linguistic skill retention and how can they be used to

promote recruitment, job performance, and career retention

objectives?

Rationale: Learning and retention of linguistic skills are

dependent on rather undefined motivational factors both

internal and external to the individual learner. Numerous

L25

• is "o " . *° ° ° ' ,' t ' ' ' 1' m '° 'D ' . 6 '. " ," " .X' ". * *\".-. *o " ° - . -' . . - . " * . - -
I

incentives have been suggested and some even attempted which

were targeted toward motivating individuals to learn a

language, sustain proficiency and make the Army a meaningful

career. Such incentives may include bonuses, college

entitlements, proficiency or incentive pay, rapid promotion,

enlistment and reenlistment options, training and area of assignment options, etc. Little, however, is known regarding

how these incentives affect motivation, what incentives are

most cost-effective over the long term, and how they can be

applied to achieve the short-range and long-range objectives

of the DFLF and the Army mission in general. A comprehensive

study in this area could assist the military personnel

managers in advocating the " most appropriate incentive

acpackage" for recruitment and career retention of linguists

_(an area of current poor performance with only 18% of 98Gs

in USAREUR being reenlisted) and the military trainers and

educators in providing both initial and sustainment

training.

Suqqested Approach: Information received as a result of the

Language Skill Change Study should be analyzed prior to

development of this effort. Based on its findings, OACSI

then arrange with ARI to conduct a follow-on study to insure

*" that the intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors

impacting on individual linguist learners have been

appropriately defined and that an incentive package has been g crafted that is in tune with these motivational factors.

Expected Outcomes: A suggested mix of incentives that would

impact most favorably on recruitment and career retention

objectives for Army linguists.

2.Research Question: What factors contribute to

9 academic attrition, in addition to aptitude? (See DLIFLC

Candidate Research Projects, p. D-7.) (Part of Language

Skills Change Project now underway.)

'Wt3.Research Question: What are the skill decay rates and

estimation of timing for refresher/retraining? (See DLIFLC

Candidate Research Projects, p. D-12.) (Language Skills

Change Project now underway.)

4.Research Question: What is the minimum English

language proficiency level required for students to engage

effectively in the DFLP? (See DLIFLC Candidate Research Projects, p. D-15.)

A. 5.Research Question: What educational degree

opportunities can be developed as part of the Army

Continuing Education System which are directly targeted

toward Army linguists and their career management field(s)?

Rationale: ACES has developed 18 SOCAD networks targeted at

various career management fields. It is now developing

26
I

Bachelor Degree networks. No networks are being implemented

or are now under development which are targeted toward the

Military Intelligence MOS's or career management fields. Yet

Army linguists appear eager for educational degree

opportunities and consider these as excellent incentives for

reenlistment.

SuQested Approach: OACSI arrange with ODCSPER to have its

Education Division perform a feasibility study of developing

a networked Bachelor Degree program targeted directly at

Army linguists.

Expected Outcomes: Necessary information and data for

deciding on whether to develop and offer a specific

Bachelor Degree network for Army linguists.

E. Organization and Administration

1.Research Question: What resources are required to

permit current graduates at DLIFLC to achieve a minimum of

L2,R2,S2 level of language proficiency (as measured by DLPT)

(or minimum DLPT scores as listed in FORSCOM Circular

350-84-11) in resident training? In non-resident training?

Rationale: User agencies complain that many, if not most

graduates from DLIFLC have no higher language proficiency

than a 1+ in any area as measured by the DLPT. An assumption

is that a solid 2 level of proficiency is required generally

in most areas. The Training Division, ODCSOPS, in

fulfillment of its responsibilities of the Army as Executive

Agent for DLIFLC and DFLP needs this information for

planning, programming and budgetry purposes either to

*support DLIFLC in resident training to provide the 2

Le proficiency level minimum for graduates or to make

appropriate provisions in non-resident training for the

achievement of this minimum level.

Sucqested Approach: Work is already in progress at DLIFLC to

have basic course graduates at a minimum 2 level.

E~pected Outcomes: Essential data needed by Army

decision-makers on whether to make this a resident or

non-resident requirement, or not recognize the requirement

altogether.

2.Research Question: What measures could be taken to

facilitate command support at Division level and below for a

refresher-maintenance-enhancement training of Army

linguists?

Rationale: A common complaint among t:ey individuals involved

in Army language training is the perceived lack of command

27
I

support, particularly in tactical units, for

refresher-maintenance-enhancement language training for

linguists. Often commanders fail to show sensitivity (a) to

the needs of linguists to remain fluent, (b) to the time and

effort required to sustain linguistic skills, (c) to the

perishable nature of language learning and the requirements . for sustainment and often enhancement training, (d) to the

need for constant usage in the target language through

meaningful duty requirements, (e) to the degradation of

his/her organizational abilities to accomplish the wartime

mission by the lack of capable, functioning Army linguists

who can provide essential intelligence, leadership,

interoperability resources at least in part through their

ability to think and operate effectively in their target

languages.

Suqested Approach: OACSI arrange with ODCSPER/MILPERCEN to

N- develop a series of possible initiatives aimed at increasing

command support for non-resident foreign language training

for linguists. These initiatives should include ways to

educate officers and NCOs in their respective Army education

systems.

Expected Outcomes: Suggested initiatives for increasing

J effective command support for non-resident foreign language

training for linguists.

g3.Research Question: What career management program

involving Army linguists would be most beneficial in

* facilitating recruitment, job utilization, career

development and training, language sustainment, and career

retention?

N

Rationale: Currently Army linguists are divided into several

MOSs and Career Management Fields with emphasis on technical

job performances. Several key individuals involved with Army

language training questioned whether a single

language-oriented CMF with emphasis on language fluency

would better facilitate acquisition and sustainment of

linguistic skills with additional identifiers indicating

specific job performance requirements. Such a career

management program would facilitate the development of a

linguistic pool better capable of meeting a variety of

mission contingencies instead of strapping linguists into

specific job categories which ultimately detract from their

primary function of being Army linguists.

SSuggested Approach: OACSI arrange, through the VCSA, for the

DCSPER to appoint an ad hoc task force to conduct a thorough

review of the CMF question and report its recommendations.

Consideration should be given to a DOD linguist management

program. Recommendations be staffed through the MACOMS and

be approved by the VCSA and forwarded to OSD if applicable.

28

-I|
Expected Outcomes: A detailed analysis of career management

program alternatives upon which Army leadership can expect

to make a fair and equitable decision concerning management

of Army linguists.

4.Research Question: What is entailed in establishing a

flexible, centrally-managed, linguist pool capable of

meeting Army wartime as well as peacetime contingency plans?

What are the advantages and disadvantages in maintaining

such a pool? What is the expected role of indigenous

personnel to fulfill contingency needs for linguists?

V Rationale: The Army has experienced serious difficulties in

recruiting qualified candidates for language training to

ulimately fill linguist positions. Problems also exist in

training those individuals in language and technical job

requiements; sustaining their linguistic skills, and

retaining those linguists who eventually become

well-qualified and e'xperienced either on active duty or in

the Reserve Components. The development and maintenance of a

flexible linguist pool composed of military and civilian

personnel fluent in target languages may provide some

relief.

Suqgested Approach: OACSI arrange with ODCSPER to conduct an

exploratory study involving establishment and maintenance of

a flexible, centrally-managed, linguist pool. This effort

could be done in conjunction with 5C above.

Expected Outcomes: Necessary data upon which the Army leadership could base decisions involving further

consideration of this initiative.

5.Research Question: What authorization documentation

is needed to allow field commands to acquire essentia.l

P equipment and facilities to conduct foreign language

testing?

Rationale: The 66th M.I. Group Test Control Officer

indicated that he had, what he determined to be, inadequate

testing equipment needed to administer the DLFT and other

language tests. Consequently he was attempting to acquire a

cassette laboratory for his command. But he was unable to

find an authorization document upon which to base a valid

request through the Army supply channels. Apparently his

quest for such documentation had involved queries to

MILPERCEN and DLIFLC without success. With DLPT testing

being made an annual requirement, the need for appropriate

equipment and facilities to coiduct foreign language testing

becomes increasingly critical. Appropriate authorization

documents which allow for standard specifications for

procurement and for engineer use will facilitate the testing

effort.

n 29
Suggested Approach: Training Division, ODCSOPS, in

conjunction with ODCSLOG, Office of the Chief of Engineers

and ASA (RDA) and perhaps AMC, work with DLIFLC and

MILPERCEN to develop appropriate authorization documents.

Expected Outcomes: Appropriate authorization documentation

for equipment and facilities essential for language testing

based on standardized usage factors, etc.

F. Curriculum and Instruction

1.Research Question: What is the optimal mi" of general

language and technical job language in

refresher-maintence-enhancement training?

Rationale: Some key users of Army linguists have taken the

position that, if the linguist is thoroughly fluent in the

target language, they can teach the technical job language

id through units' in-house training. But if the linQuist is

weak in the general language, the teaching of technical job

language is difficult if not impossible. Hence, DLIFLC (both

* R sident and Non-Resident efforts) should concentrate on

"* general language fluency and sustainment. On the contrary,

other key users contend that functional, job oriented

language skills are all that is needed. By emphasizing

general language fluency, DLIFLC is guilty of over training

Army linguists. Instead all language training should be, to

the degree possible, functionally oriented to specific Army

jobs that the individual is expected to perform.

Non-resident language training should be directly related to

specific individual soldier's job tasks. Terminal job

language task objectives should be clearly and precisely

identified. Hence, DLIFLC should differentiate between

individuals by teaching directly to those specific terminal

job language task objectives inherent in specific MOSs and

duty positions. Little research has been found to support

either position. Yet this training philosophy issue

profoundly affects the entire DFLP. Research in this area is

critically needed.

Su deApproach: Based on information received as part of

the Language Skills Change Project, OACSI, as the Army

Service Program Manager, arrange a committee with

• .representatives from DLIFLC, INSCOM, FORSCOM, and other

appropriate commands to develop rough guidelines. Contractor

support should be made available. TRADOC TTA may assist in

this analysis if a branch is established at DLIFLC.

Expected Outcomes: A study that will shed light on this

issue and serve to guide Army community as well as DLIFLC

with regard to general and functional language training,

provide support for "Army Language Program 20C"'" concept.

* 30

V4
I

2.Research Question: How can general and technical

foreign language training be integrated into a continuum of

career learning for Army linguists through curriculum and

i nstruct ion?

Rationale: This research question is a corrolary with 6 A

above. Not only is the optimal mi. of general language and

technical job language in refresher-maintenance-enhancement

training unknown; but also, its integration into a continuum

of career learning is a missing element. There seems to be

considerable confusion as to who is responsible for this

integration effort. DLIFLC seems intent on developing global

(general) language proficiency while USAISC maintains its

emphasis on technical AIT skills in English and looks to

DLIFLC as the "language schoolhouse". The confusion seems to

lie in who has the resources and foreign language

capabilities to effect this integration. This study is

needed to review the entire linguist career program and

develop a model series of curriculum and instruction mdirectly related to the particular phases of the linguist

career program that have been identified.

Suggested Approach: OACSI, as the Army's Service Program

Manager, work with DLIFLC, TRADOC, USAISC, Goodfellow and

other agencies, to develop clear lines of responsibility for

the integration of technical and general language. Using

information developed in 6 A above, the agency(ies) found to

be responsible be tasked to develop a model series of

curriculum and instruction, to include testing instruments

* "appropriate to the particular phases of the linguist career

program. The resulting curriculum and instruction should be

implemented simultaneously with the linguist career program.

q After this series has been refined, other series be

patterned after this model.

Expected Outcomes: A model series of curriculum and

instruction appropriate for a full linguist career program.

* 3. Research Question: What are instructional

methodologies which can accommodate a variety of learning

environments aMd instructional delivery situations inherrent

in operational non-resident command language programs?

Rationale: DLIFLC*s expertise in instructional methodologies

* .- lies in the resident area. FORSCOM periodically sends

non-resident instructors to DLIFLC for Instructor Training.

DLIFLC could provide more relevant training if its area of

expertise was broadened in non-resident areas to include

instructional methods, procedures, helpful hints, lessons

learned in non-resident training.

Sugqe~sted Approach: DLIFLC establish a non-resident dean of

N, instruction who would make it his/her first priority to

n 31
a

Nestablish a non-resident instructional methodologies

expertise within DLIFLC and develop an instructor trainirng

course appropriate to helping non-resident instructors in

facilitating learning among linguists who are attempting to

maintain their language skills. These experts should not be

limited to general (global)language needed to score

appropriately on the DLFT but should also handle technical

language needed for military job performance.

E7jqected Outcomes: A much improved instructor training

program, consequently more relevant non-resident training

targeted to Army needs.

4.Research Question: Is the current DLIFLC

Refresher-Maintenance Package, where coupled with the

*,-.' Professional Development Frogram Extention Courses 1or

.' SIGINT/ HUMINT linguists, an adequate set of instructional

materials for refresher-maintenance-enhancement in language

- proficiency sustainment training in field commands?

Rationale: Chief, Non-resident Division, DLIFLC, expressed a

belief that the current DLIFLC refresher-maintenance

" package, when coupled with the professional development

"..- extension course, constitutes adequate

refresher-maintenance-enhancement instructional materials

for field use. FORSCOM key personnel found the current 0 DLIFLC refresher-maintenance package weak. Nowhere in

USAREUR or FORSCOM were these materials observed in use.

Several key people, however, mentioned the good quality of

the FEFEC materials. Because of the contradictory

information received during this study, an evaluation of

current non-resident instructional materials produced and

provided by DLIFLC is advised.

"SuojgeqstedA p2.roach: OACSI request TRADOC conduct a summative

evaluation of instructional materials in question and use

the data in conjunction with formative evaluations by DLIFLC

for future instructional developments.

*, Expected Outcomes: The determination of the value of the

*4 current non-resident instructional materials targeted toward

linguists.

IN

5.Res earch QUestion:What is the state-of-the-art in

teaching methodologies? (See DLIFLC Candidate Research

:'1 Projects,pD-4.)

6.Research Question: What technical target language

scenario would be appropriate for integration into National

Training Center combined arms training eXcercises and

evaluations?

* 32

:. .; 4.4. 4
W- 1.--.R..- -. -7 wx Y -M . -3 WV7-r -i -. :Ww

Rationale: The Armyljan and other Army planning and

training documents emphasize the importance of the National

Training Center in CONUS as a vehicle for training and

evaluation of training in the United States Army. Foreign

language proficiency of Army linguists is not currently a

factor included among the various scenarios at NTC. Although

the Army expresses a requirement for realistic training

(train as you would fight), the lack of foreign language

element appears to be a gross omission.

Suggested Approach: OACSI request TRADOC to include

foreign language proficiency as an element in NTC training

and evaluation. TRADOC then would develop an appropriate

scenario.

Expected Outcome: More realistic NTC training; evaluation

data on foreign language proficiency and usage.

7.Research Question: What are the advantages and

disadvantages of establishing common methodology for unit

technical language training under the Army Standardization

Program initiatives?

Rationale: Fey personnel at USAISC indicated a reluctance to

establish a common methodology for unit technical language

training. The Army Training Plan, Army _PlanninD Guidance,

and The Arm Plan emphasize the importance of the Army

Standardization Program. The Army Training Board, in its

assessment of standardization in the Army, is critical of

Service School efforts in this area. A study in this area

with regard to technical language training seems warranted.

Sucqested Aroach: OACSI request TRADOC/USAICS to conduct a

feasibility study regarding the establishment of a common

methodology for unit technical language training.

Euected Outcomes: Study findings which will indicate

whether a common methodology for unit technical language

training should be developed in accordance with the mandate

of the Army Standardization Program.

8.Research Question: Can a model cross-training

instructional package be developedi to help MI commanders and

training officers better use the MOS-grade mismatch

personnel currently assigned in tactical units?

Rationale: 124th MI BN Commander pointed out the shortfalls

and overages in personnel by MOS and grade. Although his

battalion was nearly at its total authorized strength, its

MOS and grade mismatch were major. For example, how do you

use Morse Code operators to fill linguist positions? If

appropriate cross-training instuctional packages were available, perhaps some of these rather bright soldiers

* 33
could rapidly acquire, a working proficiency to fill in for

missing linguists in emergancy situations such as would

possibility occur if thiS unit was sent into war as part of 5 the Rapid Deployment Forces.

Suggested Approach: OACSI request TRADOC to investigate the

possibility of developing a model cross-training

instructional package to quickly train soldiers to fill

linguist positions at marginal levels of competence.

Expected Outcomes: A model effort aimed at better

utilization of "on-hand, for duty" personnel to perform

critical tasks normally expected of linguists.

9.Research Question: How can live satellite

broadcasts/telecasts from Eastern Block/ Middle East/

Pacific Basin/Latin America be appropriately integrated in

non-resident and unit technical language training settings?

Rationale: FLTCE and the Army Russian Institute indicated

that satellite broadcasts/telecasts would be received at

their facilities in the near future. Some key personnel at

DLIFLC indicated the possibility of satellite broadcasts

being used as part of the resident program. Yet no

methodology for using this medium was found to exist during

the present study. A need was apparent for a project to

develop this methodology in order to optimally use this

medium to enrich both non-resident as well as resident

i nstruction.

SuQQested Approach: OACSI request TRA!LDOCiDLIFLC in

conjunction with FLTCE to develop appropriate methodologies

for using satellite communications in language training

settings.

E:pected Outcomes: Guidelines that would assist in making

satellite communications in language training cost

effective.

34

S.- o.
I

1O.Research Question: Are there long-term significient

differences among Army linguists who are "totally immersed"

in FLTCE training as opposed to those who are not?

Rationale: FLTCE has a portion of its students "totally

immersed" during their six weeks of training (eg. live with

target language speaking families, etc.) and a portion who

are not. The DOI indicated a lack of quantitative data that

shows the superiority of one method over the other. He feels

that linguists who have the total immersion experience

retain their language skills longer than those who do not

have this experience. This setting seems ideal for a

quantitative study on the benefits of immersion.

Suqqested Approach: OACSI request TRADOC and INSCLiH- in

S,"conjunction with DLIFLC, to develop and conduct an analysis

* .-. using FLICE students to determine any possible short and

long term benefits of immersion.

Expected Outcome: Methodological guidelines for non-resident

instruction in group settings.

i5

. 35

4.-aL~~ . *.*. , ~ ~ **~*. .. ,a... ~ ~ **

* ,. % .. a *,m .
I

G. Language Instructor Qualifications and Staff Development

l.Research Question: What is the minimum English

language proficiency level needed by language instructors

employed in DFLP? (See DLIFLC Candidate Research Projects,

p.D-13.)

2.Research Question: What are the optimal selection

*criteria for contract-hiring language instructors for

non-resident command language programs? For FLTCE-styled foreign language training centers?

Rationale: Current selection criteria used in USAREUR

procurement, principally by ACES, for selecting

Headstart/Gateway instructors may not be suited to hiring

*Refresher-Maintenance instructors even though some

modifications have been made to the criteria specifically

,. for selection of these instructors. Some complaints centered

W around the current criteria's emphasis on maintaining a

stable work force that does not need continuous orientation

to the U.S. military community, its specific needs and job

language requirements. Some key personnel advocated emphasis

be shifted to finding the most qualified language

instructor(s) available each time the contract is offered

for bid. FLTCE indicated that it was going to discontinue

using the USAREUR criteria by inserting its own. A review of

I current selection criteria for refresher-maintenance

language instructors seems warranted not only for USAREUR

but for the entire Army procurement system. Alternate

contracting procedures need to be explored.

Suggested Approach: OACSI develop a task force composed of

MACOM user elements, procurement experts, DLIFLC, USAISC and

other interested parties. This task force would be charged

with developing selection criteria to include work

performance elements and devising procurement strategy

capable of acquiring the best qualified instructors in a

timely manner fully able to meet local needs.

Expected Outcomes: A more satisfactory acquisition system

for hiring language instructors.

3.Research Question: What is the optimal mix of native

speaker language instructors and U.S.-trained linguists who

are technically and tactically proficient in the target

language in a non-resident program?

Rationale: Considerable difference of opinion exists on

whether the Army should use "native speaker" language

instructors or U.S.Army trained linguists as instructors. It

appears that some of both are essential. In some locations,

* .team teaching (native linguist along side U.S. trained

36
linguist) provides excellent training for linguists. No

guidelines appear to exist in this area. The root problem

appears to be whether emphasis should be placed on general

language development and sustainment or on technical

language proficiency needed to perform military job tasks.

Suqaested Approach: OACSI arrange with ARI to develop some

guidelines in this area through research.

Expected Outcomes: Guidelines on what are appropriate mixes

of native speakers and U.S. trained linguist instructors and

staff to develop and sustain language proficiency among

linguists in non-resident settings.

4.Research Question: What technical language instructor

training packages can be dv-veloped to assist the native

speaker contract-hired instructor?

Rationale: USAREUR ACES personnel expressed a frustration

that they would like to better orient instructors hired

through its offices to teach foreign languages in military

job-related context. Yet they have been unable to obtain

materials which are unclassified in nature that can be used

in instructor orientation to show appropriate military

contexts. Military Intelligence personnel indicate that such

materials could be made available. An instructor training

package needs to be developed that is unclassified yet

directly related to developing functional vocabulary in

senarios that have meaning in performing military tasks.

Such a package may well have applicability to resident

training at DLIFLC.

Suggested Approach: OACSI arrange with TRADOC/USAISC .nd

Goodfellow to develop a model instructor orientation package

using sample vocabulary in military job-related senarios.

Perhaps such a package could first be developed to support

97B/97E refresher-maintanence training. Information received

from the Language Needs Assessment, the Language Skill

Change Project, MANTECH Project, and other such efforts

could serve as base documents for this development.

Expected Outcomes: Instructors who are better qualified in

* providing language training that is directly related to

military requirements.

j5.Research Question: What staff development training is

needed for Test Control Officers who administer the various

language tests such as the DLF'T?

Rationale: Apparently little staff development is available

for Test Control Officers who acquire, maintain, safeguard,

and administer language tests in non-resident environment.

* 37 ** * * * * % v . .. !> 7. - .~ --
i

Such training appears to be imperative if uniform, correct

procedures are to be followed. Technical assistance should

be readily available. A systematic approach needs to be

developed, implemented and enforced if language testing in

the Army is to have meaning.

Suciaested Approach: Training Division, ODCSOPS, require

DLIFLC, in conjuntion with appropriate military testing

agencies, to determine what staff development is needed and

develop a mechanism to ensure that such training is

implemented worldwide.

Expected Outcomes: Test Control Officers fully capable of

performing their tasks regarding military foreign language

testing.

6.Research Question: What are the minimum, maximum and

optimal instructor-student ratios in command language

* A-, programs and in FLTCE-styled classroom environments for

"cost-effective" training?

Rationale: Army Audit Agency is conducting an audit on

* FLTCE s intructor-student ratio. Apparently it would like to

recommend a higher ratio (go from an average of 1-3 to 1-6

instructor to students) in order to save money. It seems odd

that AAA would be the correct agency to attempt to set

policy in this area. Education Services Officers also

require a minimum number of students in order to hire an

instructor. A research effort in this area may be beneficial

to explain the need for specific instructor-student ratios

in order for instruction to be cost-effective or

cost-benefic..

Suqqested Approach: Training Division, ODCSOPS, tasl DLIFLC

to conduct field research and develop guidelines on

instructor-student ratios in command language programs and

FLTCE-styled classroom environments.

Expected Outcomes: Standards that can be defended in the

area of instructor-student ratios in non-resident foreign

language training.

H. Applications of Technology

1.Research Question: How does Gateway German

instruction, taught via interactive video at DLIFLC, improve

language and acculturation skills of Battalion and Brigade

Commanders over that provided by conventional instruction?

Rationale: DLIFLC is developing a Gateway German program of

instruction for use in interactive video disc systems. ARI's

Field Unit at Monterey is conducting what might be a

* .

m 38

...
formative evaluation of that effort. Its scope is limited to

data elements that can be observed within DLIFLC. Perhaps

more helpful and of long-term use in development of

computer-assisted language instruction (CALI) would be a

summative evaluation that would assess impact of this type

of instruction over more conventional instruction on learner

performance once actually confronted in Germany with

language and acculturation problems. The extra capacity of

the interactive video disc system to visually depict

situations and actual in-country environmental and

interpersonal conditions would seem ideally suited for its

instrcuctional program; however, its value and actual and/or

potential benefits over conventional instruction needs to be

well-documented, if no more than to justify costs inherent

in development of automated instructional systems. DLIFLC is

also developing a resident course "Gulf to the Ocean" in

Arabic that may be suited to a similar evaluation.

Suggested Approach: An evaluation of Gateway German (and the V.

resident Arabic course) using both automated and

conventional instruction methods based on data obtained in

part from interviews, observations, and questionnaires

conducted in Germany with program graduates (and their

German (Arabic) counterparts, if possible).

Expected Outcomes: Data for use in justifying costs inherent Vin development of future automated instructional programs.

2.Research Question: What is the role of the human

*. instructor in the use of advanced instructional technology,

*specificially Computer-Assisted Language Instruction (CALl??-.

Rationale: Current research indicates a need to develop

guidelines on the role of the human instructor in using .

automated instructional systems. The lack of attention to

the human instructor may well be causing a turning back to

more conventional instructional methodologies, particularly

within the Navy and the Army. Until human instructors and

training management become convinced as to the value and

potential benefits of automated systems as true extensions

of their power and abilities to facilitate learning, use of

advanced instructional technology will suffer from lack of

use in operational settings.

Suaqested Approach: OACSI arrange with ARI to conduct an

r in-depth literature review to include work done by HRL,

U.S.Air Force. Based on that review, develop and test (a)

functional guidelines for human instructors in the use of

advanced instructional technology and (b) a model

instructor/traininl staff development program.

Expected Outcomes: An in-depth understanding about the roles

of the human instructor. Functional guidelines and a model

3 3. 39
staff development oriented toward an optimal mix of human

instruction and automated instruction maximizing the

benefits and potential of both resources.

3.Research Question: What will the state-of-the-art in

advanced instructional technology be in the Year 2('00

regarding CALI interactive systems; what long-range Army R&D

planning and project development is required to capitalize

on these technological developments?

Rationale: R&tD needs to exploit the advancing development in

artificial intelligence and computer/video/audio systems.

Without long-range planning, programming and budgeting, Army

R&D will not be in position to take advantage of these

advancing technologies in the field of language training.

Suggested Approach: OACSI arrange with the Training Research

Laboratory, ARI, to conduct a comprehensive review of the

literature and to discuss with leading American experts the

expected advances in CALI as part of its annual long-range

planning analysis process.

,:% Expected Outcomes: A comprehensive review of current

literature regarding potential advances in artificial

intelligence and computer/video/audio systems; development

of proposed R&D projects to be implemented between 1990 and

2002 that will capitalize on expected advancing technologies

that would facilitate language learning and sustainment of

linguistic sk:ills.

* I 4.Resear~ch Question: What technical foreign language

aspects are required for incorporation into development of

the Artificial Intelligence systems referenced in the

Military Intelligence section of Army 21 doctrine which

will allow real-time intelligence capability?

Rationale: Army 21 Interim Operational Concept mentions the

need for data bases with appropriate language of a specific

geographical area to include pertinent data for all

potential threat forces (p.E-5). It also mentions automated

* ." translation systems to include small, handheld systems for

use at tactical level. Artificial intelligence systems are

expected to receive, analyze, and collate data, develop and

store new algorithms based on their experiences (p.E-22)

There appears to be a need to develop the technical foreign

language aspect needed for inclusion in these AI systems.

Sugqested Approach: OACSI work with TRADOC to establish

TRADOC Systems Manager who would be responsible for these

type of research requirements. Such a person with staff

could work closely with the developers of Army 21 doctrine

and insure the language aspects are planned for and

developed in line with other aspects of this doctrine.

N 40
Expected Outcomes: Inclusion of the language elements in

Army 21 doctrine.

5.Research Question: What are the educational

technology applications to computer-assisted study? (See

DLIFLC Candidate Research Projects, p.D-8.)

6.Research Question: What "lessons learned" can be

achieved from an evaluation of the automated systems

approach to language learning incorporated in Technical

Language Systems, Inc., efforts?

ORationale: Some non-resident language instructors and

program administrators, both in USAREUR and FORSCOM,

mentioned the value of the instructional system being

marketed by Technical Language Systems, Inc. Apparently they

are being used perhaps in lieu of DLIFLC materials. An

objective evaluation of the automated assessment, tailoring

of instruction to identified weaknesses, availablity in

needed languages and dialects may prove beneficial for

non-resident training.

Suggested Approach: OACSI request TRADOC to assemble task

force of language training experts (civilian and military)

and conduct a thorough evaluation of this method. Results of

such a study could be used by DLIFLC/USAICS in developing a

new generation of non-resident training.

Expected Outcomes: An greater understanding concerning the

benefits and shortfalls of an automated instructional

delivery system for non-resident language training.

7.Research Question: Can USAICS Interactive Video Disc

(IVD) Map Tracking effort, now under development in English,

be converted into target languages and serve as a model for

further IVD foreign language technical training materials?

Rationale: USAISC is currently developing an IVD Map

Tracking course for interrogators in English. Once developed

and refined, this model effort may be able to be translated

into target languages.

Suggested Approach: OACSI encourage USAICS to pursue this

effort.

Expected Outcomes: Improved language sustainment training in

97E AIT.

• . 41 '

*V V *q*** a . * 1.~~. ~**~~ ~,
- C.T WN ~ W -.. W T Z T~~~l~7f .. IT I I 

1

Section V

Conceptual Models

The conceptual models outlined below have been

developed specifically to improve non-resident foreign

language training and unit technical language training. They

vary in detail of development. Each could be developed into

a full scale model depending upon Army interest.

A.Conceptual Model.

A bachelor's degree program networked Army-wide as part

of the Advance Program to facilitate refresher-maintenanceenhancement general language development and proficiency

sustainment.

Operational Need: Army Education Centers are tasked in

AR6lI-6 to provide assistance to linguists in non-resident

training. Currently, there is no common program which these

centers can provide. They can only react to local preceived

needs by providing instructors to MI units when -equested

and when sufficient students are available. The strong

capability of the Army Continuing Education System of which

these centers are a part is college programs funded by

tuition assistance. Although billed as in-service voluntary

college education, more and more initiatives are being

implemented to steer these college program opportunities

toward Army career management fields and their needs. TRADOC

service schools and training centers are able to train

soldiers only to minimum levels in critical tasks. College

educational programs can provide depth and breath to that

knowledge base. They also allow for the learners to take a

active role in establishing and following through on their

own learning objectives. Educational theorists find this

significant especially in developing thinking and reasoning

"* abilities and in promoting integration of knowledge and

skills in life situations. A bachelor's degree program

designed to support linguist needs could well serve both the

Army in sustainment of general language proficiency and

increased depth of knowledge in content areas and the

linguist by offering quality education recognized in the

civilian community. It could provide AECs with a program

that could be networked around the world. Linguists who

initially enlisted for the Army College Fund would not have

to leave the Army in order to use this benefit. It could be

achieved in-service. Numerous options could be made

available and tied to this initiative including

reenlistment, transfer to Reserve Components, civil

schooling (along the lines of "bootstrap" for degree

completion), requirements for progression along a linguist

career pattern, etc.

42
Discussion: The Advance bachelor's degree system under

development by ODCSPER (DAPE-MPE) and Servicemembers

Opportunity Colleges is made up of networks of curriculums.

An educational institution is a member of the Advance system

of Army bachelor's degrees only in the designated

curriculums, and the Advance system membership requirements

pertain only to those curriculums. Bachelor's degree

rnetworks now being developed in the initial phase include

Management related, Computer related and Accounting. Other

network areas that are being developed for future phases

include Criminal Justice, Technical Management, Applied

Science and Technology, Occupational Education, and General

Studies. Each Advance member institution is a member of SOC,

is accredited by one of the regional accrediting

institutions and serves as the "home college" for soldiers

enrolling in bachelor's degree curriculums that are part of

the Advance system. Each Advance member institution will (1)

limit academic residency requirements to a maximm of 25% of

the degree requirements; (2) award appropriate credit for

completion of service school courses, for Army MOS

experience, and for non-traditional or other prior learning

based on the results of one or more national, validated

examinations in accordance with the American Council on

Education Guide to the Evaluation of Educational Experiences

in the Armed Services; (3) complete an Advance student

agreement containing an official evaluation and degree plan;

(4) accept and transfer, with no individual prior approval,

all comparable courses taken from other institutions in the

same Advance network.

No Advance network is planned for foreign languages or

foreign area studies. A model bachelor's degree program in

Soviet studies and Eastern European studies is currently

being offered by the University of Maryland University

College at the request of Field Station Berlin. (See

Appendix E for documentation.) Linguists in the Berlin

Command as well as throughout the Army appear quite

interested in degree-based education programs, particularly

at the bachelors and masters levels. Some linguists

indicated a willingness to reenlist if an attractive

in-service degree program was available. Such a program

could combine civil schooling at CONUS and OCONUS

institutions as well as part time on and off duty courses.

Experience, or lessons learned, from the Berlin model

include difficulties in teaching content in target languages

where students are at different levels of target language

proficiency. Colleges noted for their expertise in foreign

language education help in making such a degree program

attractive.

NSA has experienced some successful programs operated

by civilian education institutions. Since targeted to

civilian employees, academic credit is incidental to the

learning objectives being taught.

U43
I

Suggested Approach: OACSI arrange with ODCSPER (DAPE-MF'E) to

investigate the possibility of developing a bachelor's

degree network involving foreign language/area studies.

'B.Conceptual Model.

An Associate degree program networked Army-wide as part

of the SOCAD Program targeted to support Army linguist

career management fields.

Operational Need: This concept is a first term stepping

stone to a bachelor's degree program outlined above. It

would serve to document work done at DLIFLC and in

maintenance and enhancement of target languages and target

area studies. This degree could be a intermediate credential

achieved while on the way to bachelor's degree completion.

Discussion. Numerous SOCAD programs are currently networked

throughout the Army and identical SONAV programs in the

Navy. These Associate Degree programs have been designed

hspecifically with common curriculums initially developed by

Army subject manner experts and college curriculum experts.

Each network supports a career management field or fields.

No program currently exists to support Army linguists.

Suggested Approach:OACSI arrange with ODCSF'ER (DAPE-MPE) to

investigate the possibility of developing a SOCAD AA network

specifically to support Army linguists.

C.Conceptual Model.

Language NCOES (FTC, BTC, ANOC for enlisted linguists)

with satellite language detachments in operational Active

and Reserve Component commands, operated by DLIFLC as

language training detachments and augmented by Mobile

Training Teams furnished by DLIFLC.

Operational Need: The enlisted educational system appears to

have omitted foreign language proficiency for linguists as

an element of emphasis. Yet technical language proficiency

is critical for linguist job performance. Language

proficiency is a result both of education and training of

linguists. Linguists need this emphasis in their career

development.

Discussion: This NCOES omission may be attributed to the

i, lack of a linguist career field. Its inclusion may fall into

the realm of "too hard". Yet the failure to address this

requirement indicates a lack of understanding of needs of

linguists for career development. Emphasis seems solely on

non-linguist functions. This deficiency needs to be

corrected.

44
Suiqgested Approach: OACSI request TRADOC to review NCOES

courses targeted toward MOSs containing linguists and insert

an element emphasizing sustainment of language proficiency,

especially technical language, where possible.

D.Conceptual Model.

Language Sustainment Courses for officers, warrant

officers, and enlisted personnel, contracted with civilian

colleges and universities. Institutions would use DLIFLC

materials to provide a basis for the courses. Schools may

award academic credit only as incidental to the principal

course learning objectives.

Operational Need: Linguists, regardless of rank or position,

need to maintain their language skills if they are to

• continue to serve as assets in a linguist pool. Available

sustainment courses with some incentives for attendance are

needed to assist linguists, particularly those who do not

use their language skills daily on the job.

Discussion: FORSCOM has an operational model in this area at EBYU. NSA has an operational model at University of Hawaii,

"-: etc. Yet the Army's civil schools program does not seem to

have incorporated this requirement into its offerings.

U Suqqested Approach: OACSI request ODCSPER/ODCSOPS/NGB/OCAR

(Education and Civil Schooling staff elements) to

investigate the possibility of incorporating an Army-wide

system of offerings involving language sustainment

* education.

YE.Conceptual Model.

Language component in Command and General Staff College

and Army War College (AWC) to emphasize the critical

importance of language training on upward mobile career Army

officers. A language element could be developed and inserted

o into one or more map tactical excercises in C'&GS. Research

requirements on language issues could be inserted into AWC

program of instruction.

Operational Need: Officers, both non-linguists and

linguists, need to be sensitized to the mission and needed

capabilities of linguists. They must understand the

consequences resulting from lack of linquist assets and/or

"linguists" who are not proficient in their target language.

They need to understand when the services of a linguist are

imperative. Officer education (basic, career, CAS, C&GS, War

College) appears to omit this educational need.

* 45
Discussion: A common complaint heard among linguists is the

perceived lack of command support for linguist functions.

Maintenance of vehicles, administrative functions,

beautification of the physical facilities, etc., appear to

have higher priority than linguist functions. Often it

appears that officers have no concept concerning the role of

linguists nor the requirement for linguists to sustain their

language proficiency. Often they consider language learning

to be procedural in nature whereby a short review every year

or so will do the job. Recognition by non-linguists as to

the importance of linguists both in peacetime and wartime

operations seems lacking. Linguists, for the most part, seem

to feel under-appreciated. Non-linguist officers may take

- special delight in sending their "prima donna" linguists to

the motor pool to get their hands dirty without fully

understanding exactly what they are doing. Officer education

which is designed,in part, to develop the officer corps to

understand the Army mission and to use and care for its

soldiers, seems to omit the role and function of linguists

and language. Officer education seems to operate on the

assumption that all allied and enemy forces speak English

fluently and are always willing to communicate in that

common language. For example, in C.GS in Low-intensity

Warfare, a Central American scenerio is apparently being

* .- taught purportly to help prepare officers to serve in MAAG

* positions. The script was prepared as if every person in

that environment was a fluent English speaker. No

consideration was given to Spanish and the consequences of

not being proficient in the native language.

This lack of sensitivity to language and the cultural

overtones which it represents seems a potential fatal flaw

in preparing Army officers to function in the modern world.

Suggested Approach: OACSI request TRADOC to develop and

insert a series a language elements into scenarios used in

officer education courses.

F.Conceptual Model.

Major restructuring concepts to include (1) recruitment

for a 12 year enlistment, with in-service college

entitlements, and with part of the enlistment served in

Reserve Component status; (2) recruitment of native speakers

as Sergeant E-5 to be awarded after successful completion of

ST, basic orientation course at DLIFLC and AIT, after which

individuals serve as apprentices, later attend a DLIFLC

advanced course; (3) establishment of military and civilian

linguist pool drawn from native speakers, well-qualified

linguists with active duty experience, etc.

Operational Need: The need to revamp the MOS/CMF system to

better care for linguists and to acquire, manage, use, and

* 46
%maintain linguist assets seems well recognized throughout

the system.

Discussion: The current system contributes to the problem

rather than facilitates acquiring and maintaining a capable

linguist contingent throughout the Total Army. "Major

surgery" is needed to produce a capable linguist element to

support Army 21 as well a peacetime intelligence needs.

Suggested Approach: OACSI,in conjunction with

ODCSFER/MILPERCEN and ODCSOPS, think creatively in this area

and task appropriate agencies to develop proposals for

change.

G.Conceptual Model.

Army Linguist Information Network aimed at providing

critical elements of information that may enhance career

retention of Army linguists in some part of the total force

" st r L c t ure.

Operational Need: Some reserve component units are

attempting to train "linguists" starting from "0"

proficiency with 4 MUTAs per month and 2 weeks e_=ch summer.

Unless for political reasons, this training scenario is

doomed to failure and total lack of readiness. Meanwhile,

monthly qualified linguists are returning to the civilian

sector and are not being recruited by these units. A need

exists to consider qualified linguists as a total Army

asset,and possibly a national asset. An Arnmy Linguist

Information Network could help in this regard.

, Discussion: Narrow thinking by various Army elements have

prevented a Total Army approach in acquiring, training,

maintaining, using and retaining linguists to meet long-term

mission requirements. Reserve Component forces have allowed

non-productive training to exist. Positions are being filled

*- and salaries paid personnel who are not competent to do

established job requirements and never will be capable

unless by some unforeseen magic. This situation could be

corrected, at least in part, by management and care of

linguist assets. A Total Army Linguist Network- could be a

result of that management. Currently, a limited initiative

with Defense Documentation Center is implemented.

Suiqqested__ Approach: OACSI request ODCSPER/MILPERCEN to

spearhead a management initiative that would result in a

* *1Total Army Linguist Network..

H.Conceptual Model.

P 47

j
TRADOC Systems Manager for Foreign Language and

Technical Foreign Language Training.

Operational Need: Matters of doctrine, long-range

battlefield development planning, use of advanced systems

technology and officer/enlisted education and training

involving language and role of linguists and language

technology seem underdeveloped in the Army and not

IN integrated as an important factor in planning and executing

how the Army intends to fight.

Discussion: TRADOC has assigned Systems Managers for areas

it deems important for Army doctrine and training. These

officers and staffs become the focal points to ensure

coverage of their particular areas of concern in the

planning, development and training process. Omission of

language seems to represent a .e-ioUS f+law for TRADOC in

conceptual thinking and planning and also for the Defense

Language Program which tends to maintain its separateness

and is forgotten. HO TRA)DOC apparently feels restricted in

this area and tends to avoid responsibility for language as

integral to doctrine and Army training except as allowed by

AR35O-2Q (a housekeeping role for DLIFLC).

Suq_qsted _Approach: OACSI come to agreement with HQ TRADOC

regarding an active role in Army language doctrine,

long-range planning, development and training perhaps much

of which is outside the purview of DLIFLC. OACSI encourage nH TRADOC to establish a Systems Manager at USAICS to front

this responsibility and carry out inherent tasks.

I.Conceptual Model.

* Development of a series of Foreign Language Training

Centers based on the FLTCE model.

-.1 p~erational Need: Non-resident training is fragmented and

often appears not productive. Foreign Language Training

Centers in major theaters of operation would allow for

concentrated blocks of instruction presented by highly

qualified instructors. The Center in Munich offers an

excellent model for similar schools in CONUS, Central

America and the Far East.

%Discussion: Every participant who had attended FLICE and was

involved in this study had high praise for FLTCE and its

instructors and staff. These linguists were 97B, 97E, 98C

and 98G and were from tactical and field station units and

some in between. Acclaims were unanimous. Supervisors were

concerned about the 6 weeks loss of duty time by

participants but on the whole seemed to feel that this loss

was compensated by having a more proficient and dedicated

linguist on return. The morale boost given to the

48
participants by participating in this school was

significant. For tactical linguists, this may have been the

only time they really used their language skills.

PSuggested Approach: OACSI request INSCOM to investigate the

possibility of expanding the FLTCE model into other

theaters.

J.Conceptual Model.

Use of a Technical Language Proficiency Inspection

(TLPI) augmented with mobile training teams to assist in

unit training to prepare for unit TLPI certification.

0 erational Need: Field MI units do not seem to have a sense

of urgency regarding attainment and sustainment of effective

technical language proficiency essential to perform wartime

missions. Inspections such as the Annual General Inspection

(AGI) and the Command Maintenance Inspection (CMMI) Cor its

replacement] carry sufficient weight to cause the Chain of jCommand to prepare and cause the unit to be able to perform

correctly at least one day a year or serious repercussions

occur. Apparently no such inspection exists for technical

language proficiency. Meanwhile, unit emphasis goes to areas

the Chain of Command is pushed to emphasize. Language

proficiency is among the least of its concerns.

S ~ Discussion: Nuclear weapons units and Air Defense units have

technical inspections that indicate unit readiness or the

lack thereof. It is not just a pencil drill such as filling

out a Unit Readiness Report. A team of technical experts

(hopefully the best in the Army) makes an on-site visit and

determines the unit's technical ability to perform is

assigned mission. If the unit is found not capable, the

Chain of Command is quickly engaged. Even though such a

system has its disadvantages, it carries the needed emphasis

essential for technical proficiency to compete with other

Chain of Command pressures. During this study, linguists and

supervisors/trainers aliVke complained that language

proficiency carried little or no emphasis in tactical units.

Perception of some linguists was that if "we go to war, we

will bomb out". It seems imperative that the Army come to

grips with its language requirements and place enough

"teeth"in the system to insure technical proficiency at

least at the minimum level. Inspection by experts preceeded

by adequate preparation and training is one proven way to

accomplish this mission. If weapons system units are

required to undergo such measures, why don't units that

suppose to provide the intelligence that triggers their use

also be required to ensure their technical proficiency?

49
Suggested Approach: OACSI seriously investigate the

possibility of a TcnalLanguage PoienyInspection

system for field MI Units.

-
r

Section VI

Conclusions and Recommendations

A. Conclusions.

1. The Army's Non-Resident Foreign Language Training

Program is not a program but rather a series of fragmented

activities.

2. There appears to be no one agency fully responsible

for the Army Foreign Language Program which has the

authority and resourses to bring together a cohesive,

functional program.

3. Little, if any, sensitization or familiarization is

provided in officer, warrant officer,and enlisted education and training as to the role, function or importance of

linguists and language proficiency in the performance of

Army missions.

4. Motivation of learners is, in large part, contingent

on chain of command interest and recognition.

5. Money is less an incentive for linguists to maintain

their language proficiency than incentives involving

self-esteem and image enhancement.

6. Greatest complaint among linguists is lack of

language use.

7. Documentation of spaces which require language

proficiency is weak, especially in Reserve Components. This

indicates weakness in doctrinal and long range planning.

8. Army 21 and Army planning guidance omit,for the most

part, references to projected language requirements.

9. The issue of general versus technical language

proficiency overshadows the entire effort.

10. Many linguists find conventional curriculum and

instructional materials boring. There is a need to "spruce

up" language training.

11. Development and use of learning strategies by

linguists are extremely important in acquiring and

sustaining language proficiency.

12. ACES can provide a support function but the

linguist's chain of command is responsible for refresher/

maintenance/ enhancement training essential to sustain an

appropriate level of proficiency.

51

zo, 4d
I

13. Credential education is an important incentive for

1 inguists.

14. Advanced instructional technology offers numerous

possibilities for improvement in foreign language training.

15. Many possible research topics can be identified. A

HODA R&D Plan is needed to guide the Army research effort.

lb. Several operational models that may be pursued

include: networked credential education programs, language

Q NCOES, civil schools language sustainment courses, language

component for C&GS and AWC, Army linguist information

network, TRADOC Systems Manager for languages, series of

foreign language training centers based on the FLTCE model

and technical language proficiency inspection for field MI

units.

17. HO. TRADOC should take more active role in Army

language doctrine and training.

18. Numerous references exist that are important to

.researchers and practitioners in the Army foreign language

training arena.

B. Recommendations.

U 1. That the Army, under the leadership of the ACSI,

develop and implement a cohesive, functional non-resident

foreign language program for linguists. Emphasis should be

placed on the integration of general and technical language

training.

2. That TRADOC develop and insert elements in its

service schools' programs of instruction which sensitizies

and/or familiarizes officers, warrant officers and enlisted

personnel as to the role, function or importance of

linguists and language proficiency.

3. That the Army, under the leadership of OACSI,

develop an incentive awards system for linguists. Special

"* - attention should be given to recognizing linguists for

outstanding service in maintaining and enchancing language

proficiency needed for military job performance.

4. That the Army leadership consider the establishment

of a TRADOC Systems Manager for Language.

5. That OACSI and TRADOC include references to

projected language requirements in doctrinal and long-range

planning documents such as Armv Planning Guidance, 21,

The Army Plan, and the Battlefield Development Plan.

52
6. That DLIFLC develop instructional materials using

advanced instructional systems technology that incorporate

learning strategies and motivational techniques which aid in

making foreign language training more exciting and

personally rewarding to the student.

7. That ACES continue to provide non-resident foreign

language training and testing support on an as-needed basis

to MI units. Consideration should also be given to

development of degree programs which are networked around

4the world that facilitate language and area studies by

ingui sts.

B. That OACSI, in conjunction with other major Army

agencies, develop a Language R & D Plan using Section IV of

this report as a starting point.

9. That OACSI, in coordination with major field

commands, consider establishing additional foreign language

training centers modeled after FLTCE.

10. That DLIFLC develop an expertise in the

non-resident training area.

11. That the Army leadership seriously consider the

establishment of a Technical Language Proficiency Inspection

to ensure MI units' capability to perform its

language-related missions, particularly in tactical

settings.

53
Section VII

Annotated Bibliography

American Council of Teachers of Foreign Languages. ACTFL

Review of Foreign LanQuage Education (formerly Britannica

Review of Foreign Languag Education), 15 volumes.

-v.l:Birkmaier,E.H. (ed.) (1969).Foreign language education:

An overview.

-v.2:LangeD.L. (ed.) (1970). Individualization of

instruction.

-v.3:Lange,D.L. (ed.) (1971). Pluralism in foreign language

education.

-v.4:Lange,D.L. & James,C.L.(eds.) (1972). Foreign lanQuaqe

education:A reappraisal.

-v.5:Jarvis,G.A.(ed.) (1974a). Responding to new realities.

-v.6:Jarvis,G.A.(ed.) (1974b). The challenge of

communications.

-v.7:Jarvis,G.A.(ed.) (1975). Perspective:A new freedom.

-v.8:Jarvis,G.A.(ed.) (1976). An intearative approach to

foreign language teaching: Choosing among the options.

v.9:Phillips,J.K. (ed.) (1977). The language connection: From

the classroom to the world.

v.1C:Phillips,J.i. (ed.) (1979). Building on experience,

building for success.

v.11:Phillips,J.K.(ed.) (1980). The new imperative:

Expanding the horizons of foreign language education.

v.12:Phillips,J.K.(ed.) (1981). Action for the 80's: A

polical., professional, and public program for foreian

1 anqageeducation.

v.13:Higgs,T.V.(ed.) (1982). Curriculum, Competence, and the

foreign language teacher.

v.14:James,C.J.(ed.) (1983). Practical applications of

research in foreign language teaching.

v.15:Higgs,T.V.(ed.) (1984). Teaching for proficiencythe

organizing principle.

This series of works offers the practitioner and

researcher in foreign language education a wide array of

reference materials by numerous authors. Professionals in

the field should be familiar with this series of resources.

American Council of Teachers of Foreign Languages (1986)

ACTFL Proficiency guidelines. Washington, DC: ACTFL.

The 1986 proficiency guidelines are a product of ,

grants from the U.S.Department of Education and represent a

hierarchy of global characterizations of integrated performance in speaking, listening, reading and writing.

They appear to be a refinement of DOD/DA standards as

developed by DLIFLC and contained in AR611-6.

54
Army Audit Agency (1983, Aug.31). Audit of 10th Special

Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Devens. Ma. NE-83-9.

~Files.) (Document located in HQDA ODCSOPS Training Division Language

This report illustrates problems in language and

language training to perform unconventional warfare

missions. It cites a finding that a commercial school was

4providing advanced language training at Fort Devans and that

this training appears to be comparable to the Army's

advanced level requirements.

It indicated the necessity for research in

correlating the DLPT and mission-oriented training. This

report also indicated a lack of command emphasis within the

Special Operations Command. (Document can be found in HODA

ODCSOPS Training Division Language Files.)

h Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (1985)

Career LinQuist System. Prepared by LTC (AF) R.L.Pankratz,

Executive Officer to the Dean. Presidio of Monterey.CA:

DLIFLC.

This document is a product of the Commandant's

Task Force on drafting a proposed DOD linguist System.

Elements discuss.a portrait of the current situation, a

proposed DOD linguist System, "Global" versus "Job-Specific"

language,and non-resident program upgrade. Although

considered, the DLIFLC responsibility for the technical

control of worldwide foreign language training within DOD

does not seem to have been addressed realistically and in

terms of increased job performance of Army linguists,

particularly those in OCONUS assignments where foreign

language materials and instructors may will be more readily

available than at DLIFLC.

Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center

(1986,Feb).1985 Annual Program Review. Presidio of Monterey,

CA: DLIFLC.

This brochure provides the latest information on

the status of DLIFLC and its programs and personnel. It was

lprepared for and given to attendees at the Annual Program

Review 5-7 Feb. 1965.

Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center

(1986,Mar.27).97B Language Needs Analysis(LNA). Memorandum

For Record (J.A.LETT,Jr.) Presidio of Monterey,CA: DLIFLC.

This memorandum is a follow-on to the Department

of the Army Lanuaae Needs Assessment information paper

(DAMI-ISI) 6 Aug. 1985. It contains the language level

requirements for 978 personnel.

U 55
I

Department of Defense (1986, Jan 31). U.S. Army Field

Station Berlin, USAFSB Regulation 350-3. Field Station

Berlin command lanquaqe program. APO NY 09742-4621: USAFSB.

This regulation implements USAINSCOM Regulation

350-3 and ilustrates a command language program at a fixed

(strategic) site.

Department of the Army (1978). A review of education and

training for officers, Volume 4. Washington DC:HQDA.

(Document located in the Pentagon Library.)

ANNEX P--Professional Military Education--contains

the following recommendations:

1. Officer foreign language requirements be

documented.

2. Testing procedures be updated to include

testing for speaking ability.

3. Officers who do not take the tests or who fail

to achieve a grade of R2/L2/Sl be decertified.

4. Additional skill identifier be assigned to

officers who achieve"3"or better in two of the skills and at

least"2"in the third.

5. Development of language maintenance packets be

accelerated.

6. ROTC scholarship recipients be encouraged to

include 2 years of foreign language study in their

undergraduate curriculum.

7. Self-paced foreign language electives be

established in Army schools.

8. Current command language programs be continued.

(p. P-2; P-3). Appendix 3 "Foreign Languages and the U.S.

Army Officer" to Annex P "Professional Military education

for Army Officers," Volume 4, contains detailed information

on Army requirements for foreign language proficiency of

officers. In 1978, 839 officer spaces were identified as

requiring foreign language proficiency yet the study

concluded that the Army was no closer than it has ever been

"to knowing its foreign language requirements for officers,

or the state of current foreign language capabilities of the

officer corps, (p. P-3-8).

This study addressed the pros and cons relating

to the question "Should all officers be required to attain

and maintain foreign language proficiency?" It concluded

that "a policy which requires all officer foreign language

specialists to maintain a certain degree of proficiency can

meet the needs of the Army satisfactorily only if position

requirements are documented, assignments are more carefully

managed and regulations enforced (p. P-3-11).

Department of the Army (1985,Jun.). Army 21 interim

operational concept. Fort Monroe,VA: HQ TRADOC.

Army 21, developed by TRADOC and AMC, is a vision

for how the U.S.Army may fight in the 21st century, and thus

U56
I

focuses those combat development efforts. Technical foreign

language proficiency requirements appear to be omitted.

Department of the Army (1985,October 19). Army language

program laydown (draft). Washington,DC: HQDQ OACSI.

This planning document, in briefing format, (1)

provides an overview of how the language program is

currently being conducted; (2) identifies major program

deficiencies; (3) proposes courses of corrective action; and

(4) charts a timetable the general program responsibilities

to be (a) access talent; (b) train to proficiency

requirements; (c) sustain language skills; (d) enhance

language skills; (e) retain talent;(f) provide professional

development of language skills through advanced training and

multiple linguist assignments.

Department of the Army (undated). Army language program

2000. Draft manuscript. Washington, DC: HQDA. (Document

located in HODA ODCSOPS Language Files.)

Good thought piece as far as it goes! It proposes

"Army Language Program 2000" be "designed to alter Army

thinking from incidental training to programs which consider

the soldier's whole career as a linguist; taking a portion

of the burden of attainmemt of full performance off the

individual service member and putting it in the training

: :program; and stop trying to force the DLIFLC or the

proponent school to accomplish the impossible and start

providing the service members with a program which combines

and reinforces all the skills required in performance of job

related tasks as his/her career progresses."(p6)

It is especially critical of "some individuals and

agencies" who are "doggedly attempting to perform the

impossible--trying to have language courses developed based

on the analysis of specific job technical skills".(p4) The

goal of Army Language Program 2000 appears to be integration

of skills within a career framework which is reinforced at

each school, and at the unit level. The mechanics for this

proposed integration are largely missing.

Department of the Army (1976) Army linguists personnel study

(ALPS). 5 volumes. Washington, DC: HODA ODCSPER. J.P.Rice,

APLS Chairman. (Complete copy located in Pentagon Library.)

This is perhaps the most comprehensive and hprograms. detailed study that explored the Army's linguist needs and

The executive summary and the basic study document

is contained in an unnumbered volume; Volume I is a summary

of background data and information materials and policy

statements submitted by DLI Aug. 75, in support of ALPS;

Volume II is part 2 to Volume I; Volume III contains a

I summary of material furnished by DLI concerning command

S57

m , -, -x i-.' '- -.. -. .-'v , .," .. . . , , . , , .,
N7C VW WVUN! WV5 WWs .- Y - . 3m T

I

language programs (CLP); and Volume IV concerns English

language training for U.S. Army personnel.

In addressing "maintenance of proficiency" ALPS

recognized the perishable nature of language learning: "Once

a linguistic skill has been attained, constant use is

required to retain this perishable skill." ALPS emphasized

the importance of "strong command emphasis at all levels,"

funding, use of on-duty time, use of both training and

education sponsored programs.

The overall Army policy for linguists advocated by

ALPS contained the following main elements:

(1) All officers are encouraged to attain at least

an elementary proficiency in a language;

(2) Officers and Warrant Officers in the

Intelligence or area specialty fields have a language

proficiency;

(3) Non-Commissioned Officers and Enlisted men be

encouraged to attain an elementary language proficiency;

(4) Non-Commissioned Officers and Enlisted men in

linguist MOS's must have the required proficiency;

(5) Training time will be provided for maintenance

or acquisition of a language proficiency to the

desired/required level;

(6) Command language program and educational

programs will be emphasized to provide the means for

language maintenance and acquisition; and

(7) Strong command emphasis will be placed upon

language acquisition and proficiency maintenance programs.

(pp. 4,5, unnumbered volume.)

VOLUME III (Command language program): This

document provides excellent historical source materials

concerning the establishment of DLI and its early

involvement in nonresident language training. For example,

it statesthat DLI became operational on 1 July 1963 and

nonresident training was conducted in CONUS and overseas for

approximately 100,000 U.S. military personnel under the

technical control of the Nonresident Training Operations

Division which was established at the Presidio of Monterey

on 1 October 1974. The name was changed to Office of

Worldwide Training Operations on 1 June 1975. It traces the

strong involvement of General Education Development (GED) in

providing nonresident training citing AR621-5, 26 August

1974, as a principal reference in its 25 June 1975 position

paper on Command Language Program. Among its primary source

materials included as part of this document are descriptions

of the Command Language Conference, Washington Navy Yard

(Anacostia Annex),2-3 May 1974. The majority of Army

participants were members of the GED program (now known as

the Army Continuing Education System (ACES)(i.e.,Robert

Rambicur,ESO, Fort Meade; Albert S. Gau, Command Language

Coodinator, HO USAREUR & 7th Army who worked out of the GED

office;Tilton Davis, HQDA ODCSPER GED Section; Leon

McGaughey, Education Program Administrator, OTAG; Bruce

I Blevins, Assistant Director of Education, HO TRADOC; John T.

:. 58
Pollock, ESO,Fort Gordon, GA; and Eugene F. Bolick, ESO,

Fort Story. DLI relationship with the services education

programs was one of the principal agenda items. Major

problem areas cited in this document included (a) DLI and

the SPMs have not yet achieve full technical control over

the CLP; (b) the working relationship with the SPMs is not

yet effective, partly because other Service Departments have

not put enough emphasis on the importance of the CLP within

the Defense Language Program; (c) TRADOC has not provided

the funds necessary to staff the Nonresident Training

Operations Division and to develop urgently needed materials

for MOS-related self-study refresher courses and suitable

elementary level courses; (d) budgetary constraints on travel

funds prevent the Nonresident Training Operations Division

from conducting on-site evaluation and review; (e) major

projects had to be postponed because of lack of personnel

and funds. (p3)

Department of the Army (1985,Mar.29) Augsburg Military

Community ACES Division. Auqsburq language resources

inventory.

This 49 page catalog illustrates the numerous

line items of"stuff" located in language laboratories.

Quanitity apparantly has no relationship to quality in this

area.

Department of the Army Circular 350-85-2 (1985). Language

training for enlisted personnel. Washington DC: DAPC-EPT-L.

(Inquiries may be addressed to Commander, USA MILPERCEN,

ATTN: DAPC-EPT-L, 2461 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA

22331-0400.)

This circular announces the schedule of language

courses for which Active Army Enlisted and Army Reserve

personnel may apply during FY 65, and provides information

to commanders based on their projected Army Enlisted

linguist requirements reported to Headquarters, USA

MILPERCEN.

Department of the Army (1985,Oct.11). 18th MI Bn.,b6th MI

GP. 18th MI BN Lanquaqe Program SOP. APO NY 09108: 18th MI

8n.

This document provides procedures and guidelines

for the implementation, enrollment, and attendance of all

18th MI BN prsonnel in the Battalion Language Program. This

SOP represents an effort by a non-divisional MI Bn.

Department of the Army (1985.Jan.) 18th MI BN, 66th MI GP.

18th MI BN Redtrain evaluation __o ram.

This document outlines a way participants in

Redtrain can be evaluated.

59
Department of the Army (undated). 5th MI CO, 18th MI BN,

66th MI GP. Intelligence translation aid (German-English).

(Copy may be located at HO 66th MI GP, Munich, Germany).

This document provides job-relevant terminology

for 97E German linguist interrogators. It is an excellent

example of field unit initiative in developing useable

technical language training materials.

Department of the Army (undated). 409th Military

Intelligence Company command language program(draft) (Copy of

this document can be located at Flak, Augsburg Military

CommunityGermany.)

This document illustrates the stated policy and

implementation procedures at MI Co. level albeit in draft.

Department of the Army (1985,Oct.9). Headquarters,124th MI

*BN. Battalion commanders training quidance--MI gunnery.

Fort Stewart, GA: 124 MI BN. (Copy can be located in the

124th MI Bn at Fort Stewart.)

This battalion is attempting to tackle its

proficiency shortcomings by initiating a series of phased,

7-week, sequentially-based MI Gunnery seasons. The

battalion's MI Gunnery season uses the building block

approach. This effort appears to represent efforts by a

CONUS-based divisional MI BN to prepare soldiers for their

war-time tactical mission. Language qualification is only

one element of this comprehensive training plan.

Department of the Army (1979, Dec 17). Headquarters U.S.

." Army Field Station Berlin Command Memorandum No. 350-10.

Field Station Berlin foreign area studies program. APO NY

09742: USAFSB.

This memorandum establishes the foreign area

, studies program to provide background training that will

support the mission of Field Station Berlin and to encourage

personnel to pursue higher levels of education. This effort

is made in conjunction with the G-3 ACES Education Branch.

The university program has been offered by the University of

Maryland, University College. It represents a way civilian

education institutions can be used to support nonresident

* foreign language training for Army linguists.

Department of the Army (1986, Jan 24). Headquarters, United

States Army, Europe. Memorandum for the Deputy Chief of

Staff, Operations. Interoperability language courses.

" * (Copy located in Headquarters, USAREUR ACES, Heidelberg,

" .. Germany).

USAREUR ACES is developing a series of 40-hour

* Iinteroperability language courses designed to enhance

* soldier interaction with German counterparts. Necessity for

60 . , .-.. . . ,. .. .y.. . ,',. . . . .- * ,,. . ,*. \ - ,..- . -.- ,.,.-..,.-.,.. I
i .

Psuch language training was recognized during joint exercises

with the Bundeswehr when communication barriers became

evident and mistakes were made. During such an exercise ACES

contractor, Human Resourses Research Organization (HumRRO),

conducted an on-site task analysis. This analysis reaffirmed

the need for elementary proficiency in German that every

soldier can be expected to achieve.

Department of the Army (1985,April 9). Headquarters, United

States Army, Europe. USAREUR Supplement 1 to AR 621-5. Army

continuing education system (ACES). Appendix S--USAREUR Army

continuing education system command language program

(pp28-41). (Copy located in Headquarters, USAREUR ACES,

Heidelbergq Germany)

This appendix provides policy and procedures for

implementing USAREUR ACES CLP for units and activities

assigned or attached to USAREUR. It emphasizes

HEADSTART/GATEWAY/INTEROPERBILITY language activities but

includes provisions for foreign language

refresher-maintenance training for Army linguists.

Department of the Army (1980,November30) Headquarters,

United States Army, Europe, and 7th Army. Student study

Guide:HEADSTART German orientation. 5th ed. APO NY

09403:AEAGC-ACES. (Copy located in Headquarters, USAREUR

ACES, Heidelberg, Germany.)

This training document illustrates the in-country

work done by USAREUR. Its language coordinators and DLIFLC

Language Training Detachment Representative appear to how

excellent capabilities to provide relevant materials for

classroom instruction.

Department of the Army (1984,September 15).

Headquarters,United States Army Forces Command. FORSCOM

Circular 350-84-11. FORSCOM command language program. Fort

McPherson,GA: HO FORSCOM.

This circular prescribes policy, procedures and

responsibilities for management and operation of the Active

Component (AC) FORSCOM Command Language Program (FCLP).It

describes the AC FCLP and provides guidelines to FORSCOM

subordinate commanders for development of operating

instructions concerning language training and training

materials. It establishes minimum DLPT standards by MOS

(e.g.,96C-S2,L2,R1; 97CL-S2,L2,RI; 98CL-S1,L2,R2;

98G-S1,L2,R2).(P2-1) It requires that major subordinate

commanders within FORSCOM to establish a Language Council

and to provide Arrival Training for those linguists who do

not meet the minimum FORSCOM-estab4ished DLPT standards.

61
Department of the Army (1985,Nov.7). Headquarters,United

States Army Training and Doctrine Command Memorandum For

Record (Gen.W.R.Richardson). Visit to the Defense Language

Institute. Fort Monroe,VA: HQ TRADOC.

This document gives excellent insight regarding how

the current CDR TRADOC views foreign language training and

the operations at DLIFLC. This document is particularly

Ninteresting with regard to DLIFLC becoming an "education"

institution rather than a "training" center. The idea of a

National Language Center at DLI was discussed.

V 4

Department of the Army(1985, Aug.6). Lanquage Needs

4 Assessment. Information Paper. Washington,DC: DAMI-ISI HQDA.

"' In accordance P'ith Sep. 1984 General Officer

Steering Committee, a language needs assessment was

conducted on 97E, 98G, and 98CL MOSs to more accurately

determine the type and length of language training required.

he results of this study are contained in this information

paper. Language proficiencies required to perform the

TRADOC-approved standards for the MOSs. These levels of

proficiencies were described as "ideal". Minimum acceptable

MOS skill level I proficiency requirements were also

specified:

MOS Listening Speaking Reading Writing

97E 2 2 1 na

98G 2 na 1 na

98CL na na 1 na U

Study recommandation was that DLIFLC require a minimum

graduation proficiencies in speaking and listening to the 2

level for HUMINT students, and a listening proficiency of 2

level for SIGINT students.

Department of the Army (undated). Languaae strategy Army

Service Program Manaqer for language. Washington DC: HODA (a

series of briefing charts found in language file of Training

Division, DCSOPS, HODA).

From the Army's service program manager's

perspective language problems include (a) shortage of MOS

qualified linguists; (b) identification of personnel with

language capabilities in other than linguist MOS; (c)

recruiting shortfalls in some languages; (d) limited ability

to train initial language (Reserves); (e) limited retention

and improvement of language capability; (f) high turnover

rate for linguists; (g) linguist requirements not clearly

identified; (h) Specialty Code/MOS language requirements not

clearly defined; (i) linguist requirements not properly

documented and reported; (j) proliferation of uncoordinated

MACOM actions. These problems are addressed in four

62

-.- - -.. . -,. -- - - ,. ., , -. -. - -. .. - -- .. • - . -. .. .. - .. .. -. '- - .. .. ..-... ..
categories: inventory, requirements, training and

management.

These briefing charts indicate that sustainment

training programs are being addressed as follows:

-Generic language maintenance- DLIFLC

--Standardize installation programs

-- Develop individual maintenance packages

-MOS specific language maintenance- TRADOC

-- Standardize unit programs by MOS

--Evaluate/standardize CTF, ITAAS & LET

-- Develop individual study aids

..Soldiers manuals/MOS job book

*. ..Technical support packages

Department of the Army Regulation 350-20 (1978). Management

of the defense language program. Washington DC: DAMO-TRI

I (formerly DAPE-MPT). (Inquiries may be addressed to the

Training Division, HODA ODCSOPS (DAMO-TRI), Washington DC

20310.

This is a joint services regulation that is used,

in conjunction with DOD Directive 5160-41, to prescribe

policy, procedures and responsibilities for the management

and operation of the Defense Language Program (DLP). It

describes the Defense Foreign Language Program and the

Defense English Language Program. It lists the Secretary of

- the Army as Executive Agent for the DFLP.

Chapter 4 provides guidance on Nonresident

language programs. It defines nonresident language programs

pas any language training program or course of instruction

operated by service/agency institutions and active duty or

Reserve Component commanders. Nonresident language programs

do not include training conducted under the auspices of the

National Cryptologic School, NSA, or training for cadets at

S acadamies, for dependent schools operated by DOD, or for

personnel persuing programs conducted strictly for the

purpose of voluntary personnel development or obtaining

academic credit. (p. 4-1).

Nonresident language programs in foreign languages

are further defined as programs being conducted to satisfy

missions and/or job-related requirements. They are conducted

normally for achievement of elementary proficiency or

maintenane/enhancement of linguist proficiency. (p. 4-1).

It empowers DLIFLC to exercise "technical control

over non-resident language programs" ard moniter "the

management of non-resident language prc,crams." (p. 4-2).

It outlines the procedures for formally

establishing a recognized nonresident language program, for

obtaining nonresident language program materials and for

submission of the nonresident language program training

report. (This regulation is currently undergoing revision. A

draft of the revised regulation was also reviewed as part of

the literature review.)

63

V N,
I

Department of the Army Regulation 611-6 (1965). Army

linguist management. Washington DC: DAPC-EPT-L. (Information

concerning this document can be found by writing HQDA

(DAPC-EPT-L), Alexandria, VA 22331-0400).

This regulation sets policies and procedures for

establishing Army linguist requirements and identifying,

testing, reporting, evaluating, reevaluation, training, and

assigning Army linguist personnel.

Nonresident foreign language training is defined

as usually conducted at or through the Army Education

Center. This training includes individual and unit programs

using Headstart, Refresher Maintenance, Professional

Development Program Extension Courses (PDPEC), Training

Extension Courses (TEC), and these nonresident materials

provided at or through the Army Education Center. This

training includes individual and unit programs using

Headstart, Refresher Maintenance, Professional Development

Extension Courses (PDPEC), Training Extension Courses (TEC),

and these nonresident materials provided for in AR 350-20.

- "Unit training" is listed with the following provisions:

(a).Commanders at all levels, whose unit mission

accomplishment depends on the foreign language skills of

assigned personnel, will establish on-duty refresher

maintenance training programs per AR350-20. Sufficient

refresher/maintenance training will be given in unit

. training under the BTMS to ensure maintenance of minimum job

* specialty language proficiency. (b) Commanders, at all

levels, whose mission accomplishment does not depend on

language skills but who consider language training necessary

for other reasons, may establish training programs under AR

350-20. (c). Commanders will set up a close liason with the

installation language coordinator normally located at the

AEC. The AEC has the expertise and resources to help

commanders conduct training programs.(p8-9)

This document contains qxplanations of language

codes and levels of proficiency.

Department of the Army (1986,Jan.28). U.S. Army Intelligence

and Security Command Foreign Language Training Center Europe

letter. Non-resident lanquaae training materials development

for ACES (German). APO NY 09407: FLTCE. (Copy can be located

at FLTCE, Munich, Germany.)

This document provides background information on

the request by ACES for FLTCE to develop and produce German

language proficiency training materials for use in unit

language refresher/maintenance/enhancement programs.

Department of the Army (1985,August 5). U.S.Army

Intelligence and Security Command. USAINSCOM Regulation

350-3. INSCOM command language proqram. Arlington Hall

* Station, VA: HQ INSCOM.

64
i

IThis regulation prescribes policy, procedures and

responsibilities for the management and operations of the

INSCOM Command Language Program (ICLP). It provides guidance

to INSCOM subordinate commanders for development of CLPs. It

outlines the various language training opportunities

supported, sponsored, funded, or contracted by HO INSCOM or

INSCOM units. It also establishes incentive awards for

Noutstanding achievement in general or technical language

studies and/or foreign language training.

Department of the Army (1985,July 25). U.S.Army Intelligence

Center and School memorandum (ACTSI-TD-IT). U.S.Intelliaence

Center and School foreign language training initiatives.

Fort Huachuca, AZ: USAICS.

This memorandum indicates that foreign language

's usage is stressed in the following areas:

- Research projects involving the determination of enemy

strength, weapons and equipment.

S- Map tracking. - Enemy tactics, training, and logistics.

- Use of interpeters.

- "Approach" techniques.

- Translation exercises.

- During Field Training Exercises (FTX).

Emphasis is placed on using military terminology in context

with all the above subject areas.

This document indicates that on I April "85,

USAISC contracted to conduct a survey and analysis of all

*MTOE/MTDA linguist positions that require foreign language

proficiency. Other initiatives include (a) developing

technical support packages, (b) converting English version

TEC lessons to foreign languages, (c) developing Army unit

language training program, (d) assisting with the Language

N Skill Change Study, (e) developing interactive videodisc

lessons, (f) revising the 97E interrogation training and

testing (the testing initiative is based on a terminology

proficiency diagnostic examination focused on job relevant,

military-specific, terminology) , (g) investigating

technical feasibility and cost effectiveness of acquiring

live Soviet television.

Department of the Army (1965,Feb.5) United States Army

Russian Institute. Soviet forces specialist skill area.

(Copy can be located at USARI,Garmisch,Germany)

This proposal is to establish a Soviet forces

specialist program and to provide Soviet forces specialist

training. This proposal is aimed at filling a gap in this

area.

Fiks,A.I. & Brown,G.H.(1969,March) Student attitudes and

foreiQn language learning. HumRRO Technical Report 69-2.

65
Washington,DC: The George Washington University Human

Resources Research Office.

This report is a historical example of research

conducted in support of foreign language training. The goal

of this research was to determine what, if any, implications

data on student attitudes and motivational factors might

contain for foreign language student selection and

course-administration purposes in the DLI system. The

conclusions of this study included: (1) student attitudes

.toward foreign language learning in DLI classrooms are

measurable in the form of various components (e.g., interest

and xenophilic orientation), all of which appear to be

fairly high in the sample measures; (2) the

"glamour" and "status" associated with foreign language

stidy was the single greatest source of student satisfaction

with their courses; (3) the impression of many language

teachers to the effect that student motivation typically

declines as the course progresses was substantiated by data

obtained in this research; (4) two of the attitude

.* components studied in this project, interest and xenophilic

orientation, correlated significantly, though quite

modestly, with achievement indices. It suggested research be

directed at improving the predictive validity of these

subscales as developed in this study.(vii)

Fischer,A. (undated). Reservist's pocket guide to Germany.

APO NY 09325:HQ 21st SUPCOM attn:AERSP-A (Copy found at HQ

21st SUPCOM, Kaiserslaurtern,Germany.)

This pocket guide is an example of the work of a

long-standing language coordinator in USAREUR. He and his

command felt a need to provide reservists a helpful German

pronunciation guide that would assist them while in Germany

for short periods of time such as for Reforger Excercises.

This particular booklet is designed to help these American

soldiers get around Germany.

Gardner,R.C.,Lalonde,R.N.& Moorcroft,R. (1985,June). The role

of attitudes and motivation in second language learning:

Correlatioal and experimental considerations. Language

learning: A journal of applied linguistics 35(2),207-228.

This study investigated the multitrait-multimethod

validity of the Attitude/Motivational Test Battery. Its

findings,based on 170 volunteers learning French/English

vocabulary pairs, were (1) subjects high in language

aptitude learned faster than those who were low; (2) those

high on integrative motivation learned faster than those who

were low; (3) the rate of learning was more rapid under

visual/written conditions as compared with aural/oral ones.

66
i

General Accounting Office (1980, April 15). More competence i in foreign lanquaQes needed by federal personnel working

overseas. ID-80-31. Washington,DC:USGAO

This study's findings include that foreign

languages skill requirements have not been adequately

defined; language competence affects employees' performance.

A substantial number of persons filling jobs and their

supervisors said that low foreign language proficiency

limits job performance.

General Accounting Office (1973, Jan. 22). Need to improve

language traininQ proQrams and assignments for U.S.

government personnel overseas. B-176049. Washington DC:

USGAO.

This report noted that because of inadequate

criteria for determining and reviewing the validity of

language requirements, inadequate measurement of language

proficiency skills, and other problems, Defense was not

satisfactorally meeting certain overseas language

requirements. DLI had been unable to achieve technical

control over foreign language training activities within

Defense, primarily because authority and responsibility for

conducting these training activities needed clarification.

General Accounting Office (1976, Nov. 24). Need to improve

foreiqn lanquaqe training proqrams and assignments for

Department of Defense personnel. ID-76-73).

The 1976 GAO report noted that similar conditions

continued to exist as found in the 1973 report. It

recommended to the U.S. Congress that it direct DOD

components to:

(1) Review their procedures for selecting foreign

*' language training candidates and for assigning personnel to

language essential positions.

* ~(2) Establish more detailed criteria to help local

commanders identify positions requiring foreign language

skills.

(3) Review current procedures for determining

4whether the Department has an adequate overview of the

degree to which language requirements are being

satisfactorily met.

(4) Implement procedures for ensuring periodic

retesting of language proficient personnel.

(5) Reemphasize responsibilities for complying

with regulations governing the Command Language Programs. In

doing so, a more precise definition of these programs would

be helpful. Also, the service program manager concept should

be reviewed to identify and correct the weaknesses which

inhibit effective coordination between DLI and CLP 's.

(pp. 2,3).

These recommendations were based, in part, on

n findings that personnel were assigned to language essential

67
I

positions although they lacked the appropriatelanguage

skills because they did not (1) receive language training

before being assigned, (2) have time to complete training,

or (3) achieve desired proficiency levels after completing

training.

It gave an example of only 37% off incumbents at

MAAG's visited having required language capabilities. It

found similar situations at military poliece groups, Defense

Attache offices, and other military units. Although an

impact of this situation was not quantifiable, many

-- incumbents believed their work performance was adversely

affected by not having required language skills.

General Accounting Office (1982, May 6). Weaknesses.in the

resident language training system of Defense Lanquaqe

Institute affect the quality of trained linguists.

FF'CD-82-22. Washington DC: USGAO.

This report cites that DLI's course development

efforts as having been unproductive, That DLI lacks an

K adequate mechanism for determining the quality of its

students, and that failure to effectively set priority on

resident basic courses resulted in disproportionate amount

of resources spent on nonresident courses.

GAO recommends that DLIFLC (1) replace outdated

basic course materials, (2) upgrade the management of

classroom instruction, and (3) better assess the

effectiveness of its trainin mission.

1P, Gray,W. (1956). The Georae Washinqton key to historical

research. Washington,DC: The George Washington University

Book Store.

It provides simple, yet effective research

methodology for qualitative research projects.

Hicks,F.A. (1959,March). Consolidation of language training.

Student thesis. Carlislie Barracks,PA: U.S.War College.

This thesis explored the desirability and

feasibility of consolidating all governmental training in

foreign languages under one agency or under a selected

adency for each language. It recommended that foreign

language training programmed for military officer and

civilian employees of the government be conducted by the

Foreign Services Institute and that foreign language

training programmed for enlisted personnel of the military

services be conducted at the Presidio of Monterey, CA, under

the jurisdiction of the U.S.Navy. This study conducted by a

Lieutenant Colonel, Infantry, illustrates involvement and

greater understanding that can be gained by research on

language issues by Army War College students. Hicks provided

a good historical documentation regarding the Army language

[] program and its development during World War II.

68

*:+ . k .+ I I I +

,~~%.~% . •< . - V % * .
Higgins,J. & Johns,T.(1984). Computers in language learning.

Second Language Professional Library. Glasgow,United

Kingdom: Addison-Wesley.

This work attempts to reveal some underlying

assumptions involved with computer-assisted language

learning(CALL). Although pro-CALL, this effort emphasizes

that computers are mere machines and that they can replicate

human activity but only if activity can be comprehensively

and unambiguously described. It questions if teaching is

such an activity.

It focuses on teacher activities that can be

replicated by a computer such as "manager of routines",

"responder","facilitator","model", "informant", etc. It

strongly advocates de-mystification of automated

instructional systems by having language teachers try to

acquire some understanding of how computers work, how they

can be applied in language teaching, and how they are

programmed. It discusses computer input and output,

computers both inside and outside the classroom, and

programs specially designed for language teachers. This book

is used as standard text in Teachers College, Columbia

University.

Jones,W.P. (1960,January). Language training for the officer

corps. Student thesis. Carlislie Barracks,PA: U.S.Army War

College. (Copy located in Pentagon Library.)

This thesis explored the need for Army officer

linguists, appraised existing trained resources for meeting

this need, evaluated training means and programs and

recommended improvements. This work, produced by an Engineer

Colonel, recommended mandatory language training for

officers overseas and exploitation of second-generation

Americans and those who have lived abroad, as a source of

complete bilinguists. This thesis illustrates the

sensitivity and understanding of language problems that can

be gained through research as part of officer education.

Littlewood,W.(1984). Foreign and second language learning:

Language-acQuition research and its implications for the

classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.

This work surveys the growing body of reseirch in

this field. It organizes the research into e areas: First

language acquisition, behaviorism and second language

learning, errors and learning strategies, the internal

syllabus of the language learner, accounting for differences

between learners, models of second language learning, using

a second language, and learning and teaching.

Matthew,R.J.(1947). Language and area studies in the armed

services. Washington,DC: American Council on Education.

69

- ~ ', .,' ., , ,,-,' ¢.' , . - . .-... -o.- . . . .. ...-.- . •..'..y-*.. -. .. . . . . .-..
c

This work is one of a series developed by the

Commission on Implications of Armed Services educational

programs as implemented during World War II. This work has

significant historical valve. It concludes that "the

integration of separate academic disciplines (as offered by

civilian educational institutions) into a common core of

knowledge covering a cultural area or region, however

difficult and beset with obstacles the process may be, is

possible."(p166) It also states that the development of the

oral skills in language learning, with neglect of reading

and grammar or embodying but a minimum of both, cannot be

classified either as education or research. "To speak an

understand a foreign language is a benefical and useful art.

Any intensive and through understanding of a foreign culture

implies a reading knowledge of the language in which that

culture finds expression, for chiefly there does one find

the record of its realized ideals, its age-old traditions,

and its cherished aspirations."(p166) This work addresses

the oral inductive method used in World War II, selection

and motivation of students, training of teachers and

in-service training, planned language training environments

or language houses, and the integration of language training

and area studies.

McGregor,E.W.(1960,January). The ugly American military

advisor. Student thesis. Carlisle Barracks,PA: U.S.Army War

S. College. (Copy located in Pentagon Library)

This thesis explores the effectiveness of military

advisors to underdeveloped friendly nations. This Lieutenant

Y Colonel,Infantry, recommended expanded language training and

practical exercises for all officers on orders for MAAG

assignments. This work appears to illustrate the increased

understanding of language problems gained by research as

part of officer education.

Montrone,A.J. (1960,January). Language training for the

officer corps. Student thesis. Carlisle Barracks, PA:

U.S.Was College. (Copy located in Pentagon Library.)

This thesis, prepared by a Lieutenant Colonel,

Artillery, demonstrates the sensitivity and understanding of

foreign language requirements that can be gained through

Army War College research efforts. Montrone concluded that

"refresher training is esential for both the maintenance of

proficiency and the accurate testing and reporting of the

abilities of officer linguists."(p37) Among his

recommendations were that a complete language training

laboratory be installed at each Class I and II military

installation and that periodic refresher training be given

to all officer linguists. This document appears to have an

especially good bibliography of primary and secondary source

documents of that period.

*70
Oxford-Carpenter,R.L. (1985,August). Non-resident language

training for linguists in the U.S.Army. Task 4. Subtask A:

Develop Questionnaire and recommend statistical analysis of

Army foreign language skill change. Final Report. Bailey's

Crossroads,VA: Kinton,Incorporated.

This report provided general and specific comments

on analyses proposed for the Language Skill Change Study and

discussed the development of the Strategy Inventory for

Language Learning(SILL). Perhaps the most valuable element

of this report is a paper enclosed as Exhibit B entitled

"Second language learning strategies: What research has to

say". Oxford-Carpenter makes a strong point that "there's

more to learning strategies than instructional

techniques."(pl) For example, she points to learner

attributes as crucial in understanding learning. She

developed the five following questions and provided answers

to help focus her paper squarely on learning strategies.

-What kinds of learning strategies exist?

-What does research on Li acquisition strategies imply for

L2 language learning strategies?

-What implications for second language learning strategies

arise from research on general (academic but nonL2)learning strategies?

-What has L2 learning strategy research discovered to date?

-What assessment issues exist regarding L2 learning

strategies? (p4)

President's Commission on Foreign Language and International

Studies (1979,November). Strength through wisdom: A critique

of U.S. capability. Washington,DC: U.S.Government Printing

Office. (includes cover letter to the President of the

United States from J.A.Perkins,Chairman of the Commission,15

Oct.79)

This hard-hitting report found U.S. programs and

institutions for education and training for foreign language

and international understanding to be "both currently

inadequate and actually falling further behind."(Perkins'

letter) This commission found the issue at stake to be the

nation's security. It found that the U.S. requires far more

reliable capabilities to communicate with allies, analyze

the behavior of potential adversaries, and earn the trust * .~and sympathies of the uncommitted.Yet the commission found

that "there is a widening gap between these needs and the

American competence to understand and deal successfully with

other peoples in the world of flux."(2) It restates its

finding:"Americans' incompetence in foreign languages is

nothing short of scandalous, and it is becoming worse."(p5)

For example, it found that only 15% of American high school

students study a foreign language (as opposed to 24% in

1965). One out of 20 high school students studies French,

German, and Russian beyond the 2nd year.(Four years are

3 considered minimum prerequisite for useable language

competence.) Only 8% of Amaerican colleges and universities

71 a r ~. *.~ -. -.-~.*~. ~**'b* -. * *~ . ~wN *. - ~ -. S 4~f * . .4 ~~ V. ~ .%
I

U require foreign language for admission ( as opposed to 34%

in 1966). The report found the foreign affairs agencies of

the U.S. government to be deeply concerned that declining

foreign language enrollments of new recruits for the

services and increased language training costs.

President's Commission on Foreign Language and International

Studies (1979,November). Background Papers and studies.

Washington,DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.

This volume supplements the Final Report of the

Commission. It contains 23 separate papers prepared for the

Commission by distinguished authors and thinkers.

Ramsey, R.M.G. (1977). Multilinquals and successful language

learners: CoQnitive strategies and styles of approach to

language learning in adults. New York: City University of

New York. Dissertation (Copy may be obtained from University

Microfilm International, 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI

481060).

This study involved 10 monolingual and 10

multilingual adults who werwe e-xposed to an unfamiliar

language, with hte goal of learning as much as possible of

the language in a limited time period. A summary of earlier

studies on multilingualism and a synopsis of tests of

cognitive style are included in this work.

Adult language learning variables summarized in

this dissertation research effort include methods of

instruction, motivation, attitude of the learner's culture,

aptitudes, communicative or sociolinguistic factors,

personality type, affect, development or maturation and

-J cognition.

%J

Rivers,W.M. (1986,Spring). Comrehension and production in

S -interactive language teaching. The Modern Language

Journal,7(1), 1-7.

This journal article is an example of the

discussion underway concerning the interactive approach as

the most appropriate pedagogical way of developing a usable

language control. It states that teachers who direct and

dominate classrooms can not have true interactive classrooms

since interaction by its very nature is 2-way, 3-way or

4-way ,but never 1-way! This paper discusses interaction

methodology in some detail.

Rocklyn,E.H., Moren,R.I.& Zinovieff,A.(1962,January).

Development and evaluation of training methods for the rapid

acquisition of language skills. HumRRO Research Report 9.

Washington,DC: The George Washington University Human

Resources Research Office. (Copy located in Pentagon

Library.)

72l
i

".. -

WM

This study report is a historical example of a

foreign language training research effort. It responded to a

need for limited language course to be used as a basis for

teaching combat soldiers enough about an enemy language to

enable them to obtain tactical information from newly

captured prisoners of war. It concluded that

machine-teaching a limited language course (in this

case,Russian) to be feasible. The possibility of

machine-teaching a full-scale foreign language was suggested

by this research. (p24)

"-. U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee

Survey and Investigations Staff Report (1981, Dec-Volume 1;

1982, Apr-Volume 2). Foreign !anquage programs of the

intelligence community. Washington DC: U.S. Congress.

The report provides a picture of linguist programs

in mid-1981. It dealt, in part, with Army recruitment,

training and language maintenance problems. The importance

of this document is that problems faced by the Army are

.S faced by all agencies in the intelligence community.

*73

0

.u

*.

'.-

.4.

U 73

-. 4' 4'.-4. -,, * -~ ** m - • . . . . - - -. - - - -. * .• . . - . . . . - -
I

APPENDIX A

Chronicle of Work Accomplished by Principal Investigator

0 30 Jan - I Feb 85: Attended CALICO Symposium, Baltimore, MD. Became

acquainted with numerous personnel connected with computer-assisted

language instruction (CALl). Discussed use of advanced instructional

technology at DLIFLC with Al Scott, Maj. Rowe, et al. Attended demonstrations

and workshop sessions where FSI, CIA, NSA, DLIFLC, etc., representatives

discussed CALl and other high technology projects involving language

learning. Collected numerous journal articles and other handouts provided

by exhibitors. (Shared these items with ARI POC after Symposium.)

Subscribed to CALICO Journal for I year. Results of this experience

included:

a. a familiarization with the state-of-the-art of advanced instructional technology (e.g., artificial intelligence and the uses of speech

recognition devices, courseware development

to include programming of software and use of hardware, interactive

audio/video to include random-access audio devices, and machineassisted translation);

S b. a perceived notion that CALl and advanced instructional technology

in general with regard to language training is still in its infancy

(e.g., at demonstrations attended, hardware seemed cumbersome, often

difficult to operate, subject to frequent malfunction; little mention of cost benefits or cost trade-offs as a result of use of CALl, etc.;

slight, if any, consideration given to the role of the human instructor

or long range benefits of CALl, etc., over conventional instruction

.* (Sylvia Charp as the key note speaker mentioned the need to emphasize

"warmware" or the human element, as contrasted with hardware, software,

and courseware which has been emphasized in the past), little evaluation

data presented, except to indicate that students can learn via CALl,

etc.);

c. that computer-literacy perhaps defined as simply the ability of

human beings to operate and maintain a computer system or systems

more or less as a technician is overshadowed in importance by the

human ability to use the vast amounts of information that can be

made readily available by technically operating and maintaining a

computer system(s); hence information management may be the key to

exploiting advanced instructional technology for the benefit of

fulfilling human and organizational goals and objectives.

22-25 Apr 85: Participated in the DOD-University of Maryland Eleventh

Worldwide Military Services Education Conference, College, Park, MD.

Made numerous contacts and discussed work with key individuals within the

Army educational community. For example, discussed project with

representatives of University of Maryland both from the home campus and the

European Division, Big Bend Community College European Division, HQDA,

U A-1
TRADOC, FORSCOM, EURA, DANTES, and Southern Regional Accrediting Association.

Results of this experience included:

I1a. A service member Bachelor's Degree-type program that is languageheavy may be a feasible project provided that

(1) the Army can spell out clearly its refresher-maintenance

language objectives to include providing participating colleges

and universities with recommended instructional materials,

(2) sufficient interest can be generated among personenl eligible

to participate; one suggestion made was to develop, network and

implement a bachelor of arts degree with a major in managment

with a two year foreign language minor (rationale: 60 hours of

language--heavy courses for refresher-maintenance-enhancement

of general language for linguists with content in such areas as

literature, sociology, geography, political science, etc., could

emphasize the learners' ability to think, converse, write and,

in general, function in the target language and be joined with 60

hours of management courses, some of which could be taught in the

target language. (The technical nature of some of the management

courses may require that they be taught in English.) Yet, this

combination could, in the long run, be more useful both to the

learner and the Army since a Sergeant E-5 (second term enlistee)

is generally expected to fill leadership and managerial positions.

A BA degree in management may be more attractive to students than

IN a BA in a specific language);

(3) adequate funds can be made available to develop and implement

such a program in the appropriate target language. (Such an

effort would be quite expensive to develop initially and, since

it is targeted toward small number of personnel stationed around

the world, the necessary courses would be expensive to conduct;

many courses may attract less than the 10-15 participants

normally considered cost-effective in operating a course; hence,

tuition assistance funding would be important and, in some cases,

fully funded tuition may be necessary to cover student costs.)

b. none expressed a belief that it was beyond the capability of the

colleges and universities to produce, network and implement a

program or sets of courses that would, in effect, refresh, maintain

and enhance a linguist's ability to use his or her target language;

I c. all personnel contacted expressed a willingness to cooperate in

developing a concept for such an effort if asked to do so.

15 Aug 85: Visited HQs, TRADOC, Fort Monroe, VA. Discussed project

with Joe Crosswell, Deputy Director of Education and Bill Thompson, TTA.

Results of this visit included:

a. a suggestion that this effort include a case study of a few (6

A-2

-. . . . . . . . . .-- • -. . .. .. ... . . . . . .. . . ., ...
more or less) linguists chosen either by DLIFLC, MILPERCEN or by

field commands and who, by their records, appear to have diverse

backgrounds, varied linguist functions and needs; such an effect

would permit the principal investigator to gain, first hand, some

insights into "real live" problems and real time perceptions of these

individuals; the inclusion of such a section in this study would lend

a sense of credibility to the study findings and to the model concepts

that might be developed; linguists chosen for study need not be

portrayed as representatives of the larger groups but merely examples

of linguists, their needs and perceptions.

b. use of technology in language training is an area of ongoing interest

in TTA; it would b3 appropriate to discuss any model concept that

involved advanced instructional technology with representatives of

TTA; if, as this study progresses, any model concepts involve

technology, Bill Thompson could be a point of contact to coordinate

and discuss it.

30 Aug 85: Visited HQs INSCOM, Arlington Hall Station, VA. Met with

Ms. Brenda Rowe, INSCOM Director of Education, and Captain Plummer,

INSCOM Command Language Specialist. Meeting occurred at the Installation

Army Education Center. Discussion took place regarding perceived needs

of linguists; motivation to participate in command language programs; etc.

These representatives of INSCOM appeared to welcome this study and promised

to cooperate in its developments. Results of this visit included:

a. a sense that Army education was not currently as responsive to

the needs of Army linguists as it could be. INSCOM troops are

tenants on numerous installations and communities around the world

and, as such, they must look to installation/community education

centers operated by the major command elements for help; this

situation has not always worked out well; most AEC personnel

to include administrators and counselors are not linguists and may have

difficulty relating to linguist problems; educators often consider

* language training as MOS training, hence not in the strict purview of

ACES funded mission; difficulty appears to be increasing with ACES

support of non-resident foreign language training.

b. problems exist regarding motivation of linguists to study and

improve their language skills; many linguists apparently find this

learning to be boring and unproductive. (Some skepticism arose

concerning linguists' propensity to participate in any sort of offduty degree program that would entail development and use of language

skills; instead linguists may rather sit around, drink beer and enjoy

their leisure time); U

c. many linguists have difficulty with english language skills as

well as foreign language skills usage; a program that emphasizes

correct English language usage may also be beneficial to linguists;

d. perception that a model concept where Army education can assist

n A-3
9in general foreign language refresher-maintenance could be a positive

step forward in helping resolve some non-resident foreign language

training problems.

18 Sep 85: In the company of Dr. Judy brooks, visited with Major James

Cox, the HQDA ACSI Service Program Manager, in the Pentagon. Results of

this visit included:

a. Major Cox's- concurrence in the conduct of the study; (o

b. his primary interest was in alternative models for non-resident

foreign language training; that the investigator should think

creatively in this area, "don't close any doors"; concepts should

include both non-degree as well as degree programs; his interest

was in programs where students go to class to learn, i.e., structured

programs with emphasis on oral/aural comprehension;

c. he requested a copy of study products be forwarded to him for his

information and possible suggestions;

d. he provided a list of POCs that he viewed as appropriated from

within the HQDA agencies, NSA, USAICS, INSCOM and FORSCOM.

0 18 Sep 85: Visited with Ms. Brenda Karasik, Education Division, ODCSPER

who serves as HQDA program manager for SOCAD. Results of that visit included:

a. a better understanding regarding the mechanism for establishing a

network of schools who offer a common curriculum targeted at

military career management field; a four-year program should consist

of 120 semester hours course work; subject matter experts (SMEs)

normally are requested from the appropriate service school(s) and

field commands who meet in conjunction with university/college

curriculum specialists to explore the possibilities of developing a

draft common curriculum; these meetings can be arranged through the

Office of Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges, Suite 700, One Dupont

Circle, Washington, D.C. 20036 [telephone (800) 368-5622 or (202) 293-

7070], Dr. Arden Pratt, Director. If these meetings indicate that

technically the development of a common curriculum is possible and

feasible, and if enough interest is manifested by the user community,

the Education Division, ODCSPER and SOC could be tasked to develop

the common curriculum using Army SMEs and civilian curriculum personnel,

estaDlish a network of interested colleges and universities around the

world to offer the program and begin its implementation; usually

such efforts go through a series of pilot tests to work out problem

situations prior to full implementation;

b. Education Division, ODCSPER and SOC are currently reviewing possibilities

for developing four year programs; current programs have been

restricted to 2 year AA degree programs;

c. visibility of SOCAD is rising with Ms. Karanik preparing to brief

I A-4
Pthe Army Policy Council this fall; current 2 year programs are

gaining in acceptance throughout the varied Army commands; the features

of the SOC networked concept include:

(1) a student agreement for each degree-seeking student in a SOC

curriculum; a copy of this agreement is maintained by SOC

at One Dupont Circle; this provides a check on member institutions

and their implementation of the common curriculum; and provide

excellent statistical data on how the program is being implemented;

(2) award of credit for non-traditional learning through use of

tests, such as CLEP and DANTES SSTs and ACE Guide recommendations

appropriate to the SOC curriculum (for example, credit for the

DLIFLC residency programs could be awarded);

(3) limit residency to a maximum of 25 percent of the degree

requirements, with residency to be taken at any time;

(4) accept in transfer, with no prior approval, courses identified

as comparable in the transferability charts and course substitution

tables as developed by SOC and SOCAD manager, Education Division,

ODCSPER, and approved by member schools and published by SOC.

3-4 Oct 85: Visited DLIFLC and ARI Field Unit, Monterey, CA. Met with

LTC H. Marschall, John Lett, Maj. Tom Hooten, Hank Marschik, and Ted

Horn from DLIFLC and Jack Hiller, Otto Kahn, and Anna Ekstrom, ARI

Field Unit. Results of this visit:

a. acquired numerous primary source documents, relevant to study;

b. obtained suggested references and studies that should be reviewed as

part of this study;

F c. developed a list of needs expressed during meeting to include:

(1) the assembly and catalog of various studies conducted or

are being conducted that are relevant to Foreign Language

Training in DOD;

(2) a review of ways Foreign Armies develop, maintain and use

linguists;

(3) motivational factors research;

(4) human role definition in use of technology;

(5) command support and ways to attain it;

(6) appropriate career management program for linguists;

(7) military personnel management initiatives (e.g., proficiency ~pay, promotion, re-enlistment options) and their use for

linguists;

* A-5

pa , p, 

o) a d t
(8) meaning of operational control and technical control of nonresident foreign language training;

d. gleaned numerous perceived problems, areas where non-resident

foreign language training are needed and ideas for model concepts.

Details regarding this visit were written in a memorandum for record,

subject: "Trip Notes from Visit to DLIFLC/ARI Field Unit." A copy

of this memorandum was delivered to Dr. Brooks, ARI POC on 11 Oct

1985 for her information.

' 17 Oct 85: Visited Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth,

KS (not programmed, nor costed to this project). Discussed language

project with LTC Bond, Chairman of the Low Intensity Warfare Committee

and who is responsible for instruction in C&GS in that subject. He is a

member of the Intelligence Corps and a Russian Linguist. Results of this

meeting include:

a. importance and use of foreign language are not taught or emphasized

in their preparation of MAAG officers for assignment in areas subject

to low intensity warfare such as Central/South America, Africa or

Middle East; all work is strictly in English and officers appear not

to be sensitized to the "language problem";

b. no plans appear to change this situation; the committee chairman

seemed vaguely aware that DLIFLC had a Spanish Refresher-Maintenance

Package but no first-hand knowledge about it or its possible uses.

30 Oct 85: Visited HQs, FORSCOM, Fort McPherson, GA. Discussed

language project with Dr. Bill Dempsey and Dr. Elaine McAllister, AFINCBD and Maj. Mike Abel (ARNG) and Dr. Leon McGaughey (AFOP-TE). Results

of this visit included:

a. no detailed assessment of non-resident foreign language training

exists for Reserve Components forces although over 300 units have

been identified as requiring such training; it was estimated that

between 3 and 5 thousand positions in RC units require or should require

personnel with 1-1 language qualification or better; documentation

of positions that require language proficiency is poor; few assigned

personnel have proficiency ratings recorded on current personnel

files (apparent exception is 142 MI BN in Salt Lake City, Utah);

no effective system exists for recruiting linguists who are leaving

active military duty and are returning to civilian life for either

the ARNG, USAR or even the IRR (one or two specific units have shown

some local initiatives in this area);

b. FORSCOM Command Language Program for active duty linguists is nonstandard with implementation dependent largely on the interests

and priorities of local commanders. Efforts have been made to have a

Language Council established at each FORSCOM installation to help define

problems, set objectives and policy, and establish an effective

program of language training and use of language-trained personnel;

no full-time language training coordinators such as used throughout

II* A-6
9

USAREUR are employed in FORSCOM, consequently training support is

often planned and provided by non-linguist educators within ACES;

c. philosophy should be that language proficiency to include the

training needed to attain and then maintain the required level be

the responsibility of the soldier and his immediate chain of command

with primary unit responsibility resting at company level; Army

Education Centers and sub-centers can and should provide language

training support in response to needs expressed by the command

N elements but they should not be primarily responsible for such training.

They should perform a support role only;

d. some identified needs for non-resident foreign language training

are:

(1) training materials; the Spanish Refresher - maintenance

package as provided by DLIFLC has little depth; although

impressive in its table of contents; it does little to fulfill

its objectives; PDP materials are very technical but apparently

good; the Standard Unit Training Package being produced by

USAICS expected to be good but USAICS takes two years

to produce one language package and can only do one at a time;

(2) methods of instruction; DLIFLC has provided FORSCOM with a

two week instructor training course; another one is in the

planning stages; yet DLIFLC is generally geared to resident

4. training and to methods of instruction which appear to work

well for them in that mode; the need is to develop an instructor

training course fully attuned to non-resident training both in

field units and reserve/NGB environments; DLIFLC personnel

generally are not knowledgeable of those environments and have not

developed methods of instruction to include optimal uses of

advanced instructional technology tailored to those en-vironments;

(3) an appropriate organization and administrative structure;

one proposal is for full-time language instructor/program

administrator ofr FORSCOM units; a closely related proposal is

for the establishment and maintenance of Language Training

Facilities under the control of the installation Language

Councils;

(4) better documentation of linguist positions; AR 611-101

provides little language requirement specifications for

officers (e.g., special operations, MP, TAC INTELL, STRAT INTELL,

IMAGERY EXPLOIT, CI, HUMINT, TAC SIGINT/EW, and STRAT SIGINT/EW

officers) list no language requirement at all. AR 611-112 for

warrant officers and AR 611-201 for enlisted personnel are also

extremely vague regarding language proficiency requirements.

e. Automated Language Processing System (ALPS) may have applications

in translation training; 2 pilot systems (one at Fort Hood, TX, and

the other with the 142nd MI BN at Salt Lake City, UT);

A- 7
f. identified universities and colleges with noted excellence in

language training include Middleberry College in Vermont, Georgetown, UCLA, Stanford, BYU , and University of Texas;

g. concepts for degree programs which emphasize oral/aural language

development in target languages and language sensitization of

officers to language problem situations in Basic, Career, C & GS

and War College courses are interesting and potentially helpful;

h. little effective coordination and/or sharing of information was

noted between FORSCOM, INSCOM and particularly USAREUR (exception:

at the initiative of FORSCOM Director of Education, two USAREUR

*language coordinators are being scheduled to visit FORSCOM to

discuss non-resident foreign language instruction in the near future;

i. FORSCOM personnel who were contacted appeared to feel that the overall

Army leadership (with some noted exceptions) has little regard for

foreign language training as a high priority mission; hence there is

a general lack of determination on the part of that leadership to

demand that a coordinated, effective, realistic program be developed

and to provide the necessary resources (e.g., manpower spaces and

money) to achieve it;

j. numerous other results and conclusions were drawn from this visit.

They are included in a memorandum for record "Trip Notes to HQS

.N FORSCOM" (copy provided to Dr. Brooks the ARI POC on 22 November

1985);

0..31 Oct 85: Visited Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges, an element of

the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, at One

Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C. Met with Dr. Arden Pratt, SOC Director.

Results of that visit included:

a. a better understanding concerning the development of networked

bachelor degree programs. Phase 1 of the Advance baccalaureate

degree system is being currently developed by SOC for Department

of the Army. During this phase only business related curriculum

areas related to accounting, computer studies, and management are

being networked. Approximately 25 colleges and universities who offer

upper level programs have been identified as potential Advance

network member institutions. As development occurs other institutions

will be considered for membership. (Note: Over 400 regionally

accredited colleges and universities within the United States have

ascribed to the principles and criteria of SOC and are

officially recognized as members of SOC; approximately 60 of these

institutions are currently networked in Associate Degree programs

offered at over 35 CONUS installations and at numerous locations in

Europe, Korea, Japan, and Hawaii where American troops are stationed.)

Other areas that have been identified for later phases of development

include:

- Criminal Justice, including Criminology, Law Enforcement,

Police Science, Corrections, and Safety

- Occupational Education

m A-8
- Applied Science/Technology, including degree areas in Aviation,

Electronics

- Technical Management, including Aviation Management, Electronics

Management, Health Care Management, Office Management

- General Studies

b. a working knowledge of the objectives of networked degree programs

which include:

the requirement for a student agreement between the soldier

and the institution which outlines precisely the specific

degree program requirements; credit awarded based on prior

collegiate work, MOS experience and service school courses

successfully completed, examinations taken, etc.; and what

courses remains to be taken in order to complete the degree

requirements;

-.. the establishment of a "home" institution which works out

student agreements with soldiers, accepts comparable courses

from network institutions, awards credits for Army courses

and MOS experience when applicable, awards a bachelor degree

when all prescribed work has been accomplished, and limits

residency requirements to one quarter of the total hours

required for the degree or less and those residency requirements can be met at any time during the degree program;

- therefore, a student can choose a specific degree program,

establish a "home" institution, obtain a student agreement,

complete the required number of resident courses, and then if

transferred take the remaining course requirements with network

member institutions situated around the world, have transcripts

sent to the "home" institution and, when the student agreement is

fulfilled, the "home" institution will award the degree;

c. a general sense of the parameters of the current effort which seem

to include:

- no real curriculum development; instead the current networking

effort is aimed at programs that already exist and which contain

a series of comparable elements;

- HQDA (Education Division, ODCSPER) which provides SOC

with guidance and direction with regard to work to be

accomplished and priority of degree programs to be networked;

- member institutions remain independent degree-granting

organizations but who voluntarily accommodate the Army and the

individual soldiers by joining the networks and complying with

the stipulations inherent in network membership;

- SOC asserts rather strong leadership by closely monitoring

*A-9

." .' ...' -.-. - .. ...' ' .' -. .- , ..-.- ,-,-.-, - . ,.,', ,,, . .' - .' " .- ' - .- ft-* _' -- , ,-.- ,- -,,.
compliance with those stipulations, by conducting regional

workshops annually where Army and collegiate personnel

meet and learn proper usage of the handbook and correct

operations of the networks, by first warning institutions

noted as non-complying with network requirements and

second, if institutions continue non-compliance, to expel them

from the network system and replace them with institutions

with programs that will network;

d. possibilities exist whereby a degree program(s) can be developed

between the Army and networked colleges and universities to meet

specific Army objectives such as refresher-maintenance-enhancement

language training for linguists, thus far no such suitable program

is known to exist by SOC, but if requested by HQDA, prioritized

.- high enough in the work plan and the necessary funds provided to

support the work plan, such an effort can be undertaken.

0 31 Oct 85: Submitted First In-Progress Review to ARI (Dr. Judy Brooks,

POC).

0 6 Dec 85: Met with Major Les Bowlen, Chief of Language Branch, MILPERCEN

and LTC Gary Cochard, Military Programs Division, ODCSPER in Room 332,

Hoffman I, Alexandria, VA. Needs and ideas expressed during that meeting

included:

a. need to establish a pool of known linguists;

b. need to recruit more native speakers;

c. need to find ways to retain qualified linguists. Retention rate

among 98G in USAREUR is 18%;

must be willing to pay for skills. Ideas include bonus

payments; tie in with special college programs; 14

d. need to establish a linguist information network which would

include MEPCOM, IET sites, DLIFLC, MILPERCEN, NGB, ARPERCEN.

Such information system would encourage recruitment of native * - speakers, establish a pool of qualified linguists, maintain

records regarding their proficiency, job performance, skills

attained during training and on-the-job duties, encourage active

duty retention, but for those departing active duty, identify

opportunities with the Army National Guard and the Selected

Reserve, alert ARPERCEN and NGB personnel where to actively

recruit personnel departing active duty. At least such a system

could be used to enlist qualified linguists in the IPR;

e. need to be able to assist commanders in maintaining linguists'

proficiency in their target languages. A basic assumption is that

commanders in tactical environments have less understanding about , .Vt refresher-maintenance-enhancement requirements of linguists; the

A-10
I

5 importance of frequent functioning in the target language in meaningful

assignments; the nature of language learning being non-procedural

and highly perishable if not used; that linguists do, in fact, require "exceptional" treatment;

f. need to understand the time requirements for training linguists.

Example given was for MOS 98G (8 weeks of Basic Training, 25 weeks

of language training at DLIFLC, 4 weeks of AIT for absolute minimum;

but if the requirement was for a (J2) LEFOR, 8 weeks of Basic Training,

74 weeks of language training at DLIFLC, 13 weeks of AIT, 12 weeks

for additional skill identifier, plus leave and personal requirements).

If linguists positions are identified and documented and the requirements

are placed on the personnel systems to recruit, train and deploy

individuals to fill those positions, the time lag may be 3 years or

more;

g. need for a recognized proponent for a linguist career management

field. Currently none exists. Perhaps the first three MOS digits for linguists should denote "linguist" and the additional skill

identifiers denote specific Army jobs;

h. some other ideas for improvement expressed during the meeting

include:

- employment of mobile training teams out of DLIFLC to provide

refresher-maintenance-enhancement training both for active and

reserve personnel. (LTC Cochard emphasized this idea.) Build a

well-qualified cadre of instructors at DLIFLC and deploy

on an as needed basis throughout the total force;

- when documenting and authorizing a linguist position, require a

minimum of 2 individuals. In order to refresh, maintain and/or

enhance linguist proficiency, it is essential that linguists be

able to converse with each other in the target language;

- when offering college incentives, this offering should be

intertwined with the recruiting process. Perhaps instead of a

3-4 year enlistment, offer a 6-year enlistment with an in-service

bachelor degree opportunity;

- define clearly what is meant by non-resident foreign language

training for linguists when preparing final report;

- look in 1978 Review of Education and Training for Officers

for ideas;

- no particular empirical data were suggested for inclusion in

this study effort;

6 Dec 85: Met with Mrs. Louise Ellis, Education Division, ODCSPER,

who delivered the computer printouts resulting from empirical data

elements requested. Questions concerning VEAP-GI Bill participation,

etc., were not available.

* A-I1

a .-.-. ,, .*.
6 Dec 85: On this and several subsequent dates, researched reference

documents at Pentagon Library. Results of these efforts included

acquisition and review of the 1976 Army Linguist Personnel Study w . (ALPS), studies conducted at the Army War College and by HumRRO, and

numerous other references. (Note: Few source documents dated after 1979

were found in the Pentagon Library.)

0 16 Dec 86: Met with LTC Claudia Kennedy, Training Division, ODCSOPS,

who performs action officer responsibilities for the Secretary of the

Army as Executive Agent for DLIFLC. This meeting occurred at Dupont

Gardens, Washington, D.C. Results of this meeting included:

a. problems exist in documentation and career development. For example,

for linguists, should the MOS emphasis (first 3 digits) be language

or a technical area identifier;

b. problems exist in sustainment training; but not impressed with computerassisted language instruction; instead human intercommunication using

drill and practice techniques seem to be of paramount importance;

c. possible research questions include:

- a survey of other measures besides the DLPT in determining

linguist's proficiency;

- assess the impact of not doing the language mission well

(e.g., in terms of loss of intelligence information, ability

to influence actions among allies (interoperability), ability

to serve in MAAG assignments and on special operations, etc.);

- evaluate the ability of non-native speakers to learn other

languages and develop an appropriate list of learning strategies;

- since DLIFLC is producing a 1+-lI+ graduate and FORSCOM and

other commands state a force requirement for a 2-2 linguist; what

resources are required to bring the average DLIFLC graduate up

to a 2-2 level;

- research the importance of English language proficiency in

foreign language training. If recruitment of native speakers is

seriously implemented particularly among Hispanics, Chinese, etc.,

what problems exist in use of the English language particularly

oral/aural abilities;

- study incentives for re-enlistment and/or enlisment after

departing active duty into ARNG and USAR to include IPR;

d. suggestions regarding sustainment training included:

- development of a solid core of instruction needed;

- employment of mobile training teams to conduct proper instruction

and monitor proficiency testing;

A-12
I establishment of adequate language laboratories or language

training facilities which are conducive to optimal language

learning;

.4

development of a viable career program for linguists which will

attract recruits, promote retention, and allow for proper

utilization of linguists. Include in the career development of

linguists scheduled trips and/or assignments in the country

of the target language and opportunities to attend major

universities to study and improve language skills;

e. emphasis must also be placed on documenting Army language needs.

Currently this is particularly poor among special operations

positions;

f. an invitation to review Training Division, ODCSOPS, language

training files to augment literature review;

23 Dec 85: At invitation and supervision of LTC Claudia Kennedy,

reviewed language training files at the Training Division, ODCSOPS, HQDA,

Room IE 529, Pentagon. This review included documents pertaining to:

a. implementation of a linguist unique career management field;

b. language strategy as viewed from the perspective of the Army

Service Porgram manager for language;

c. development of unit language training program;

d. Army language program 2000 (long range planning);

e. foreign language training for all officers;

f. Army initiatives to increase manning of military intelligence

linguists;

g. language training in conjunction with civil schooling programs.

This review provided the researcher with a wide scope of materials essential

in understanding language problems as they exist and efforts taken to resolve

those problems and/or rationale for doing or not doing specific tasks to solve

problems and enhance language training.

o 31 Dec 85: Prepared and submitted Second In-Progress Review to ARI (POC

Dr. Judy Brooks).

3-18 Feb 86: Conducted visit to United States Army, Europe and 7th

Army. (Detailed trip notes were prepared and a copy submitted to ARI

on 5 Mar 86). Key personnel contacted (in proximate order as visit

progressed).

A-13

- l lI - . I.4 i _ .
I

Dr. Thomas E. Powers--USAREUR Director of ACES (Heidelberg)

Dr. Hester Telman--USAREUR Deputy Director of aCES (Heidelberg)

Mr. Werner Radig--Chief, Education Programs Branch, USAREUR ACES (Heidelberg)

Mr. Leslie Johnson--Language Program Officer, USAREUR ACES (Heidelberg)

Mr. Gerd Brendel--Training Specialist, Defense Language Institute, Foreign

Language Center (DLIFLC) Language Trainign Detachment (Heidelberg)

Mr. Charles Best--Sound Recording Equipment Operator, USAREUR ACES (Heidelberg)

LTC Raub--Operations and Training Branch, ODCSI, HQ USAREUR (Heidelberg)

Mr. Michael J. Nowell--Intelligence (ISEW) Systems Specialist, Operations

and Training Branch, ODCSI, HQ USAREUR (Heidelberg)

Herr Weiner Naas--contract employee, USAREUR Command Language School,

Mark Twain Village Building 3796 (Heidelberg)

Mr. Aiwin Fischer--Language Coordinator, 21st Support Command (Kaiserslautern)

Mr. David G. Symes--Regional Director, ACES, 21st Suport Command (Kaiserslautern)

Mr. Robert B. Van Hoose--Deputy Regional Director, ACES, 21st Support Command

(Kaiserslautern)

Mr. Mike Ackermann--Military Intelligence Field Detachment Commander (Pirmasens)

Mr. Frank Mitchell--former Field Detachment Commander (Retired U.S. Army

Military), currently language instructor (Pirmasens)

Four (4) 97B counterintelligence agents (Pirmasens). At least

one had worked as a 98G

Mr. Philip E. Hughes--Regional Director, ACES, V Corps (Frankfurt)

Ms. Hildegard Von Wedel--Language Coordinator, V Corps (Frankfurt)

Mr. Paul Tillery--Senior Educational Services Officer, Frankfurt Military

Community (Frankfurt)

Dr. John H. Culliton--Regional Director, ACES, berlin

Ms Heidi--Acting Language Coordinator (Berlin)

Ms. Cindy Fuller--Administrative Secretary aCES Office (berlin)

MSG Francis--766 MI (Berlin)

Maj. Brunet--766 MI (Berlin)

Mr. Bill Cook--766 MI (Berlin)

CWO Thornton--766 MI (Berlin)

Ms. Grace Larson--Education Advisor (Technician) Field Station Berlin

Col. Melanson--Deputy Commander, Field Station Berlin

Mrs. Betty Kasischke--Language Advisor, Field Station Berlin

Nine (9) 98G linguists including a SFC supervisor of 41 German linguist at

T'berg, Field Station Berlin

G-3; Deputy G-3; numerous education personnel at dinner, 7 Feb. U.S. Army Berlin

Mr. Bruce E. McLeod, Jr.--Regional Director, ACES, VII Corps, Stuttgart and

other VII Corps Regional ACES staff members

Mr. Klaus Klein--VII Corps Language Specialist (Stuttgart)

Mr. Robert George--Education Services Officer, Flak Kaserne (Stuttgart)

Mr. John Morris--Guidance Counselor, Coffey Barracks (Stuttgart)

Five (5) tactical linguists, 207 MI Unit, Coffee Barracks, including two 98G,

one 97E, one 96B (four SGTs; one SSG) (one had been reassigned from

05H to 97E) (Stuttgart)

Mr. Scott D. Downing--Senior Education Services Officer, Wuerzburg Community,

Leighton Barracks (Wuerzburg)

Mr. Robert Brust--Language Specialist, VII Corps (Wuerzburg)

Mr. Dennis Sherroid--Education Services Officer, Leighton Barracks (Wuerzburg)

CW3 James Hogan--Training Officer, 103 MI Bn, 3rd Inf. Div. (Wuerzburg)

Mr. Joe L. Hurd--Senior Education Services Officer, Bamberg Community

A-14

- . . . SW . *. . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . - . . . . . -
Ms. Barbara Kadlec--Senior Education Services Officer, Munich/Bad Aibling

Community (Munich)

Mr. Abdul R. All--Guidance Counselor, Bad Aibing Station (Munich)

Maj. John Grunden--Director of Instruction, Foreign Language Training Center,

Europe (FLTCE) (Munich)

CWO Dave Kralik--FLTCE (Munich)

Dr. Maurice Funke--German Department, FLTCE (Munich)

Mr. James Nelson--Russian Department, FLTCE (Munich)

Mr. John J. Sakmamm--Czech Department, FLTCE (Munich)

Mr. Joseph--Egon Moravec-Czech Department, FLTCE (Munich)

Col. John G. Lackey, III--Commander, 66th MI Group (Munich)

Mr. Greg Wilkie--Military Personnel Specialist, Test Control Officer, SQT Section,

66th MI Group

Maj. Doyle--S-3, 18th MI Bn. (Munich)

Cpt. Richardson--Assistant S-3, 18th MI Bn. (Munich)

CW4 Bruce W. Ohnesorge--Training Officer, 18th MI Bn. (Munich)

CWO Roehrick--18th MI Bn. (Munich)

m Two (2) 97E linguists (Russian), 18th MI Bn. S-3 office

Herr Wedderman--German language instructor, contracted by Munich Education

4 Office for duty with 18th MI Bn.

Ms. Nelda R. Messina--Education Secialist, Flak Kaserne (Augsburg)

Cpt. Carter--Plans and Training Officer, 502nd MI Bn. (Augusburg)

Lt. Wilkes--502nd MI Bn. (Augsburg)

Three (3) lingusits, 502nd MI Bn. (two 98G, one 98C) (two SSGs, one SFC)

(Augusburg)

Mr. Bernard Mazer--Augsburg Community Language Monitor, worked with Field

Station Augsburg (telephonic conversation)

Col. Don 0. Stovall--Commander, U.S. Army Russian Institute (Garmisch)

LTC Michael H. Crutcher--Deputy Commander and Director of Instruction, U.S.

* Army Russian Institute (Garmisch)

Mr. Alan J. french--Language Studies Faculty Member, U.S. Army Russian Institute

*(Garmisch)

Mr. Tom Tower--Investigator, Army Audit Agency (working on an audit of FLTCE)

(Munich)

Results of this visit include:

a. HQ USAREUR ACES, 3 Feb 86, 0830-1300:

- USAREUR has considerable "in-house" capability to develop

language instructional materials and is currently involved

with language materials especially designed for interoperability

requirements; VII Corps Language specialists appear to be working

closely with HQ USAREUR in this developmental effort;

- there is a lack of precision in documenting what language

skills are used by "linguists" in properly performing military

jobs;

- a possible research questiona: At what general language

proficiency level can technical language be effectively and

efficiently taught and learned by an Army linguist?

A-15
- cost per our of instruction is an important quantitative measure,

e.g., because of high frequency, cost per hour of Headstart/ Gateway is $0.66 per student;

perceived problem: Commanders search for and emphasize instant

results. There is a lack of hard data to show commanders

that a need exists within their units for language instructional

materials development. Yet it is well recognized that language

is a highly perishable skill;

-. USAREUR was apparently not invited to DLIFLC Annual Program

Review, Feb 86 (Johnson); Dr. Powers was making visit to DLIFLC

in Mar 86;

- a possible research question: Can USAREUR/DLIFLC develop

instructional materials that use more technical language and

more closely mirror actual job performance requirements in

- 98G, 98C, 97E, 97B, etc., and yet maintain all products based

on that developmental effort in an unclassified status? (Is

classification barriers preventing USAREUR ACES language instructional

development from developing materials that mirror actual technical

language used in the actual workplace?)

- American Council of Teachers of Foreign Languages has developed

some promising guidelines on sublevels of language proficiency

within the DLIFLC level 1. Discussion with this group, particularly

Dr. Pardee Lowe, Jr. may be helpful (Brendel).

b. USAREUR ODCSI, 3 Feb 86, 1300-1430:

- lneed to use ACTO hardware in courseware development for language

job performance;

- .MOS library and learning centers are separate from the Army

library system (now under the DCSIM). Why should no MOS libraries

and learning centers be made an integral part of that function?

.*. -- interactive training aids devices have potential for providing

necessary specialized language training for soldier linguists;

-- language proficiency is needed for all individuals stationed on

the continent of Europe. There is merely a difference in the

degree of proficiency needed by a 98G or 97B or 97E than other

soldiers in combat, combat support and combat service support

- roles. Perhaps integration of foreign language training should

occur as part of common soldiering skills IAW regiment/COHORT/

CAPSTONE mission. Perhaps military NCOs shold teach language

(e.g., DI in BT/AIT/OSUT teach survival language skills). Soldiers

can identify with the NCO. Interoperability requirements would

be built in from the initial training of soldiers;

- "idea for a career linguist field may be worth investigating,

perhaps an enlisted FAO program is warranted;

*I A-16

, , , ; ._ , ,_ . *-- * , . . . " .. ... .-... . .
- educators tend to teach and emphasize only general language

development; what really is needed is technical language

training which can best be done by military trainers.

c. USAREUR Command Language School, 3 Feb 86, 1530-1630:

- commercial material being used included Themen 1/Hueber and

Eindruche-Einblicke Textbooks;

-- '"Hands-on," semi-formal language seminars such as studying

opera in German and attending actual opera performances are

being offered;

- facility appeared to be adequate, well staffed, busy with both

military and family members and engaged both in language

instruction and testing. It was situated near both living

quarters and work areas.

d. 21st Support Command Staff, 4 Feb 86, 0900-1400:

- concern for language training among Reserve Component personnel and Reforger CSS elements;

- Perhaps more emphasis should be given to long term commitment

to language training and use of target languages;

* - key to maintenance and enhancement of language proficiency among

. .linguists is to enhance the personnel status of linguists, i.e.,

the self-image that they have an essential military mission

recognized and appreciated by the military chain of command.

General and technical language proficiency at prescribed levels

must be understood to be absolutely key in performing the military

job. Self-image is important both to linguists, language

teachers and language coordinators. Currently not enough is being

done in this area;

e. Discussion with 97B personnel in Pirmasens, 4 Feb 86, 1100-1300:

- "speakers course at DLIFLC needs more technical orientation

twoards the end (e.g., interview techniques/PSO procedures,

practice investigations in the target language);

- FLTCE rated extremely valuable by personnel who had attended;

- "perhaps more emphasis should be given to exchange programs,

use of the Goethe Institute, working directly with Germai and

French military intelligence services, etc. One agent who lived

with a German family found that this environment helped his

conversational skills;

- most students arriving from DLIFLC could read reasonably well

i A-17
I

in the target language but seriously lacked speaking and aural

comprehension skills. Some DLIFLC graduates had been noted to

have been on station 3 or 4 years and still could not converse

adequately. FLTCE helps develop or enhance conversational

skills.

- agent trained in French at DLIFLC and assigned to French slot

stated that his French language proficiency was not adequate.

Although he was stationed only about 10 km (6 miles) from the

French border and French counterparts were stationed nearby, his

contacts were so limited that he lost his language proficiency.

(Apparently the slot is being eliminated.);

- need pinpointed for more in-service unit technical language

training. (Perhaps most general vocabulary words but in the

military job context.);

- agent trained in Polish at DLIFLC stated that he had not received

Polish tapes from DLIFLC as he had thought would occur;

- !problems relating to dialects were discussed; in this particular

region dialects require mastery of many new words and word

meanings;

*positive value of having an authentic native speaker and an

American fluent both in the target language and military job

requirements (the technical language) team teach in refresher/

maintenance/enhancement training. Linguists need the native speaker but they also need to identify with an American who is particularly

q skilled in use of the target language in actual job performance;

- agents expressed a desire for informal, seminar classes which

are semi-structured. They seemed to prefer "hands-on," practical

language refresher training;

enlisted agents felt that a language-heavy bachelor degree

program would definitely provide a positive influence in

helping maintain language proficiency. They also felt -.a incentive pay would help in this area;

-" E-6/E-7s in the linguist areas apparently have marketable skills

outside the Army, hence many NCOs are leaving the Army to take

advantage of these opportunities;

-, problem of requiring a minimum of 6 persons for a language class

sponsored by ACES was discussed;

S (all agents exhibited a positive attitude; were bright and articulate in conversation and helpful in their insights regarding the language program.);

f. Discussions with V Corps ACES personnel, 5 Feb 86, 1000-1400:

- the greatest problems in non-resident foreign language

A-18 .
training was (1) lack of communications between MI and ACES

personnel and (2) failure of students to follow through with

classes once a teacher was hired and classes scheduled. With

regard to the first problem, the Corps language coordinator

did not know exactly where the MI elements were now located

in the Abrams Building. Apparently they had moved, put up partitions

seemingly in an attempt to isolate themselves. The language

coordinator had previously worked with them over the past 20

years or so but currently she had no contact with them. She

was unsure whether anything regarding language training for

linguists was ongoing within V Corps. Traditionally, three

communities (Frankfurt, Wiesbaden and Wildflecken) had such

training with Wiesbaden usually doing the most. (After some

inquiry, it was determined that no non-resident language training

for linguists was currently on-going in the Frankfurt Community.)

With regard to the second problem, in past years when the language

coordinator was actively involved in such training, she noted that

when the MI units asked for teacher to give a refreshermaintenance course and a teacher was hired and classes established,

attendance would invariably drop to a point where the class was

unproductive. Students would not attend regularly, thus creating

a frustrating situation. (Seemingly, retaining a "minimum

number of students" was a strong driving factor in V Corps

ACES to insure "cost effectiveness" of Army education;

Senior ESO, Frankfurt Community, emphasized the importance

of having 10 people to begin a class. He commented that

attendance by both MI and MP personnel was "appalling." If a

class began with 10, it might have 4 show up for one class, 8

for another class meeting, 5 for another, with not the same

students steadily attending. Also there was problem of "mixed

proficiency levels" within a particular class. This factor has

caused serious problems both for the instructor and the students.

, - Senior ESO, Frankfurt Community, had experienced difficulty

in acquiring appropriate instructors particularly in the Slavic/

Czech languages. In those languages, a "fresh" linguist (i.e.,

one who is current in language usage such as idoms, slang used in

home areas) is needed; often teacher applicants do not have

that "fresh" language ability. Also, "hands-on" reality in

language training presented problems. For MPs, classes could

possibly be directly related with MPs work such

as dire-ting barge traffic through Germany, Belgium and Holland;

but not much "hands-on" reality could be inserted by the instructor

for MI personnel. Consequently, language was taught primarily in

a social context; clases were not homogenous and attendance was

poor;

some recommendations offered by Frankfurt ESO: (1) students

be put on official orders to attend class, (2) 40-80 hour courses

be established which would meet 2-3 days per week for 2-4 hours,

(3) more exchanges be made with German linguists with German

m A-19

I.
sister divisions, (4) visual aids be developed for language

training (language classes are often boring; listening to tapes

is boring), something is needed to liven up classes, (5) an

instructor manual is needed to be developed and given to teachers

so they can better understand how best to teach various target

groups such as MPs and MI personnel and how to function in a class

with students at varying levels of proficiency, (6) that commanders

be "clipped" for lack of retention of language skills by unit

linguists.

_g. Discussion with ACES Regional Director, Berlin, 7 Feb 86, 0900-1030:

- Berlin education program is organized differently than rest of

USAREUR; e.g., education to include MOS-related courses were

funded through the German Government;

- need to evaluate effectiveness of instruction was stressed. A

problem experienced in Berlin was the varying levels of proficiency

among students in a class. This makes it difficult to teach

content effectively such as Eastern European Area studies in the

target language. The University of Maryland is apparently

preparing a diagnostic test to place students in classes

according to proficiency levels;

- foreign area studies program offered by the University of

Maryland seemed to have considerable promise.

Only a few courses are being taught in the target languages. If

the problem of variations in proficiency levels among students

can be controlled, perhaps additional courses could be successfully

taught in languages other than English;

- language training in Berlin was generally conducted in one of

3 ways: (1) in-house; (2) under contract with a school or

"h institute (Berlin personnel have a wealth of experience in

this area); (3) through a language laboratory;

-. ACES and MI/Field Station elements have strong, cooperative,

on-going working relationship in language training or linguists.

h. Discussion with 766th MI unit personnel, 7 Feb 86, 1030-1230:

- problem between strategic and tactical linguists surfaced;

a comment was made by a non-linguist MI officer about linguists

in tactical MI units who considered themselves "primadonnas"

who didn't want to get themselves dirty in the motor pool nor

go on extended field duty. Management of linguist personnel

was seemingly a serious problem such as 98Gs who had to go

back into military training. It was observed that some female

linguists deliberately became pregnant to avoid tactical tour

of duty;

- technical jargon was considered to be important but not sufficient;

* A-20
-

linguists need a basic grounding in the general language for

effective job performance. It was generally agreed that a strong

need exists for language. The audio-lingual approach at DLIFLC

several years ago had created some very poor graduates.

FLTCE was considered to be a good school but it kept soldiers out

Nof the unit for 6 weeks, hence rendering a hardship on the unit

and its mission accomplishment;

- "enlisted soldiers want privacy and money (Francis). Incentive

pay or monetary awards might be most effective motivation for

soldiers to maintain language proficiency;

- possible research question: what monetary incentive system

would be most cost effective in motivating soldier-linguists

to maintain and/or enhancing their language proficiency?

- FLTCE may wish to expand its program to include other languages

such as Polish. One linguist trained in Polish stated he had

lost all roficiency because of lack of use. (He was also a German

linguist.S;

- one Chief Warrant Officer stated that currently there is no

emphasis or reaction to results scored on the DLPT. He

suggested tying results of DLPT to Incentive Pay (make DLPT

results count);

e- suggestion was made to expand Redtrain; another suggestion

was to allow linguists every 3rd week to have several hours a

P day specifically for language training;

- other possible research questions:

Is pro-pay an effective incentive for linguists to maintain

their language proficiency level? If so, how much? For 2nd,

3rd languages as well as Ist foreign language?

Can degree-oriented education programs serve as an incentive?

If so, what kind of program?

How can soldierization and language training be appropriately

meshed together to help resolve the tactical/strategic linguist

problem?

Should specialist career programs exist for linguists whereby an

E-6/E-7 continues as a "master linguist" instead of leaving

that function to become strictly a manager of people?

Can MILPERCEN schedule refresher-maintenance language training

centrally as part of a soldier's career development program?

"A What interactive refresher-maintenance training materials which

employee visuals could be developed in a cost-effective manner?

A-21
-

Language tapes are boring. There is a need for interactive

system with visuals even if only a "dubbed" TV serial. "Spruce

up language training";1 "see as well as hear"; "it is no fun to

set and refresh your language skills using current tapes."

(Thornton)

pi. Meeting with DCDR, Field Station Berlin, 7 Feb 86, 1300-1430:

- need for evaluation to determine relevance of DLPT to job

performance;

- linguists such as 98Gs are facing increasingly complicated

challenges, not just in military jargon but in a wide-ranging

area of civilian terminology in relation to equipment, etc.

More and more responsibility on training. Learning difficulty is

increasing;

- strategic versus tactical linguists is a serious issue.

Tactical linguists who come to a strategic assignment are often

not capable of doing the military job;

- indigenous personnel have been used twice as linguists with

some promising results. But if indigenous personnel are to

be used in case of war, considerable planning is necessary;

- possible incentives include promotion points for language

study and a supplement of in-house language training with civil

schooling;

- OSD/HQDA should look at linguist recruiting more closely.

lq Recruiters should check out high schools with strong language

programs;

- DCDR suggested a talk with some linguists on site would be

productive;

j. Discussion with 9 98G linguists at T'berg, 7 Feb 86, 1500-1645:

- NSA LPT augmented with a speaking element would be preferable

to DLPT;

- lack of any image building incentives to maintain language

proficiency such as Army Commendation Medal. Money is not

all that important. "The Army is not giving you any incentives

to keep up language skills" said one linguist and others seemed

to agree;

tactical versus strategic linguist problem was dominant theme.

An E-7 supervisor of 41 German linguists stated that tactical

linguists coming to his unit "bombed out." One E-6 estimated

that over 70% of Army linguists were being wasted. Tactical

exercises are invariably being conducted in English; tactical

linguists have no opportunity to practice skills needed for war-

* A-22

', : .. _ :.-.•, -. .. .. ... , . ... -.. .. . .. .. . . .e. ... -. - .. -. ..-.
.T. 0

 . f. ! 7.?

 7J I. 

time mission. (One linguist who participated in this discussion

stated that he had been stationed as a tactical linguist at

Ft. Hood, Ft. Carson and with one tactical unit in Germany

and found this to be true at all these locations.) Language

training in tactical units was generally considered inadequate

and without "any rhyme or reason." Instruction was generally

not geared to the students and their particular needs. (Linguists

who had been to Ft. Hood believed no language program existed

there at all; those who had been to Ft. Carson found its

program inappropriate; one linguist who had been stationed at

Hunter Airfield beiieved its program to be excellent.) Most

were dismayed at the prospects of returning to a tactical unit

and would avoid it if possible.

-. possible research question: Develop a simulator or a series

of simulators which would allow tactical linguists to practice

wartime skill requirements? (Perhaps one is already under

development.);

FLTCE was highly praised by those who had attended. Dr. Funke's

vocabulary and grammar teaching was considered superb;

suggestions offered included (1) more access to civilian language

schools in CONUS, (2) a high quality BA or Masters Degree program

with heavy concentration on language. (University of Maryland

was not considered particularly "high quality." One linguist

who stated that he had no intention of re-enlisting (he was

getting out of the Army to use his VEAP/Army College Fund

benefits) stated without hesitation that if he could be assured of

a quality BA Degree program in-service he would re-enlist;

•" Ms. Kasischke's Russian classes drew high praise from Russian

linguists. Perhaps language advisors should be integral to all

Field Stations.

k. Discussion with VII Corps personnel, Stuttgart, 10 Feb 86, 1000-1350:

-- need exists for fresh, up-to-date foreign language materials

for use by language instructors (e.g., daily newspapers,

periodicals, Soviet and other Eastern Block books and materials

that are readily available at certain bookshops in West Germany.

Army regulations state that instructional materials must be

approved by DLIFLC. A regulatory provision should be adopted

which specifically authorizes this type of instructional material

and allows for its official procurement. (Apparently a spokesperson for DLIFLC has verbally approved of its procurement and use

in USAREUR language classes.) (Klein);

- need exists for authority to exist in USAREUR to evaluate

officially the oral portion of the DLPT III. Currently it

p.. takes DLIFLC approximately 3 months or more to evaluate this

part of the DLPT III and get results back to person taking the

A-23

'al
Ptest. Commanders want results in the immediate timeframe.

Linguists deserve to know their results earlier. New AR 611-6

requires testing annually which will put additional work load

on DLIFLC if current system continues. (Klein);

need to improve attendance of linguists at scheduled language

1training classes. Often language training has such a low

priority in MI units that every other function or detail imposed

by the chain of command takes precedence over attending a scheduled

refresher-maintenance language class with a paid instructor.

Perhaps student-linguists need to put on official orders to

attend these classes to insure that the chain of command is

committed to sending students on a regular basis. ISG and

" Company Commanders are often non-linguists and are not sensitive

to needs of linguists to maintain or enhance their language

skills, nor do they fully understand the perishable nature of

language learning and that it is not procedural learning.

(Klein);

-. suggestion: A procedure should be developed whereby materials

from Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty could be made available

to Army linguists for helping maintain their language proficiency.

(Klein);

contacts have been made with Herr Dr.h.c.Dohmen ("the Malcom

Knowles of Germany adult eduction") to explore the possibility of

an advanced degree program in Adult Education for American

personnel stationed in VII Corps. (McLeod);

comment: One German instructor who had just become a nationalized

American citizen by choice was quoted as saying after teaching

a refresher-maintenance German class for Army linguists: "If

these are the best of the U.S. Army linguists, my new country's

eyes and ears are so poor." He was in tears!;

1. Discussion with linguists from 207 MI unit, Coffee Barracks, 10 Feb 86,

1330-1500:

- as tactical linguists they never or very rarely ever used their

language skills in performing their military jobs. No interrogations

(97E) were conducted in target language; all were in English.

One 98G (Russian linguist) stated that he graduated from DLIFLC,

came to Germany, was assigned to a tactical MI unit, never used

his Russian language skills, lost much of his proficiency, was

sent to FLTCE where he regained proficiency to a point nearly

equivalent to where he was when he graduated from DLIFLC, came

back to his tactical unit where he never uses the language, and he

feels that he has again lost his proficiency to be an effective

linguist.

- some quotes: "A lot of 98Gs expected more out of the Army";

"if the balloon goes up, the Army will bomb out on language."

1 A-24
a general feeling expressed was that (1) the tactical MI companies

have all other priorities higher than language training or unit

training where foreign language skills are employed, (2) there

is no real need to maintain language proficiency because it is never

used (why attend language refresher-maintenance class, the ISGT

and the commander really don't care; they have much more important

things to worry about such as vehicle maintenance and beautification

of the company area and since linguists are never used in doing

what they were trained to do and they are generally intelligent,

they make excellent "gofors" or detail persons). Several linguists

stated that they had no idea what military mission their unit might

have which would require them to perform as 98Gs, 98Cs or 97Es using

their target language skills.

one linguist stated that he could name 4 female linguists who

deliberately got themselves pregnant in order to get a Chapter 8.

Another stated that he was re-enlisting just so he could get an

ITT to a field station and get out of this tactical unit.

use of technical language skills is not a part of a CEWI Bn

ARTEP; nor a 98G, 98C, 97E ITEP; nor tested on SQT (except on

98G). On recent field maneuvers, it was 8 days before any 98G

play at all. 97E stated a similar situation for them;

linguists thought that a language-heavy BA degree program

would be "great." They seemed to prefer a specialist career

management system for linguists. They preferred native speakers

to Army linguists as instructors.

(these soldiers did not appear to be chronic complainers; on

!P the contrary, they appeared as intelligent, highly articulate

U.S. soldiers who would like to do the military jobs that they

received almost a year's training to do. They really didn't seem to

mind the motor pool that much, if at least some recognition was

given to their specialties and they were expected to do those

specialty tasks on a reasonably high priority basis in conjunction

with motor pool chores. They resented being the "company gofors.");

m. Discussion with CW3 Billie L. Hogan, Training Officer, 103 MI Bn, 3rd

Inf. Div. Wuerzburg, 11 Feb 86, 1l00-1200:

(Mr. Hogan described himself as a former manager of instructors and

training of 98G and 98C AID at Goodfellow Air Force Base);

- "Army does not have a mission for tactical linguists.";

CEWI Bn deals with some of the worst vehicles in the Division.

Received new authorization tables almost yearly which requires

continuous shifting of prime movers. In these shifts, receiving

units nearly always receive the "dogs." What unit would give away its

best vehicles willingly! Consequently, a lot of emphasis is

needed on vehicle maintenance. "Your piece of equipment must

roll to the field." Since the MI Bn commander is rated by the

Deputy Division Commander for Support vehicle maintenance gets an

A-25

AiAl.fx 1* i i " I . I " I L X A .. i *I t i I~ ll ! .* . I"I . . iIt . .d h
extra high priority because that is one of that person's prime

interests;

- "No one cares if you can do your job as a 98G or 98C.";

the linguists stationed in the border residence offices, on

the other hand, do use their language skills. Personnel who

work with their language do not require maintenance training as

much as those who do not;

- tactical linguists cannot gain recognition by doing their job

within the MOS;

- 98Gs and 98C are working for people who are not nor have ever

worked in the MOS. Most have come up through the "tactical" ranks;

•-"linguists need good grounding in general language. "What

sentence is it that tells when the war is going to start.";

*. if the Army enforces the new requirement for 98Gs to be at a 1-1

proficiency in the target language, around 70% of the first term

98Gs in this tactical unit will be reclassified, predicts

this training officer. He stated that he would test at the

latest possible date (May) and the retest would then be scheduled

for November, but he would be gone by that time;

- "98Gs are poorly managed." "It is criminal the way we are

wasting them." "These are intelligent men and women, paid to

do jobs they are not doing." "We do not allow these kids to

have pride in themselves.";

'- VII Corps language specialist in ACES (Brust) is providing

all support possible; the problems are beyond his realm;

n. Discussion with Joe Hurd, former Ordnance Warrant, 11 Feb 86,

1230-1500:

- Technical Proficiency Inspections (TPIs) for special

weapons units are aimed at insuring that unit personnel are

capable of doing their technical jobs. They received tremdnous command emphasis. If a unit fails, seriosu consequences

followed;

- (If Army specialties that employ special weapons receive

such rigorous scrutiny, shouldn't Army specialties that may

trigger the use of such weapons also receive a certification

of unit technical competence?);

Wo. Discussion with FLTCE personnel, 12 Feb 86, 0900-1230; 1330-1500:

- thrust is toward speaking skills development; interactive

conversation seems to promote thinking and reasoning in the

target language. Other skills seem to tailor these skills.

m Writing does not seem important. "Speaking language correctly

A-26
i

requires all necessary elements.";

teacher is key; must be able to tailor instruction to the specific

student and his/her needs. Many teacher applicants are not

grounded in the various methods of instruction that may be employed

as situations arsie;

- school limited to Russian, German, and Czech. (Some difficulty

being experienced in filling German quotas.) Some inquiries

have been received concerning Polish and Arabic but no mission

or funds;

- FLTCE involves general language not technical language and is

based on the assumption that a good grounding in general

language is essential for these linguists and the DLPT is an

important measure of language proficiency;

- total immersion program where students reside with native

speakers is used for about 63 students per year. Although

differences between total immersion and non-total immersion

students have not been quantified, it is suspected that skills

retention will be longer with total immersion students;

- possible research question: What differences occur among

FLTCE students who are totally immersed as opposed to those

who are not;

- 80% of FLTCE students are from the Army: 814 (390-98G, 105-98C,

31-97E, 16-97B, 68-96C);

U - project Trojan will bring training mission into garrison;

linguists who received audio-lingual training approach at

DLIFLC are "permanently crippled.";

Army needs to prescreen language school applicants better;

Top 50% of DLAB will pass, of the bottom 50% half will fail

but we don't know which ones. (Rule of Thumb) Students with

strong background in the target language when coming into OLIFLC

may have a strategic advantage but there are tactical drawbacks;

- some people can never master a particular language; they will

achieve a maximum of 1 or 1+ but go no higher;

- possible research question: Develop model BA degree program

which is language-heavy and attach a 6 year enlistment option b in order to achieve it;

FLTCE is planning to install a satellite dish soon for receiving,

no transmission. With this, real time broadcasts will be available

for use in classes;

personnel at DLPT 2 level often can not understand ordinary

m news broadcast once by;

A-27
- FLTCE uses small classes (e.g., 3) in order to tailor instruction

to student and facilitate interactive speaking skills development;

- - (possible research question: Only excellent comments were heard

about FLTCE, it obviously has an excellent facility and capable

staff. Perhaps it should serve as a model for similar organizations

in other regions of the Army (CONUS, Far East, etc.);

" p. Conversation with Commander of 66th MI Group, 12 Feb 86, 1500-1545:

.. Intelligence Translation Aid should be included in an annotated

bibliography important in non-resident foreign language training;

* - Project Trojan is important to help, linguists train in home

stations. It should help field 98G gain same ability as those

assigned to a field station. (Col Lackey was concerned

about the use of terms such as tactical or strategic linguists

and cautioned about their use without being defined.);

- "DLI product needs to move and do business."'

recommendations: Go talk to some personnel from the 502nd in

Augsburg and in Field Station Augsburg if possible; check on the 82nd

problems in Grenada concerning language;

m q. Conversation with Mr. Wilkie, SQT Testing Bn, 66th MI Gp, 13 Feb 86,

0810-0900:

- no authorization document exist concerning equipment/facilities

needed in order to conduct DLPT testing. He was

using some temporary cassette players and experienced difficulties

in procuring any appropriate equipment because of the lack of any

authorization documentation. Someone should establish what is

required for language testing and in what environment should

this testing occur;

- the GEL Model CLLS-15 is preferred;

- no meetings or workshops are conducted reference language

testing (exception was an ACES conference where some mis-

-J information was given by the speaker who was not current in the

subject area);

r. Discussions with 18th MI Bn personnel, 13 Feb 86, 0900-1200:

- REDTRAIN personnel who come to the 18th use their language

skills. It is considered a successful training program;

- possible research question: Develop a language diagnostic test

that determines language training weaknesses. "The Army needs

a realistic means to diagnose language training weaknesses.";

*I A-28

F-o ', - " - . 2.- 
i

- Army needs a better initial screener for applicants to

DLIFLC;

* - "The Commander and the S-3 have a moral responsibility to keep linguists trained." (Doyle);

- people gain fluency through language usage. People communicate

in the language they are most comfortable in. People are

generally shy to speak in a language they are unsure about.

(Wedderman);

- excellent cooperation between 18th and Munich Army Education

Center staff. Class attendance had been 65%, now it is 85%

in ACES sponsored classes;

DLIFLC needs to do more in speaking skills especially for 97Es.

(2 Russian 97Es interviewed). DLI is perceived by them to be

skewed toward SIGNINT personnel;

.... FLTCE is considered "excellent.";

- difference between "tactical" 97E and "strategic" 97E is defined

(by Sp4 97E interviewed); A tactical linguist is in control

of the conversation; it is and interrogation. A strategic

linguist guides the conversation; it is a debriefing;

- some Russian is used in the operational section, need to use

more. (SP4 Russian 97E linguist);

s. Discussion with 502nd MI Bn personnel, Augsburg, 13 Feb 86,

1300-1530:

- need for more technical language training. Perhaps a 1+ on

S .DLPT would be sufficient for general language as a base if

appropriate technical language skills were developed, maintained

and enhanced as needed to do the job. (It was obvious that

these linguists (whose unit mission is support above Corps)

used their language skills on the job.);

- sometimes there are language maintenance problems when the chain

of command are non-linguists. This was not an apparent problem

at this time;

- there is a 98G track on SQT but some of 98Gs were working as

98Cs, consequently this test did not appropriately reflect job

performance;

- DLPT was not considered a measure of job performance. It had

little if anything to do with job performance;

' - (Idea of a technical language proficiency inspection was

conceived at this meeting. Perhaps an expert TLPI team

composed of warrant officers headed by an MI officer would be

* mdetailed to inspect and certify each CEWI annually as to its

"* A- 29

.4... * *.* . - .. s .
technical competence to perform its mission in the target languages.

Mobile Training Teams could be deployed to guide unit training

in preparation for the inspection. Failure to receive certification

would be grounds for relief of chain of command personnel held

responsible.);

-an award system similar to Parachutist Badge may be helpful if

standards are kept high; the idea of a language-heavy BA program

was well received; so was pro-pay;

- possible research question: Review Air Force, Navy, and Marine

use of 98Gs; determine what lessons that may be applicable to

the Army;

t. Discussion with Army Russian Institute personnel, 14 Feb 86, 1030-

1200; 1300-1430:

- FLTCE model is replicable;

- enlisted personnel might well work in the Soviet Forces Specialist

skills area proposal;'

- "Language is not everything but it is the beginning." Quote

from conversation by Ambassador Vernon Walters to Col

Stovall;

- 'perhaps a language element could be inserted in a C&GSC tactical map ai exercise to sensitize officers as to the importance of linguists;

language program needs someone in charge with enough authority

to make meaningful decisions;

u. Summary of key issues discussed:

- "Tactical" linguists are apparently not using their target

languages to perform their military jobs;

- the appropriate basic load of general language is undetermined

(some questions estimated from 1+ to 3 DLPT proficiency level).

Technical language skills need to be built on and around this

basic load of general language ability;

- value and use of DLPT is questioned. Personnel felt it had

little if anything to do with job performance;

- how to build and maintain a specific load of specialized

language;

- command support or the lack of it. Ways to achieve it;

- Conventional Language training is "boring"; need ways to "spruce"

it up;

. A-30
career management of linguists considered poor; most object to E-7s being driven out of field into pure management positions. Is there not a need for "master" linguist specialists?;

lack of incentives to maintain/enhance language skills.

Current system works more often as a disincentive than a positive

force to encourage excellence among linguists. Based on

conversations during this visit the following incentives would

appear the most attractive in more or less descending order:

perceived recognition that chain of command cares about

linguists and the mission that linguists are supposed to

be performing. Development of an effective awards system

that promotes self esteem for excellence is badly needed;

provide a quality Bachelor's Degree for linguist field

(part in-service; part civil schooling) all tied to retention

of quality personnel. (Of all incentives mentioned,

this one achieved the most favorable responses particularly

when coupled with possibility of Master's work for those

who already have a BA degree. Education is an especially

attractive incentive for intelligent, upward mobile personnel,

who are intent on improving themselves and making a promising

future happen for both themselves and their families. Most of

linguist personnel contacted during this visit seemed to be

in this category;

bonuses were attractive. But VEAP and the Army College V "Fund are disincentives for retention. Some linguists felt

compelled to get out of the Army in order to take advantage

of these "incentives.";

promise of working in a field station where linguists have a

"real" mission.

promotion points were especially attractive for E-4s and

E-5s. But few were happy that higher grades would be unable

to continue linguist functions;

incentive pay (pro-pay) Who would reject more money!

But this incentive received the least favorable reception

particularly if the perception that the chain of command is

giving such low priority to language proficiency and the

role of linguists continues to exist. (Soldiers seem to know

when they are being bought off.) (If the DLPT does not

reflect military job performance, why bother to maintain 2-2-2

proficiency level scores?);

v. Summary of secondary issues discussed:

--- evaluation of instructor applicants/criteria for hiring. (Is

it based on keeping incumbents or acquiring best talent?);

A-31
I

- evaluation of oral language component of DLPT III;

-. acquiring up-to-date, authentic, and interesting material for

language classes (visual as well as audio);

appropriate authorization documentation for language testing

facilities/equipment;

- training for instructors and language testers;

w. Summary of suggested research questions:

at what general language proficiency level (basic load) can

technical language be effectively and efficiently taught and

learned by Army linguists in order to perform properly the

military job?

- an evaluation to determine how well linguists are actually

performing their technical jobs;

- what is the relevance of DLPT to job performance?;

how can USAREUR/DLIFLC develop instructional materials that use

more technical language and more closely mirror job tasks of

linguists?;

- what monetary and non-monetary incentive systems would be most

cost effective in motivating linguists to maintain and/or enhance

their language proficiency and re-enlist for a second term of

service?;

- should specialist career programs exist (as exception to current

Army policy) for linguists whereby an E-6/E-7 continues in a role

of "master" linguist?;

what interactive refresher-maintenance training materials which

J employee visuals (and run on ACTO hardware) could

be developed in a rapid and cost-effective manner aimed at

relieving student boredom and enhanced learning;

- what quantitative and qualitative differences occur among FLTCE

students who are "totally immersed" and those who are not in

their 6 weeks of language training?;

I - review of U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps use of 98Gs

and their non-resident language training activities;

x. Summary of conceptual models that should be explored:

- BA language-heavy degree program aimed at Army linguists'

needs;

- FLTCE as a model for other geographical regions;

A-32
- use of Technical Language Proficiency Inspection system augmented

with mobile training teams to assist in unit training to prepare

for unit inspection/certification;

- insertion of language element in C&GSC map exercise;

y. Suggested areas that this investigator should review as part

of this study:

. - Project Trojan

- 82nd Div. experience in Grenada regarding language;

0 14 Mar 86: Visited National Cryptologic School, National Security Agency,

Friendship Annex, near Fort Meade, Maryland. Talked with Jim Painter,

Staff Assistant to the Dean; Gil Estridge, Chief of E12, and Dr. Schwarzkopf,

Dean of NCS. Results of that visit included:

a. better understanding concerning NSA's use of civilian educational

institutions for language training. The University of Hawaii is

being used as "bed of Pacific basin languages." This program is

principally for NSA civilian employees. College credit is purely

incidental to learning. Experience with civilian educational institutions

has ranged from good to poor. Thus far the program at University of

m Hawaii has been very satisfactory. Yon Sei University, Seoul, Korea,

has also provided some good courses. the emphasis is on listening

and reading in the target languages;

b. a discussion concerning the use of educational institutional (e.g.,

George Washington, Yale, Syracuse, and Indiana Universities) in the

q 1950s to provide basic foreign language instruction. Military

terminology was stressed in these contracted programs. Some of these

courses were rated as "extremely successful." Graduates generally

came to first duty assignment with a basic load of vocabulary suitable

for operating in a military environment;

O6 c. a recommendation that a specialist career program for linguists be

investigated as an exception to Army policy;

d. a recognition that a tactical CEWI Battalion has no active peacetime

intelligence gathering mission. By lack of a proper initial basic

course in language training at DLIFLC and by lack

of language usage and/or extended language training at permanent

duty assignments have caused the Army to be "full of incompetent

linguists.";

b e. a review of how the Navy uses its intercept/analysis personnel (Navy

CTI). 98G and 98C are one rating. The Navy has a Foreign Language

Maintenance Proficiency Program and use Scenario Training units

(STUs). It has a FLMA examination that covers all job relevant

areas. A sailor can receive one of three scores: (1) failed,

A-33
a

(2) passed but not direct support qualified; (3) qualified intercept. The Army could do well by looking at the Navy and its foreign language maintenance programs for intercept operators.

f. a discussion of work being done by Technical Language Systems, Inc.,

San Angelo, TX. This company has developed diagnostic tests (discreet

item tests). Based on deficiencies noted when students take these

tests, a functional language program is developed to correct weaknesses

and language deficiencies. Training modules are then provided to

the students. This process has been automated;

g. a suggestion that all Army linguists be assigned to one command and

then sent TDY back to tactical commands as needed;

* h. a possible research question: What effect does non-language utilization

have on soldier-linguist retention?;

i. the need for good grounding in English prior to engaging in foreign

language training. The Air Force Language Analysis Course was an

attempt at improving English prior to being sent to DLIFLC;

* j. another possible research question: How accurate is the DLAB and

what effect does motivation have in relation to the DLAB?;

k. recommendation that students at DLIFLC be geographically separated

by MOS for the last 1/3 of the course (upper class). Specific military

language context could be taught during this period;

1. both native speakers and U.S. trained language instructors are essential

for a good refresher maintenance program. The native speaker is

needed for language correctness. The U.S. trained language

instructor is required to insure the context and that military needs

are being met (snytactical explanation);

,6

o 14 Mar 86: Visited the Soldier Support Center (MDW branch), Hoffman II,

Alexandria, VA. Talked with Maj. Michael Baier, who is a Vietnamese and

Korean linguist, and with William T. Badey, Chief, Combat Arms Branch,

Army Occupational Survey Program. Results of this visit included:

a. a better understanding concerning use of linguists in Korea based

on Maj. Baier's experience;

b. a discussion on the mission for tactical CEWI Bn. Perhaps it is to shoot,

jam and exploit; but it has not been properly developed in detail

nor resourced;

c. a finding that there is little if any occupational data in the survey

branch regarding language, use of language, or language training for

98G, 97E, 97B, etc.;

0 20 Mar 86: Visited the U.S. Army Intelligence Center and School (USAICS).

Talked with the following key personnel:

IA-34
i

- Dr. Glen Kjos - USAICS languagte initiatives briefing;

- Maj. Jackson - Chief, Individual Training Division;

- Mr. Reuss - Extension Training Team;

- Mr. Marchant - Extension Training Team;

- Mr. Delajoux - Military Intelligence Proponency Office;

* - CW3 Chlarson - Department of Human Intelligence, Exploitation Division

SFC Van Haunt - Department of Human Intelligence, Exploitation

Division

SSG Auditat - Department of Human Intelligence, Exploitation

bDivision

*Results of this visit included:

a. a better understanding concerning the language training initiatives

underway at USAICS (e.g., Army Unit Language Training Program, Military 3 Intelligence Language Survey and Analysis Project, inter active video

disc effort on Map Tracking, etc.;

b. a briefing concerning how USAICS was approaching the foreign language training problem (by phases):

- First Phase: address interrogator language training at USAICS

(i.e., insure sustainment of language skills during AIT), hence

the development of the Technical Proficiency Dialogue

Examination (TPDE) and other initiatives to help the "school

house" do its job;

Second Phase: Endorse existing language training products.

"USAICS will not dictate how to do unit training." It attempts

to standardize quality fo training products, but not the methodology;

- Third Phase: Develop a coherent language training system using,

to the degree possible, advanced instructional technologies.

USAICS is developing the Job Performance Language Test. It

hopes to have 98G test in 9 languages by 1986. It plans to

have 97E test in 10 languages by 1987, 98CL/97B tests are lagging

behind the 98G and 97E efforts;

c. the suggestion that a TRADOC Systems Manager for language be established

and that individual operate from Fort Huachuca. Several TRADOC systems

Managers are located at Fort Huachuca in areas that TRADOC deems

important. Such a position would focus on language training and

initiatives on-going in the language arena. (A part of the problem has been, over the years, a lack of understanding and priority given

to language training by TRADOC.) "Horse power" is needed to front this

m effort; A-35

* ; L ' \ - < .T ' . 4 _- . _ N:.. - % ... j. , , - ,, .... ,, , .. ..
I

d. the capabilities to teach, operate and do research using foreign

languages within USAICS appear extremely limited. Some indications

were inferred (not from Dr. Kjos) that USAICS would like to consider

DLIFLC "the schoolhouse for foreign language training" and USAICS

to operate as much as possible in an English speaking environment.

The integration of general and technical language training must occur.

USAICS would appear to be where it is suppose to start;

e. USAICS does send Battlaion Training Teams on visits throughout the

Army. They brief doctrine, listen to complaints, answer questions

when possible, and attempt to resolve problems;

f. 97E training is initially done in English and then applied in

target languages. the students are graded principally by their

abilities to perform 97E tasks in English;

g. possible research areas: Development of a proper mechanism to

that technical ability of an interrogator linguistically;

25 Mar 86: Visited 124th Infantry Division and Fort Stewart, GA. Talked

with the following key personnel:

- LTC Green - Commander, 125th MI BN;

- Maj Clark - S-3, 124th MI BN

- Gary Baker - Installation Education Division Office;

SCarol Woods - Education Services Specialist;

- Will Hodges - Education staff member who supports the 124th

MI BN;

- Mr. Diemetry - Contracted Arabic Instructor;

- 2 97E Arabic linguists (one E-6; one E-3);

Results of this visit include:

a. a much better understanding and appreciation for the mission, operations

and training of a tactical MI BN. Since MI soldiers must be well

forward in battlefield configuration (near FEBA or even

beyond in enemy territory) and have little if any infantry support,

MI soldiers must be trained like Infantrymen to survive the rigors

of that battlefield environment (Army 21; AirLand Battle-2000).

Emphasis must be placed on individual and crew served weapons training,

NBC training, physical fitness, continuous operations capability,

equipment maintenance and other common soldiering tasks. While

fixed units with peacetime surveillance mission can concentrate on

duty performance using target languages, tactical field units must

be highly proficient in a number of different technical areas to • .' include the art of survival. Language proficiency is but one of many

critical operational requirements;

m A-36

...............................
I

b. DLPT does not reflect job technical language performance. It appears

to be uneven among languages at the adjusted score level. In order

to achieve a DLPT score of 2 (using the adjusted scores) means scoring

more right answers in some languages than in other languages. The

ability of the unit to enhance language ability to meet FORSCOM DLPT

standards is little to non-existent. The gap between DLIFLC graduate

ability on DLPT and the FORSCOM DLPT requirements is too great. Large

chunks of Arrival Language Training is necessary. This should occur

before individuals are assigned in tactical positions. At least they

should be able to achieve the FORSCOM minimum DLPT standards. Then

r maintenance, not enhancement, is the language proficiency mission

for tactical MI soldiers;

. c. tactical units need non-commissioned officers, not shift supervisors.

0% Specialist career programs would not be suited to a tactical unit's

needs. There is a need for more tactical NCOES program

(BNCO/ANCO). Cadre must be tactically and technically proficient;

d. MI unit training needs to be equated with combat arms training;

hence "MI Gunnery.";

e. Project Trojan may help achieve greater technical proficiency;

f. MOS and grade mis-match serious in 124 MI BN. Often E-4's work

in E-6 or E-7 positions. Authorizations versus fill by MOS show wide

variance. Total numbers of authorization versus assigned personnel

wold lead one to believe the unit was up-to-strength. But MOS and

grade mis-match requires major shifting and cross-training of personnel;

g. no target language usage has been incorporated into the National

Training Center scenario. Possible research question: how can technical

language usage be made integral to the National Training Center

training experience? (The Combined Intelligence Team appears to

primarily support combat arms operations during that time.) If

technical language usage is inserted in the scenario, where? before

the maneuver battle or during the battle or both?

h. linguist receive no formal integration training regarding general

and technical language requirements. This should occur during

arrival language training or during the last 1/3 of DLIFLC Basic

Course (or both);

g. FLAMRIC ARABIC is of no value in training Arabic Egyptian;

h. DLPT III is in "Basic Arabic." It may not reflect need for

linguists who must operate in dialect.

i. Syrian dialect at BYU contracted course was not considered effective

by a linguist participant;

j. Arabic Criterion-referenced test developed by Technical Language

Systems, Inc., 3115 Loop 306, Suite 102, San Angelo, TX 76904,

considered good.

A-37

Ular
21-22 Apr 86: Visited DLIFLC. (Second visit) A read ahead packet with

draft Sections IV, V and VII were Federal Expressed to Dr. Otto Kahn,

ARI Field Unit, Monterey, prior to visit in order for feedback both

from ARI and DLIFLC. Talked with the following key personnel:

- Colonel Monte R. Bullard, Commandant, DLIFLC

- Dr. Ray Clifford, Dean, DLIFLC

- Dr. John Lett, Evaluation and Research Division

- Dr. Martha Herzog, Chief of Testing

- Dr. John Sohn, Chief of Evaluation and Research Division

- Major Tom Hooten, Acting Assistant Dean for evaluation and Standardization

- Mr. Victor Shaw, member of Evaluation and Research Division

- Mr. Hank Marshik, Chief of Non-Resident Instruction

- Maj. Bien, Chief of Extension Course Development

- Mr. Dave Shoemaker, Project Manager, New Systems Training Division

- LTC Troche, POC for Reserve Components, at DLIFLC

- Mr. Michael J. Cudlip, ATRM-S, HQ TRADOC, Fort Monroe, VA 23651--

(804) 727-2214

S- Dr. Otto Kahn, ARI Field Unit, Presidio of Monterey, CA

- Others involved with New Systems Training at DLIFLC

Results of this visit include:

a. Valuable feedback concerning draft Sections IV, V and VII of the

Final Report to include updating on the Skills Change Project, the

Language Needs Assessment, the Pankratz Study Group report, DLPT

testing and initiatives on-going with New Systems Training. This

information has a direct bearing on the draft report. This

information received will be reflected as the final report is

further developed;

b. Suggestion to staff the final report, in draft, through agencies that have been involved in providing information. This, in effect,

would bring out additional thoughts and information relevant

toward making the report a usable document;

c. Suggestion to staff the final report through BG. Brashears,

ODST, HQ TRADOC (ATTG-Z);

l A-38

,,,?:.' I % * % * * ~ . .~
d. Information that HQ TRADOC considers that it has a "very restricted"

scope with regard to development of fighting doctrine that relates

to role and use of foreign languages and foreign language training

and training technology that leads to tactical and technical

proficiency in the U.S. Army. Apparently, HQ TRADOC feels that

this prerogative has been retained by OCSI, HQDA. It delegated

some areas directly to USAICS. (CUDLIP);

e. Apparently TRADOC TTA is planning to establish a branch at DLIFLC.

This effort shoudl increase DLIFLC research and development

capabilities. DLIFLC is being considered as a possible National

Research center for Foreign Languages;

f. A composite of DLPT III, SQT, and JPLT was considered best measure

of technical language proficiency;

g. Demographic data on characteristics of the linguist learner

are expected as a result of the Skill Change Study;

. h. DLIFLC is assuming a mission to have graduates at a 2 level

proficiency. Non-resident materials will assume that participants

once were at a 2 level;

i. Readily usable tactical operations voculatory is being used

in the JOREMA series of refresher-maintenance materials. Commandant

expects these short lesson cassettes to be available within a short

period of time (e.g., a year or so). A model Chinese JOREMA

has been developed. Apparently, the PDPEC materials

are considered too long and require too much time and effort to

produce. The need is non-resident training is for quick and simple

instructional materials;

j. Many misconceptions are held concerning language training. Dean,

DLIFLC, reviewed some of these areas and proposed a new framework

V, for selection, development and use for linguists;

k. Copies of Language Needs Assessment, the Pankratz Report, the

misconception briefing notes and DLPT testing briefing notes

were provided to the investigator for use in this study.

o-.7 May 86: Took final report (draft) to Dr. Joan Harmon, ARI, for

L comments.

o 20 Mar 86: Met with Maj. J. Cox, OASCI HQDA, to discuss report. Dr.

Harmon was present.

Results of this meeting includes feedback needed to finalize report.

28 May 86: Visited Hazeltine Corporation Training Systems Center, 10800

Parkridge Boulevard, Reston, VA, to be briefed on the Spanish Video Disc

project currently under development for the Central Intelligence Agency.

* Met with Dr. Lois S. Wilson, Courseware Manager, Jerry Moore, Director of

Government Marketing and Suzanne M. Quadt.

*I A-39
I

Results of this visit includes a better understanding concerning the

courseware development of the Spanish Video Disc project. Such courseware

may be applicable for helping develop survival level Spanish language (Latin

America) skills among Army personnel.

A-40

.......................................... .
LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS BY MOS

Officers (A 61-2. A J r 8 )

I8 - Special ODris

31 - MP

35A - Tac In~tel!

35B4 - Strat irntel

3 5C - Imaaery Exoloit --- noc lannuarie reOL11ren soec ..Tapz

36A -C T

36B' - HLJMINT

37A - Tac SIGINT/EW

37B - Strat SIGINT/EW _ I

48 - Foreiarn Area Officer lariD Uate DrOfi Ci ercy &wmernr

A - Security Assist..........area & lar Uage exoertise7 ao~rc'oriat~p

fcor specific assirorier:.

B - PSYP.............area & lariMLuage expertise azDrc-riate

for speci.fic assicrimsrnt"

C - Attache............. krncwlecmre cf -... l1arjCLIa~;e Of CcUr'Itrv to

&whien assionrec"

D - Civil Affairs..........area & larigUage exp~ertise &iz)o r-o)r ia T.e

for speci fic assa zrimnt"

F - Civil Military Oprns . . ".area & lanrIuape exoertise aDrc'zr-ia-te

for Specific assicrimernt" .. d - Politico-T-ihitary Affairs " area & larQUare exDertase amorc'Draate

d for specifi c assa nmenT.

Warran~t Officers (AR 61-11CE' Jan 85)

180 - Special Oons. Tech . . . . llreo.iornal xrnowleoe A. exoer-ierjce In a

specified ceooraomical ar-ea (to

incluce lariouarge & arj-cc'urtry

eX Der i erce) . 961 - frttacne 7ec ......... DLAEB of 89 or, hioher

964 - OPTecJ971 - CI Tecni I --- n~o larQUaoe reouireent soecifiez-

* 972~ - Area Iritell Tech

973 - Irterrocat-icn Tecn . . . . Imnifluflm reabirg &- szeakirnm coTj,'Lre-E-s,-

si c'r rat ing of R3, S3 in a foreig zn

lanZuaCe.... ftiusL- be a.l tO CCnc1(UCt'

i nzerrc'r at icon irn this, fcrei-in langUaoe & t.-rc'unn an irteroreter'

982E - Traffic Analysis Tech -

983 - ELINT Tech

*984 - Morse Irntcp Tech J --- rno larnuLaDe reCUiren-i soeca-fied

985 - Nc'rmcrse Iritco Tech

986 - DF Tech _1

988 - Voi±ce Irntco Tech ........ read, write, cc'rmprernencd, transcribe A

transl ate a desi orated fc'reizr yr jL.

uia oe"
Enilisted (AR 611-2E0. JUr, 65)

05D) - EW1J/SGINT Icoerit/L-csc I

0 I5H - EW/SISINT Intcp-IM.C I

05r( - E W/ S I G IT N -M Itr4co)

18? - Spec Dons Won, S ot

18 C - Soec Dpns Eno-r Sot

18D - Spec ODris Myed Sot rice no.arnouaoe reoualrernerst £oec i Fc:

ISE - Spec Dons Cc'rnrnoIC Sot

18F - Spec Dons Intel 1Sot I

95B -MP

96? - Intell PrialystI

96D - Irnacerv Pnalvst

96F - PSYOP Spec .......... DLP of 89 or- nioner

97B - C-I Poeent...........DJP of 89 or bi-oher

9 7C - Area intel.' Spec ......... area studGy, incluono tnetats

c'ust OCTflS. C~LItL~re, & :c'verrT'.Ernt of

soeca fPI ec;C cUnt ry"

97E - Interrooator..........'e able to soeak Enjzlisn- & fm--reion

.lanjZ~ues idiomaticallyEswtiu

obiect onanl e accenst or airt ccci, merjt';

"neave a basic uncerst anrc u olf

oeoc-raohic. social, econoorrcic. f&

Donitica: conditions of at Icas: oe Strea on coury, area, or focce 'n

wnicn- a foreimr lantLuave IS soo-,er as

tne native tonioue."

ECL-T score of 100 or hiober

1L .. .. .. .. .. .. .DLPE, of 89 or- hioner: APC Ld/ a r "a

foreigon lanoulaoe"

S......................................RC LI/RI. PC L2/R":: in "a for&e.cnj

1 anCLlame"

L .. .. .. .. .. .. .RC LrC/,R3. PC LS/RZ in "a forejon

1 anC Liane"

97G SISSEC Spec...........n lancan2e reouire"ert soecdfiec;

96C0L- EW/SIGINT Analyst . - rice ianouace reO.uirement soecataeo;

p980 - EW/SIGINT Voice Intco DLP 89 or bimhe-r; "oossess a know-ecce

of a specific foreion laf)Zuace"

98J - EW/SIGINT NC Intco .rc no lannuI~ane requirement sc'ecafaeo

* 8-2
t

Zi OFFICER AS OF 30 NOV 85

(Source: OPD STAT REPORT - 7, DAPC-OPD-D)

9KCI/GRADE AUTH ON HAND %FILL ODP %ODP FEM OP %AUTH %OPER

35/0-6 96 99 103% 96 103% 1 1% 1%

0-5 328 310 95% 307 101% 5 2% 2%

' 0-4 581 500 86% 484 103% 24 4% 5%

0-3 1245 911 73% 847 108% 199 16% 22%

" 0-1/2 643 938 146% 885 106Z 262 41% 28%

*'OTAL 35 2893 2758 95% 2619 105% 491 17% 18%

...36/0-6 33 23 70% 33 70% 0 0% 0%

0-5 93 89 96% 86 103% 2 2% 2%

> 0-4 265 174 66% 220 79% 10 4% 6%

0-3 406 249 61z 258 97% 60 15% 24%

S 0-1/2 0 117 N/A 59 117% 42 N/A 36%

-:OTAL 36 797 652 82% 656 99% 114 14% 17%

1137/0-6 39 36 92% 39 92% 0 0% 0%

" 0-5 124 108 87% 118 92% 3 2% 3%

0-4 258 199 77% 217 92% 10 4% 5%

0-3 556 331 60% 399 83% 77 14% 23%

0-1/2 N/A 162 N/A 66 245Z 44 N/A 27%

._0TAL 37 977 836 86% 839 100% 134 14% 16%

SqOTAL I 4667 4246 91% 4114 103% 739 16% 17%

c-1 r "LA -A
WARRANT OFFICER AS OF 31 DEC. 85

(Source: CW4 Johnson, NILPERCEN, and OPMD STAT Report - 7, DAPC-OPD-D)

NoS AUTH ON HAND VILL ODP Z FEM OP Z AUTH ZOPER

285A 79 74 762 60 123Z 2 22 32

961A 56 64 94Z 61 116% 1 2% 2%

962A 87 75 522 67 115Z 3 2% 4%

' 964A 122 94 502 84 ilz 5 32 5%

. 971A 389 310 65Z 251 1102 1 0.22 0.32

972A 103 90 742 42 113Z 0 02 Oz

r 973A 165 114 692 104 1102 5 32 42

982A 231 141 612 140 1012 6 32 4%

983& 93 57 612 53 1082 0 0% O

984A 32 22 692 16 1382 0 0% 02

W985 17 20 118% 11 182Z "0 0% 02

" 986A 19 18 952 13 1382 1 52 62

988A 84 62 74% 37 1682 1 12 2%

.. OTAL 1736 1141 662 1000 1412 25 12 22

C-2

''b*e ' ,v;K ~.*~.
ENLISTED AS OF 31 JAN 86

(gource: COPO45 as of 31 January 1986; does not reflect CMI 96 restructure)

ROTE: Blank spaces denote non-applicable data.

MOS/GRADE AUTH OPER %FILL INTCH OPER FEM ZINTCH ZOPER NO. Pl Z P1

269/E-1 9 19 2112 9 3 33Z 16Z

THRU E-3

E-4 18 39 217% 18 7 39% 18%

z-5 10 18 1802 10 0 Oz 0z

61-6 22 28 1272 22 0 02 02

TOTAL 26E 59 104 176Z 59 10 172 10Z 0 0z

26F/E-1 2 12 6002 2 0 02 02 THRU 9-3

E-4 8 15 188Z 8 0 0z 02

z-5 4 6 150Z 4 0 02 0z

*'OTAL 26F 14 33 236% 14 0 02 0 0 0z

03M/E5 67 38 57% 67 0 0 02

-6 38 51 1342 36 1 32 22

1-7 112 89 792 112 1 12 12

00TAL 33M 217 178 822 217 2 1z 1z 0 02

N33P/E-1 27 16 59% 27 0 02 O

NHRu 1-3

E-4 92 109 1182 92 10 11z 9z

z-5 42 63 1502 42 3 72 52

E-6 66 62 94Z 66 3 52 5Z

E-7 1

."OTAL 33P 227 251 11z 227 16 72 62 0 02

22 5127.20

C-3
_.--,7

MOS/GRADE AUTH OPER %FILL INTCH OPER 11M %INTCH ZOPER NO. P1 2 P1

I 33Q/E-1 32 11 34% 32 1 3% 9%

&R u Z-3

1-4 94 94 100z 94 12 13% 13%

E.-5 44 54 123Z 44 3 7% 6%

E-6 59 71 120Z 59 3 5% 4%

'OTAL 33Q 229 230 100% 229 19 8% 8% 0 OZ

6 33R/1-1 35 7 20% 22 0 0% oz

bilHRU 1-3

E-4- 55 21 38% 39 2 5z 10%

E-5 28 23 82Z 23 1 4Z 4%

1-6 48 37 45Z 46 2 4% 5%

TOTAL 33R 166 96 58Z 130 5 4Z 5% 36 22Z

33S/1-1 3

THRU E-3

g--4 1

E-5 0

- E-6 1

IOTAL 33S 5

, 33T/E-1 76 26 342 52 2 3Z 8%

" .HRU 1-3

z 1-4 165 152 922 111 16 14Z l1z

1-5 123 118 96% 90 7 8% 6%

1-6 104 113 109% 99 5 5% 4%

1-7 98 75 77Z 94 1 1% 1z

7OTAL 33T 566 484 86% 446 31 7% 6% 120 22%

C-4

.' ": ( ;; -k . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

",. 5 '.".. . . .. " . .. . . . . .. . . . . ., . , , . . , , . ,, . Z ,..J
NOS/GRADE AUTH OPER ZFILL INTCH OPER FEM ZINTCH ZOPER NO. P1 z P1

33Z/Z-7 4

--8 42 38 91% 42 0 02 O

1-9 11 4 36% 11 0 0% 0%

TOTAL 33Z 53 46 872 53 0 Oz 0% 0 02

OTA.L CM 33

1531 1427 93% 1375 83 6% 6% 156 102

N

W

.C.

5',

.5.

U

n-
I

NOS/GRADE ADTH OPER VILL INTCH OPER FEM ZINTCH lOPER NO. P1 z P1

05G/1-1 17 11 65Z

THRU E-3

E- 15 3 201

3-5 13 4 31Z

2-6 15 2 13%

1-7 17 1 6%

3-8/9 3 0 0%

N"1,AL 05G 80 21 261

17K/E-1 24

VHRU 9-3

3-4 47

z3-5 69

3-6 67

1 3-7 25

E-8 7

4 IOTAL 17-K 239

7 z-

-E

4 6

93-5 4

3-6 8

"'TAL 17M 20

,..961/E-1 150 206 1371 96 57 59Z 28Z

:..HRU E-3

E-4 306 349 114Z 210 83 40Z 24%

1 3-5 609 631 1041 420 134 32Z 211

3-6 688 737 107Z 427 156 37Z 21%

3-7 547 399 73Z 443 38 91 101

1-8 367 211 571 294 4 11 2%

3-9 3

rOTAL 961 2667 2536 95Z 1890 472 251 19% 777 29%

C-6 p ** p p p
I : FL

NOS/GRADE AMTH OPER VILL INrC OPER FMN ZINTCH ZOPER NO. P1 z P1

96C/-1 14 6 30%

.q W. E-3

E- 31 16 - 52Z

3 1-5 11 4 36Z

E-6 41 5 121

z,-7 44 4 9z

E-8 0

E-9 1 0 02

TOTAL 96C 142 35 25Z

1*6D/E-l 71 76 107Z 71 51 72Z 671

E-4 120 78 65Z 115 17 15Z 22Z

z-5 165 149 90Z 150 39 26Z 26%

E-6 124 122 981 119 23 19Z 19Z

E-7 126 108 86Z 117 8 7z 7z

E-8 39 34 88Z 36 0 oz. 01

%OTAL 96D 645 567 88Z 608 138 23Z 24Z 27 6Z

0 96F/Z-1 5 5 1ooz 5 0 oz oz

I.Hm z-3

z-4 48 33 69Z 48 7 151 21Z 4..

.E 1-5 66 40 611 66 12 181 30Z

'-6 46 29 63Z 46 4 91[ 14Z

"-7 33 13 39Z 33 1 3% 81

E-8 9 8 891 9 0 OZ OZ

TOTAL 96F 207 128 62Z 207 31 15Z 24Z

.,:::

II c-7
I. .

NOS/GADE AUTH OPER VFILL INTCH OPEl FEM INTCH lOPER NO. P1 z P1

96R1-1 23 12 52Z 23 4 1"7z 33Z

_4 20 17 85% 20 3 15% 18Z

E-5 24 32 133Z 24 2 8% 7Z

z-6 29 27 93Z 29 4 14% 15%

:-"E-7 22 19 86Z 22 0 0% 0%

TOTAL 96H 118 107 91% 118 13 -""1iz 12%

"; 961/E-1 216 137 63Z 216 100%

THRU 3-3

E 3-4 355 556 157% 355 100%

z-5 330 241 73%. 330 100%

E-6 197 127 64% 197 100%

E-7 56 36 64% 56 100%

E-8 35 21 60% 35 100%

3YrA, 961 1189 1118 94% 1189 100%

96Z/E-8 4 . 0 0%

p,-, 'r 96Z/E-9 57 50 882 55 0 0% 0%

0TAL 96Z 57 54 95% 55 0 0% 0% 2 4%

'--7B/E-1 34 12 35%

TU'U E-3

A:o 1-4 25 43 172% 18 11 44% 26%

z-5 205 239 117% 176 42 20% 18%

z 3-6 318 322 101% 289 49 17% 15%

3-7 374 199 53% 335 17 5% 9%

3-8 111 100 90% 102 0 0% 0%

,"'E-9 11 11 100% 11 0 0% 0% 0 0%

TOTAL 973 1044 950 91% 931 131 14% 14% 113 11%

C-8
O NOS/GILADE AUTH OPEl VILL INTCH OPEl FEM ZINTCH ZOPER NO. P1 z P1

97C/-6 18 8 44% 18 0 OZ O

E-7 35 16 46% 35 2 6% 132

zI-8 20 21 1052 20 0 0% OZ

E-9 1

LJrTAL 97C 73 46 63% 73 2 3% 4%

.971/E1 48 23 48%

amu z-3

E-4 145 269 186% 87 76 87% 32%

"/ 1-5 140 145 104% 103 41 40% 28%

E-6 215 165 77% 184 34 18% 21%

E-7 126 55 44Z 114 2 2% 4%

"TOTAL 97E 626 682 109% 488 176 36% 26% 138 22%

79

G/E-l 24 44 183% 24 27 1132 61%

1-4 114 207 182% 104 41 39% 20%

E-5 119 118 99% 113 18 16% 15%

E-6 84 89 106Z 81 18 22% 20%

S1-7 67 63 94% 62 1 2% 2%

E --8 19 15 79% 19 0 0% 0%

E-9 5 7 140Z 5 0 0% 0z

'ITOTAL 97G 432 543 126% 408 105 26% 19% 24 6%

"TOTAL C)F 96 7058 7212 102% 4778 1124 24% 16% 2280 32%

(-96R) 5869 1091 19%

.U C-9
S.

"NOS/GRJDE AUTH OPEl ZFILL INTCH OPEl FEM ZINTCH lOPER NO. P1 2 P1

05D/E-1 47 26 55Z 47 9 192 352

.1U 1-3

E-4 99 200 2022 97 68 702 34%

9. 1-5 87 149 1712 85 27 322 182

1-6 56 63 1132 56 8 142 132

7'OTAL 05D 289 438 1522 285 V 392 262 4 12

r. 05R/E-1 321 176 55Z 321 28 92 16%

L-1RU E-3

E-4 354 798 2252 354 157 442- 202

z-5 357 512 1432 310 148 482 292

E-6 191 187 982 187 33 182 18Z

E-7 181 216 119Z 177 10 62 52

g-8 8.

,OTAL 05H 1404 1897 1352 1349 376 28% 202 55 42

05K/E-1 84 62 742 84 28 332 452

E-4 211 293 1392 211 124 592 422

E 1-5 325 388 1192 325 117 362 302

E-6 155 164 1062 155 30 192 182

E-7 90 96 1072 90 3 32 32

1-8 7

SOTAL 05K 865 1010 1172 865 295 342 292 0 02

98C/E-1 298 57 192 268 17 62 302

2-4 536 694 1292 466 224 482 322

1-5 672 718 1072 586 194 332 272

E-6 365 386 1062 340 72 212 192

E1-7 274 232 852 252 15 62 62

1g-8 5

TOTAL 98C 2145 2092 982 1912 522 272 252 233 112

C- 1 0

I# *I4 
NMOS/GRADE AUTH OPER IFILL INTCH OPER lEM ZINTCH ZOPER NO. P1 % P1

98G/1-1 99 21 212

-4 1214 467 38Z 751 101 13Z 22Z

-1-5 819 833 102Z 562 263 47% 32Z

1-6 441 464 105Z 405 68 17% 15Z

E -7 306 267 871 247 18 7Z 7Z

E-8 19 19 1OO1 18 0 02 OZ

:ZTAL 98G 2799 2149 77Z 1983 471 242 22Z 816 29Z

.- 98J/E-1 48 76 158z 44 30 68Z 39Z

iHRU E-3

,-.E-4 302 311 1031 192 81 42% 26%

E-5 274 278 101z 205 65 32% 232

1"E-6 284 280 99Z 213 51 242 18%

z-7 137 97 711 122 4 31 4Z

E-8 4

-'OTAL 98J 1045 1046 1001 776 231 30% 221 269 262

98Z E-7 1

E-8 292 233 80% 243 0 0% 02

*E-9 39 38 97% 38 0 OZ 02

TOTAL 98Z 331 272 821 281 0 0% 0% 50 15%

,OTAL CMF98 8878 8904 1001 7451 2007 27Z 23Z 1427 16%

. z1

* C-Il
.... §F lp W .WV, -wvw . .. . ".. . WV . ...... ......... P:n IWVV~wW I

DLIVLC

CANDIDTE RS CI PROJECTS

Collective Training Design Team

L ARI Field Unit - Presidio of Monterey

*1

J. Miller, C ief

0. Wahn, Team Lader

A. Ektrom,

Research Psychologist

-, 21 October 198/3

n D-1

,7-'*~ -'-7 o*- . i.-~~* 4.$
Candidate Research Projects

1. Teaching Methodologies

2. DLAB Validatilon (selection)

a. Validity of screening procedures (Post Hoc).

b. Validity, against on-the-job performance.

3. Factors contributing to academic attrition, in addition to aptitude.

4. Educational Technology Applications to Computer Assisted Study (CAS).

5. Time to proficiency for each major language group with listening,

speaking, reading with repeated measures as criteria.

6. Development of guidelines to aid user specification of foreign language

training requirements.

7. Skill Decay Rates and estimation of timing for refresher/retraining.

8. Minimum English proficiency level for instructors:

a. Influence of perceived/actual proficiency on instructor classroom

performance.

b. Training requirements for administrative job tasks.

9. Minimum English proficiency requirements for students.

I. D-2

.-.: /'< .. : ,..... , , . .-.-- . .. -.. . .-..- . -,;.- - (.f... , *.-.-*... .[.-*.-. . -. ...... * .. . .*.. - *..-..
A Note on Resource Requirements:

1. Resource Requirements are characterized as:

- Intensive: Requiring contractors or extensive time/numbers of

DLI students and/or staff.

- Moderate: Requires extensive involvement of DLI personnel

(students, instructors, testing personnel, etc.).

- Minimal: Requires ARI in-house data/statistical analysis and

reporting'only - though work may be quite extensive.

2. Because the designs of these potential research projects are only

preliminary at this point, the resource estimates are necessarily very rough

and in some cases cannot be determined. They do not necessarily take into

account time and personnel required for coordination, literature

searches/reviews, and report writing.

Resource estimates refer only to requirements of time and/or personnel

required by the research project beyond normal responsibilities. Where data

from students or instructors are used and where that data is part of the

normal training activity at DLI, the number of persons involved may be

.* indicated but no time requirements are specified.

ii

D-3
.- 

.T - - .

1. Teaching Methodologies - Suggestopedia Project

Argy Need: To attain maximum level of student language proficiency in

shortest possible time.

The Defense Language Institute is pressured by the needs of the various

services to achieve higher levels of student proficiency, to decrease the time

required to achieve given levels of proficiency and to sustain student

success, i.e., decrease attrition.

Objective: To assess the potential benefits of using the Suggestopedia method

to facilitate foreign language acquisition. Specifically, to evaluate the

ability of the Suggestopedia method to achieve the learning goals for training

military personnel at the Defense Language Institute as compared to the

current instructional method.

Approach: The research approach is an experimental design in which two, 10

student sections of Russian language classes taught by contract teachers

trained in the Suggestopedia method will be compared to two, 10 student

control sections taught by DLI staff according to established DLI method. The

kresearch will cover the first 12 weeks of the standard 47 weeks. Students

will demographically approximate the average DLIFLC Russian sections and then

will be randomly assigned to either. experimental or control sections. As an

Army sponsored project, the students in all four sections will be from the

Army.

The issues to be assessed are proficiency at the end of the experimental

period as measured by a certified team(2) of Russian testing experts using

the Interagency Language Roundtable (an established DLI assessment procedure);

rate of language acquisition, determined by modular tests at the end of each

course module (20, 33, 44, 55 days); and student attitudes about course,

instructor, and subjective assessment of learning from course evaluation

questionnaires (and other instruments to be developed).

Immediate ARI Steps:

1. Meet with appropriate personnel to determine specific measures

involved in proficiency assessment.

2. Assist/consult in development of instrument to assess student

response. Instrument should include (beyond items on instructor/course

evaluation instruments):

o measures of self-confidence

o amount of study time

o subjective assessment of proficiency

o perception of being in "special classes"

o perception of Impact of being in experiment

o satisfaction with the course

D-4
Current Status:

1. As of 28 Sep 83, decision was to try to find contractor to provide

teaching staff for experimental group. Currently, the ability to continue

with evaluation hinges on locating appropriate contractor. DLI and Soldier's

Support Center will pursue.

2. Responsibility for student response instrument development is to be

defined.

3. Instructors for control group are to be identified.

4. Alternatives for evaluation, in event of inability to find qualified

teachers have been discussed, including training of DLI instructors in

Suggestopedia. Agreement that this alternative did not constitute test of

method in teaching foreign language but test of ability to train instructors

in Suggestopedia. The Concept Evaluation Plan (CEP) would have to be redone

if such an alternative were selected.

5. Follow-up to minimally include comparison of end-of-program (47

weeks) proficiency of experimental and control students.

Resource Requirement: Resource Intensive

Personnel Number Time

DLI Instructors 3 to 6 NA

Students 40 12 weeks

Proficiency

Evaluators 4 2 weeks

A/I Researcher 1-2 .25 PMY

DLI Contractor Instructors 3 1.0 PHY

Expected Outcome:

1. Assessment of possible benefits/problems from use of Suggestopedia

method.

2. Provide a basis for determining whether further experimentation is

warranted.

Milestones:

9 Jan 1984 - Begin Test (Classes)

30 Mar 1984 - End Test - Begin Data Analysis

lp 30 Apr 1964 - Submit Data Analysis to DLI

30 May 1984 Test Report Written

30 Jun 1984 - Proponent Evaluation Written

* D-5
~I~L~f JW~W~12W7W7W.P~rI P~7WW .rp A W F~ -Ann MlM.9.rw rWVvrj- ,-u. N.W-wMV N.J -V --XN.

I

2. Existing DLAB Validation for Screening

Arm N Weed: To identify skills/knowledge/abillties required for foreign

language students.

Objective: To assess the validity of the existing Defense Language Aptitude

Battery (DLAB) as a screening test for foreign language training program

Success.

Approaches: The projects below represent methods for researching this

objective. They may be considered as alternative projects or as two separate

projects.

1. Enroll into selected languages in the DLI program a random sample

of students who would ordinarily be screened out of the program on the basis

of marginally low DLAB scores. Maintain as complete "blindness" as possible

(not only would experimental students in no way be handled differently from

other students, the fact t .e experiment was occurring should not be known

beyond a minimum number of people required to monitor and authorize the

experiment). Relate DLAB scores to performance measures such as end-ofbprogram proficiency, attrition, (and occurrence of personal/academic problems

identified in counseling records) to an established norm of student

v! performances.

Resource Requirements: Moderate

Personnel Number Time

DLI Project Monitor 1 *1 PMY

L Students 30-50 NA

ARI Researcher 1 .25 PKY or more

2. Select a language or a sample of languages as experimental units.

Extend DLAB cut-off scores downward over time - e.g., set 10-point increments

*. down to 69 as cutting scores to be used as screening criteria for entering

student. Compare performance norms of students in each program to established

norms of students where current cutoff of 89 is used. Compare to predicted

success and attrition rate based on DLAB projections (Thain report).

Resources Requirements: Minimal

- Personnel Number Time

DL Students ? ?

Staff ? ?

Project Monitor 1 .1 PKY

ARI Data Analyst 1 .25 PKY or more

Expected Outcome: An assessment of the predictive validity of DIAB relative

to measures of performance and hard data for use in setting cut scores to

reduce attrition.

D-6
*I

3. Reduction of Student Attrition

-Ar Need: To obtain maximum productivity from school resources by minimizing

student attrition.

Objective: To identify student selection criteria, in addition to aptitude,

which contribute to attrition, and may legally be used for screening.

Approach:

1. Review prior research on attrition at DLI.

2. Broaden existing "attrition questionnaire" to include questions on

areas previous research has identified as relevant to attrition.

3. Expand student data base by changing "attrition questionnaire" to an

'.. "exit questionnaire" to be given to all students. This vould provide data for

comparison of attritees to non-attritees and to high achievers.

4. Analyze poorly performing students to identify predictable basis of

attrition.

Resource Requirements: Moderate

Personnel Number Time

DLI Project Monitor 1-2 .75 PMY

Students 3000-4000 1/2 hr each

-AR . Researcher 1 .25 PMY

Expected Outcome:

I. Assessment of the possibility of Identifying attrition-prone

individuals for purposes of screening or special support.

2. Identification of attrition patterns related to instructional factors

and point In program for possible intervention strategies.

U] D-7
T . fW ;7, 77 IF. 7 9 

4, Educational Technology:

Behavioral Evaluation of Videodisc Enhanced German Gateway

Army Need: Provision of effective short-term (six week) intensive language

training in German for officers being assigned to Germany.

Objective: To assess the potential contribution of Videodisc technology to

the German Gateway language instruction program.

Approach: Pretest/Posttest comparisons of performance by students in German

Gateway program with students in experimental Videodisc program.

- Randomly assign students to alternative programs until N of at least

30 is achieved. (In this program, instruction is provided one-on-one

as needed. There are no "classesper se.)

- Participants will keep records of time spent in study; will fill out

usual course program evaluations; will be interviewed on completion

of program.

% Evaluation questionnaires and pre/pottest scores and records of

study time will be statistically analysed.

- Other Possibilities:

1. Through interviews or questionnaires, obtain instructor

perception of Videodisc contribution to learning. Since instructors

are assigned as needed, there will be several instructors, and

conceivably some involved in working with both experimental and

control subjects.

2. Develop a sem-structured interview instrument to be used in

*end-of-course interviews.

3. Administer a brief questionnaire to Videodisc subjects only to

obtain user-acceptance information on such things as: ease of use,

specific problems in using Videodisc, perception of Videodisc

contribution to learning.

Resource Requirements: Moderate

Personnel Number Time

DUI Instructor 5M? negligible

Students 60 negligible

Project Monitor 1 .25 PIMY

1 ARX Researcher 1-2 .50 PHIY

Expected Outcome: Assessment of benefit and cost of Videodisc In* intensive language instruction. The evaluation could provide guidelines for use of

Videodisc in language instruction.

D-8
* Milestones: Videodisc development schedule will determine when the evaluation

can begin. Assignment of personnel to Gateway program will determine when

evaluation will end and analysis begin.

a

lei

D-9 U

I'

I .. . ... 'p * t . .

,
5. Tim to Proficiency

5Ary' Need: Due to assignment restrictions, military personnel are provided a

limited language training period (up to 47 week) regardless of the language to

be learned or the performance level required by designated position. Needed

I& an assessment of the range and types of proficiencies attainable within the

allotted time by language or language categories and an estimate of the time

required to attain specific levels of proficiency.

Objective: To identify realistic proficiency levels by language group for the

current allocated training periods, and to obtain information necessary to

reset period lengths.

Approach:

1. Obtain student performance scores on interim and end-of-program

reading, listening and speaking proficiencies for at least 20 classes in the

highest enrollment language for each language category.

N 2. Perform statistical analyses to estimate:

- student characteristics related to varying levels of proficiency

.'. 4' achievement.

proficiency levels related to instructor characteristics and

other Instructional variables.

student learning curves to be used to extrapolate to longer

training periods.

Resource Requirements: Minimal

Personnel Number Time

DLI Project Monitor 1 .25 PHY

ARl Data Analyst 1-2 .5 PKY

Expected Outcome: Guidelines to advise services of appropriate expected endof-course proficiencies by language (or at least language categories) as a

function of the length of training..

D-10

m7
6. Development of Guidelines to Aid User Specification

of Foreign Language Training Requirements

Army Ned: To train foreign language personnel as appropriately as possible

in the abilities required for adequate job performance.

Objective: To obtain from client organizations, as precisely as possible, the

exact language skills required to adequately perform foreign language duties

of high density foreign language MOSs.

Approach: Job Analysis.

" Through use of seal-structured interviews.,identify what information is

&needed by DLIFLC staff/administration in order to structure their language

training to best fit the requirements of "users."

Based on data obtained from DLI staff, develop questionnaires or guides to

obtain job skill descriptions from job incumbents and their supervisors in

high density MOSs. Provide results to DLI staff and obtain feedback from DLI

,0(and clients). Conduct several cycles, until DLI and clients are satisfied.

Resource Requirements: Resource Intensive

Personnel Number Time

DLI Staff/ 20-30 1/r- hr each

Administrators

ARI Researcher/ 1 .50 1MY

Analyst

AR or DLI Foreign Language 5 3.0 PMY

Contractor Specialist

Researchers/ 2-3 1.0 PMY

Interviewers

Expected Outcome: Development of a guideline for use by client organizations

to specify job-related language requirements for selected MOSs.

D

J* D-11
7. Foreign Language Skill Decay Rates

ArMu Need: To insure that students trained for positions requiring foreign

language skills, in fact have these skills when they reach their job

destination.

Objective: To develop a system for predicting foreign language proficiency

decay rates for periods of non-use. To identify refresher training needs and

schedules.

Approach: Administer proficiency tests to randomly selected samples of

students at incremental periods (to be determined in consultation with DLI)

after language program termination. Plot ability loss rates over time

relative to initial (end of program) proficiencies. Institute refresher

training for samples of students at various points (to be determined). Data

would provide a basis for many research refinements related to such issues as:

1. Decay rates after refresher training compared to initial decay rates.

2. Amount of refresher training (type and time) to return to original

I proficiency.

3. Contribution of on-the-job use of language to maintenance of

proficiency levels.

4. Assessment of importance of initial proficiency (mastery) levels on

decay rates.

5. Decay rates by language or language family.

- 6. Identification and assessment of factors in addition to time that

contribute to decay rate or to greater retention.

Resource Requirements: Resource Intensive

Personnel Number Time

DLI Data Analyst 1 .25 Pff

Ex-students 150-200 1

/-1 hr each

Instructor ? ?

ARI Data Analyst 1-2 1.-1.5 PMY

ARI Contractor Test Administrator 3-5 3.0 PMY

Expected Outcomes: Determination of language ability decay rates to provide

guidelines for determining needs for refresher training.

-" 

*D-12

'4-_
I

S. Minivan English Proficiency Level for Instructors

Army Need: To secure staff who are capable of effectively teaching required

foreign languages to Army personnel.

Objective To assess the level and type of instructor proficiency in English

required to effectively teach foreign language.

Approach: Obtain and analyze three sets of data.

1. Subjective Student Assessment:

a. Incorporate items related to instructor's English ability

(speaking and comprehension) on instructor evaluation questionnaire.

b. Identify those instructors perceived by students as having

limitation in English proficiency.

c. Perform descriptive analysis to determine whether problem are

Idiosyncratic or patterned relative to language/language area, course

characteristics, and instructor characteristics (especially English

proficiency scores - see 3. below).

d. Interview current students (at end of course) of instructors

previously identified by students as having English problem to further

identify nature and locus of problems (e.g.. vocabulary, accent, syntax,

whether student can't understand or be understood).

2. Student Proficiency Measures:

a. Conduct descriptive analysis of average student proficiency

level for each instructor, controlled by languagellanguage category.

b. Correlate measures of average student performance (level) to

student subjective assessments.

3. Instructor English Proficiency Assessment. Administer to a

representative sample of instructors an English proficiency test comparable to

that given students, to establish proficiency level scores for speaking,

% dlistening, and reading.

a. Compare to student subjective assessment.

b. Correlate with student proficiency levels.

a . Administative Task Performance. Instructors are required to perform

a variety of tasks in addition to classroom instruction. Supervisor job task

ratings will be related to Engish test scores to identify important

relationships, if they exist.

m 1 D-13

S.'
Resource Requirement: Resource Intensive

Personnel Number Time

DLI Instructors rep. sample I hr each

Project Manager 1 .25 PMY

All Researcher 1 .50 PMY

DLI Contractor Interviewer 1 .10 PMY

Test 2-5 2.0 PFY

Adainstrator

Data Analyst 1 1.0 PMY

Expected Outcome:

1. Assessuent of degree to which student/instructor (classroom)

communication difficulties, as identified by students, are related to

instructor English proficiency level scores.

2. Evidence of relation of instructor English proficiency to their

student's Foreign language proficiency.

3. Identif ication of levels of instructor English prof iciencies that

impact on teaching and administrative performance. Provide a basis for

delineation of instructor English training requirements.

-4

.4
I | .. ..... .

9. Kinimum English Proficiency of Students

Army Need: To insure successful training program completion for students

selected for foreign language training through systematic identification of

characteristics related to success.

Objective: To identify a minimum level of English proficiency for students

entering DLI language training program.

Approach: Administer an existing test of English proficiency to a large (to

be determined) random sample of persons taking DLAB. Perform correlational

analysis of English proficiency scores with DLAB scores for all persons taking

both tests. Analyze English proficiency scores as related to attrition rates

and end-of-program foreign language proficiency scores by language/language

categories for those students selected for DLI program. Statistically

assess: (a) whether English proficiency increases prediction of program

success beyond that predicted by DLAB, and (b) whether English proficiency is

indicative (positively or negatively) of differential success relative to

language category and if so examine data to set cut scores.

Resource Requirement: Moderate

Personnel Number Time

DLI Testing/Analysis 1-2 1.0 PMY

Staff

Students 500+ '/T1 hr each

All Data Analyst 1 .50 PKY

Expected Outcome:

I. Assessment of English proficiency as a potential screening basis for . selection of students for foreign language training.

2. Exploration of predictive relationship of English language ability

and the learning of specific foreign languages.

D-1 5

U'

*~ ~ - ~ .~.,*
I

USAFSB CM No. 350-10

.DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

HEADQUARTERS US ARMY FIELD STATION BERLIN

APO New York 09742

COIMMAND MEMORANDUM 17 December 1979

NUMBER 350-10

TRAINING

FIELD STATION BERLIN FOREIGN AREA STUDIES PROGRA14

a. 1. PURPOSE. This Command Memorandum prescribes administrative policies,

procedures, and fixes responsibilities for the conduct of the FSB Foreign Area Studies Program.

2. SCOPE. The provisions of this Command Memorandum are applicable to

all assigned and attached personnel.

3. OBJECTIVE. The purposes of the Foreign Area Studies Program are to

provide background training that will support the mission of Field Station Berlin and to encourage personnel to pursue higher levels of education.

4. POLICY.

a. Field Station Berlin in crn3unction with G-3 Education Branch,

USAB will sponsor a series of University '3,-rses for FSb personne-, The

courses will be contracted to a POD ?ffllt3ted university, and wiii

be fully funded by the Department if thr Army, 1unding will consist of

tuition fees, matriculation fees and bock!.

- b. Participation - Individlial pact-:pation in this program will be

voluntary under the following provizions:

(1) Attendance. This is a )nit ponsored program and as such

the responsibility for personnel accountability rests with the unit.

This unit expects each student to take fuW! responsibility for his/her

academic work and progress Stude,.: are expected to attend classes

regularly for consistent attendance offers the best opportunity to

master the course material. As a rule three absences (9 contact hours)

are permissible fPr every three credit hour course. Personnel will be

Arequired to substantiate the ne 5 t for absences beyond the authorized

three. For special one credit hviir wts-kenJ -eminars no absences will be

allowed.

E-1
USATSB CM NO. 350-10

(2) Withdrawals. This is a unit sponsored activity and as such

the authority for approving withdrawals rests with the unit. The intent

of the command is to keep withdrawals to a miminum. Withdrawals should

be for official reasons, i.e. military, medical, emergency, etc.* Withdrawals for other reasons wili be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Individual unit commanders are responsibile for approving or disapproving

withdrawals. When a commander determines that an individual does not

have a sufficient reason for withdrawal, the individual will be requested

to complete the course. Personnel disregarding this request will be

denied the privilege of attending further contracted courses sponsored

by this unit. This denial will remain in effect for a two year period.

Personnel will be required to submit a FSB withdrawal form in addition to

the standard withdrawal forms required by the university.

(3) Audi"tir-g. Auditing w 1 lo .. s"

(4) Grades. Grades will be based on the policy of the contracted

university.

(5) Registration and Enrollment. Registration and enrollment

will be on a first-come-serve-basis during the designated registration

period. Personnel will be required to sign a registration form indicating they will comply with the provisions of this command memorandum,

in addition to completing the standard enrollment forms required by

the contracted university. Personnel must meet the entrance requireJLments of the contracted university to receive credit for the course. p As a general rule, if two or more different courses are offered during

the same term, personnel will be allowed to enroll in only one course.

Personnel wanting to enroll in the additional courses offered will be

placed on a waiting list. If there are not sufficient enrollments by

different personnel for the additional cla ,, personnel on the waiting

qlist will be allowed to register for the additional course.

(6) Books. Books and other printed materials will be Drovided

by the university. Personnel that successfully complere the course will

be allowed to keep all printed materials. Personnel required to withdraw from the course or who do not complete the course for other reasons

will be required to return all books and printed materials

c. Non-military personnel may participate in the program on a

-' space-available basis only.

S. Responsibilities.

2

* E-2

% %n
USAFSB CM NO. 350-10

a. S-3 Plans and Training.

(1) Has primary staff responsibility for the administration

of the program.

(2) Is responsible for advising the commander and staff on

the progress of the program.

b. S-3 Plans & Training Education Advisor.

(1) Implements and administers programs for Field Station

Berlin.

(2) Coordinates with Army continuing Education Services (ACES)

personnel for contractual arrangements, funding, and facilities.

(3) Coordinates with contracted university.

(4) Coordinates wizh commanders of FSB units and provides

feeder data concernin individuals in their command.

C5) A j2..e ~ v

c. Unit Commanders:

(1) Maintains an awarene3s of assigned personnel within

training program.

(2) Approves or disapproves requests for course withdrawals

in writing.

C.. (3) Counsels personnel within their respective units concerning

attendance, withdrawals, etc.

d. Students. Comply with the provisions outlined in this Command

Memorandum.

The proponent Agency of this command memorandum is the Office of the

A/S3 Plans & Training. Users are invIted to send comments to the CDR,

USAFS Berlin, ATTN: IAEB-OPT.

- FOR THE COMMA14DER:

DARRELL G. HILLIARD

MAJ, MPC

Adjutant

DISTRIBUTION:

A + 10 to A/S3 P&T

E-3

k " 'i-", ' ""< "" v '" '--.- .. .- - -----. . .- . . . . • : - . .- . . . . . .
DISPOSITION FORM

I&II1 (144 Ful ly L"UndLxl Foreign Area Studies Program

FROM DATI CMT 1

711RU: ESO, Andrews Ccmnander, USAFSB 7 Feb 85

Cucation Center Ms. Cunningham/3601

TO: Director of Education

USAB

1. For the academic Term III, 1985, G-3 Education Branch fully funded an advanced German

course as requested by Field Station Berlin. Due to the positive response to this course

and the enthusiastic feedback fram the students, request that a program of fully funded

Foreign Area Studies courses be conducted during off-duty hours during the normal academic

term framerk.

2. Since the majority of FSB and Air Force personnel who will be participitting in this program are shift workers, request that the courses be conducted on a "trick" basis. When

this is not possible due to instructor nonavailability, request alternate icheduling be con-

% sidered. For example, a course could be offered one evening a week for 16 weeks.

3. The following courses and seminars from the University of Maryland catalog are suggested

considerations for the Foreign Area Studies Program:

German Life and Culture Soviet Union

Russian Life and Culture Goverrment and Administration of the

Russian Review Grammar & Cmposition Soviet Union

Advanced Russian Conversation Foreign Policy of the USSR

Selected Topics in German Literature Comparative Studies in European Politics

Germany in the 19th Century German Literature in Translation

Germany in the 20th Century international Terrorism

Polish Crisis in its Historical The KGB

Perspective Marxism - The Soviet Ideology

NATO and the Warsaw Pact Recent US/USSR Relations

4. For Term IV, 25 March - 17 May 1985, request Advanced German Conversation (GERM 312)

be conducted on a "trick" basis. Specific course requests for the remainder of the year

will be forthcoming from the FSB P&T office.

JOHN H. PROKOPOWICZ

LTC, MM

Acting Ccmnander

~E-4

''A'

rA

a."" " " " "" " " """'" " " " """ " " <*<: '' %''', *

, F OP#.,',-,M . . ,74., .... 1141-.V , ,, I. IttI,,,' ,I , 4 II II . ,,F ,II .. ',, .-..-. . . . . . . ..
- - -. . . - . -

W

19 May 1985

PROGRAM IN SOVIET STUDIES AND EASTERN EUROPEAN STUDIES

1. Degree requirements, in terms of both foreign language requirement,

as well as courses used in the Primary Area of Concentration, are the

same for both degrees. Students who are particularly interested in

Eastern European Studies are encouraged to take a wider variety of

courses having to do with more areas of Eastern Europe than just Russia.

2. Either Russian or Polish or Czech is applicable to the required

hours of foreign language (6 s.h. for the certificate, 12 s.h. for the

INP. AA and Baccalaureate).

3. RUSS 333 and/or 334 are strongly recommended for all certificate/

degree levels.

4. Foreign language above the level required for the certificate or

degree sought can be applied to the different certificate/degree programs as shown below:

for the Certificate 3 s.h.

for the Associate in Arts 6 s.h.

for the Baccalaureate 6 s.h.

Below is a listinq of courses which can be applied to the Soviet Studies/

Eastern European Studies certificate/degree programs.

ECON 380 - Comparative Economic Systems

ECON 482 - Economics of the Soviet Union

GVPT 240 - Political Ideologies

GVPT 280 - Comparative Politics and Governments

GVPT 300 - International Political Relations

GVPT 443 - Contemporary Political Theory

GVPT 451 - Foreign Policy of the U.S.S.R.

GVPT 481 - Government and Administration of the Soviet Union

GVPT 486 - Comparative Studies in European Politics

HIST 141 - Western Civilization 1 or

III HIST 142 - Western Civilization 11

HIST 237 - Russian Civilization

HIST 336 - Europe in the 19th Century, 1815-1919

HIST 337 - Europe in the World Setting of the 20th Century

HIST 340 - Eastern Europe under Communism

HIST 344 - The Russian Revolutions of 1917

HIST 424 - History of Russia to 1801 HIST 425 - History of Russia from 1801-1917

HIST 442 - The Soviet Union

-' HIST 443 - Modern Balkan History

RUSS 333 - Russian Life and Culture

RUSS 334 - Russian Life and Culture

and other courses as may be occasionally offered by The University of

Maryland and specifically designated area studies credit.

aI E-5
The following is a list of DLI courses which may be applicable

to a degree program in Soviet or East European Area Studies.

The listings are extracted directly from the ACE Guide.

Annotations are made to clarify Maryland's utilization of credit

when differences from the ACE recommendations occur or when

clarification is needed.

SHORT BASIC COURSES

DLI 12 WEEK SHORT BASIC Course from JAN 54 through DEC 8'0

DD0602-0034 Romanian 8 s.h. LL =111-114

BASIC COURSES

NOTE: For all the following DLI basic courses, the first 15 s.h.

=111-201. The next 6 s.h. may be applied as L.L. area

studies and may be used in GER, PAC/SAC, or electives. -Basic courses are always applied as lower level.

DLI 36-46 WEEK BASIC Course from JAN 54 through DEC 56

DD0602-0001 Albanian (46wk) 18 s.h.

Bulgarian(46wk) 18 s.h.

Czech (46wk) 18 s.h.

Hungarian(46wk) 18 s.h.

Romanian(36wk) 18 s.h.

Russian (46wk) 18 s.h.

Serbo-Croat(46wk)18 s.h.

,,.. DLI 47 WEEK BASIC Course from JAN 57 through DECEMBER 80

* DD0602-0002 Albanian 21 s.h.

* Bulgarian 21 s.h.

Czech 21 s.h.

Hungarian 21 s.h.

Polish 21 s.h.

Romanian 21 s.h.

Russian 21 s.h. . Serbo-Croatian 21 s.h.

DLI 47 WEEK BASIC Course from JAN 57 through DECEMBER 80

DD0602-0014 Lithuanian 21 s.h.

Slovenian 21 s.h.

Ukranian 21 s.h.

DLI 37-47 WEEK BASIC Course from JAN 80 through PRESENT

6 DD0602-0018 Albanian (47wk) 7 s.h. Oral/aural

7 s.h. Writing/translation

7 s.h. Intermed cony & writing

Romanian (37wk) 12 s.h. oral/aural

6 s.h. reading/writing

E-6

U
DLI 47 WEEK BASIC Course from JAN 81 through PRESENT

DD0602-0030 Hungarian 10 s.h. introductory

6 s.h. advanced

5 s.h. reading & translation

3 s.h. culture & civilization

DLI 47 WEEK BASIC Course from JAN 81 through PRESENT

DD0602-0019 Bulgarian 6 s.h. elementary

6 s.h. intermediate

9 s.h. advanced (rdg,wrtng)

Czech 6 s.h. elementary

6 s.h. intermediate

9 s.h. advanced (rdg,wrtng)

Polish 6 s.h. elementary

6 s.h. intermediate : Russian 6 s.h. elementary

6 s.h. intermediate

9 s.h. advanced

Serbo-Croatian 6 s.h. elementary 6 s.h. intermediate

9 s.h. advanced (rdg,wrtng)

A U R A L C O M P R E H E N S I O N C O U R S E S

AURAL COMPREHENSION courses are at a comparable level to BASIC

j courses and credit is applied as in BASIC courses.

DLI 37 WEEK AURAL COMPREHENSION Course from JAN 54 through DEC 80

DD0602-0033 Albanian 15 s.h.

Bulgarian 15 s.h.

Czech 15 s.h.

Hungarian 15 s.h.

Romanian 15 s.h.

Serbo-Croatian 15 s.h.

All credit for this course is applied as and =111-201

DLI 23-47 WEEK AURAL COMPREHENSION Course (2 VERSIONS)

DD0602-0017

VERSION 1 - OCT 78 through PRESENT (47 WK) except A.F. pre 1981*

Russian 6 s.h. elementary

6 s.h. intermediate

9 s.h. advanced

*for AF personnel taking course prior to

1981, version 2 below applies!

VERSION 2 through JAN 54 - SEP 78

Russian (23wk) 15 s.h. (=111-2011

Russian (37wk) 18 s.h. [=111-2011 + 3 s.h. A.S.

E XT E N D E D C O U R S E S

EXTENDED DLI courses are applied as upper level and

duplicate coursework at the 301,302, 311 and 312 level.

DLI 27 WEEK EXTENDED Course from JAN 81 through PRESENT

DD0602-0020 Russian 10 s.h. advanced (conversation)

3 s.h. advanced (reading)

E-7
E X T E N D E D n R k A S I C I NT E R M E D I A T E

EXTENDED or BASIC INTERMEDIATE courses are applied as

upper level and duplicate 301, 302, 311, 312.

DLI 27 WEEK Course (dates unknown) per itr from ACE 14 Nov 84

NO INDEX # Czech 12 s.h.UL (conversation)

6 s.h.UL advanced (reading)

I NTER MEDI ATE COURSES s

INTERMEDIATE DLI courses are applied as upper level and

duplicate coursework at the 301,302, 311 and 312 level.

DLI 24-37 WEEK INTERMEDIATE Course from JAN 54 through DEC 80

DD0602-0036 Bulgarian (37wk) 18 s.h.UL

Polish (36wk) 18 s.h. UL

Romanian (24wk) 15 s.h. UL

Russian (37wk) 18 s.h. UL

Serbo-Croat(37wk) 18 s.h. UL

DLI 37 WEEK INTERMEDIATE Course from JAN 81 through PRESENT

DDO602-0022 Bulgarian 12 s.h.UL adv (conversation)

9 s.h.UL adv (reading)

Polish 12 s.h.UL adv (conversation)

9 s.h.UL adv (reading)

Russian 12 s.h.UL adv (conversation)

9 s.h.UL adv (reading)

DLI 36 or 37 WEEK INTERMEDIATE Course (2 VERSIONS)

DD0602-0024

VERSION 1 - JAN 78 through PRESENT (37 wk)

Czech 12 s.h.UL adv (conversation)

9 s.h.UL adv (reading)

VERSION 2 - JAN 54 through DEC 77 (36 wk)

Czech 18 s.h. UL

A D V A N C E D C O U R S E S IN

ADVANCED courses are equivalent to 401 and 402 level courses

DLI 37 WEEK ADVANCED Course from JAN 69 through DEC 80

DD0602-0037 Russian 18 s.h. UL

DLI 37 WEEK ADVANCED Course from JAN 81 through PRESENT

DD0602-0027 Russian 6 s.h.UL Advanced (reading)

3 s.h.UL Advanced (syntax)

3 s.h.UL Advanced (stylistics)

%

E-8