Bridging the Gap Between General Ability and Discrete Skills to Fully Leverage Foreign Area Officer Language Capabilities
Colonel David H. Bradley, U.S. Army
Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published as a chapter in the book, “Language, Regional Expertise, and Culture in the Military,” edited by Jeff R. Watson, Richard Wolfel, and Adam Kalkstein, ISBN (print): 978-1- 959631-20-0. The book can be found at https://press.westpoint.edu/books/lrec-in-the-military/. The Journal is grateful to the West Point Press for agreeing to the republication of this piece. We have retained the in-line citation and work cited format from the original publication.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Military Departments, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Abstract
One problem inhibiting U.S. military Foreign Area Officers (FAO) from leveraging their foreign language skills is the gap between general language ability and specific target language skills unique to a particular job. DOD policy emphasizes the Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT) and Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI), both of which measure general proficiency in a target language to a professional level. The language instruction for these tests, however, does not always prepare service members for the specific skills that different jobs or billets require. DOD policy for language-coded billets must leverage foreign language capability toward mission accomplishment to improve the link between skills and their strategic impact at both institutional and individual levels. This chapter reviews academic scholarship on second language acquisition (SLA) to discern ways to bridge this gap. It considers best practices for self-directed language learning and language needs analysis at institutional and individual levels to help units identify what core target language skills are required for each billet and to help FAOs tailor their individual self-directed training beyond DLPT and OPI preparation to best leverage their language training to accomplish the mission. Based on the literature review, this chapter recommends further policy action and academic research, while also offering practical advice to the individual FAO.
Introduction
Foreign language training and skills have long been a hallmark of U.S. military Foreign Area Officers (FAOs) across all armed services (“Air Force Foreign Area Officer,” “USMC Foreign Area Officer,” “U.S. Navy Foreign Area Officer,” and Department of the Army). However, in academia, declining enrollment and emerging technology pressure foreign language programs and cause administrators to question the relevance of their language education programs (Holman 2). Within the FAO profession, some officers posit that foreign language capability is less important than security cooperation skill or global strategic acumen as a core competency (Dominguez and Kertis 93; Bump). Dominguez and Kertis assert the Army should prioritize leadership in complex joint and interagency settings and security cooperation “as FAO core competencies over the enabling skills” of foreign language and cross-cultural communication (Dominguez and Kertis 93). Moreover, growing constraints on time and money along with senior leader desires for FAOs to emphasize skills in strategy and planning will further pressure FAO language programs. These critiques seek to optimize resources and improve how FAOs advance U.S. interests abroad. However, taken too far, these plans could leave the DOD without effective cross-cultural communicators when they are needed. This chapter argues that improving DOD policy for language-coded billets will help FAOs leverage foreign language capability for more relevance and real-world efficacy. This means better understanding the link between foreign language skills and their strategic impact at both institutional and individual levels.
One problem inhibiting FAOs from leveraging language skills is the gap between general language ability and specific target language skills unique to a particular billet. Current Language, Regional Expertise, and Culture (LREC) policy stipulates that Military Departments must “maintain a foreign area officer (FAO) corps . . . with the goal of attaining Interagency Roundtable Level (IRL) 3 in listening, reading, and speaking modalities” (Department of Defense). This policy emphasizes the Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT) and Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI), both of which measure general proficiency in a target language to a professional level. These policies ensure general linguistic preparedness in the specified language, but do not prepare service members for the specific skills different billets require. For example, a FAO serving as country desk officer on a major staff may need to be highly skilled at orally arranging logistics and meeting agendas in a foreign language, while a FAO serving as an intelligence analyst may need to comprehend target language military planning information. Currently, Bridging the Gap Between General Ability and Discrete Skills 201 FAO billets do not list the specific target language skills associated with them, although services have offered some specificity related to desired language ability. For example, the Department of the Army Pamphlet (DA PAM) for FAOs states that FAO language proficiency should enable “deeper understanding of foreign government national will, capabilities (including military), operational plans, and requirements” (Department of the Army). Moreover, it is the individual duty of the FAO to maintain and enhance language proficiency, and all FAOs “are encouraged to use their language daily in order to maintain proficiency” (Department of the Army). In summary, DOD LREC policy, as implemented by the services, stresses and incentivizes general language ability but lacks helpful guidance to FAOs on the specific tasks they need in their roles, especially since they are often solely responsible for directing their own language sustainment.
Academic research can help the DOD and the services address this problem. To that end, this chapter reviews academic literature on second language acquisition scholarship to discern ways to bridge this gap. It considers best practices for self-directed language learning and language needs analysis at the institutional and individual level both to help units identify what core target language skills are required for each billet and to help FAOs tailor their individual training beyond DLPT and OPI preparation to best leverage their language training to accomplish their missions. The chapter also looks at related DOD policy and language curricular efforts for FAOs to discern what is already being done in this area.
Based on the following literature review, two complementary recommendations can bridge the gap between general language preparedness and discrete skills. First, at the institutional level for top-down changes, the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) (USD P&R) should commission a needs analysis for joint FAOs to inform FAO-focused foreign language for specific purposes (LSP) curricula and policy, taking as baseline the results of the CJCSI 3126.01C-directed capabilities-based identification process. Short of a full language needs analysis, USD P&R could require military departments to identify specific target language skills for language-coded billets. USD P&R should offer grants to study the intersection of learner autonomy and language for specific purposes in a military context to improve best practices in this area. For its part, the Joint Staff should ensure the services, Combatant Commands (CCMD), and Defense Agencies have the results identified by the CJCSI-directed LREC capabilities identification process, to include making the results available for individual FAOs. These results can help services guide FAOs on continuing language study during in-region training (IRT) or graduate school. Second, at the individual level for bottom-up changes, FAOs must learn how to conduct their own language needs analysis to enhance their self-development and prepare for specific jobs beyond the DLPT and OPI. FAOs must develop learner autonomy strategies such as meta-learning to improve self-directed study—especially when interacting with individual language tutors. FAOs can also foster an identity as bilingual military professionals who work daily to sustain their language abilities. Along with this, FAOs should consider the tension between training for the DLPT and preparing the specific skills that will enhance their ability to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of their present job. This means a FAO might accept a lower DLPT score to enhance a discrete skill. Taken together, these top-down and bottom-up measures can help FAOs leverage LREC skills to strategic effect.
Literature Review
The academic field of second language acquisition (SLA) ranges widely over every aspect of how people learn a second language. Considered part of applied linguistics, the field integrates perspectives from neuroscience and cognitive science, linguistics, cultural studies, sociology, pedagogy, and education. The scope of this literature review centers on those elements of SLA most relevant to military members who must maintain a working proficiency in a foreign language, and largely on their own in self-directed capacity, such as FAOs or service members in Special Operations Forces. In the professional military context, foreign language use is an individual skill that enables mission accomplishment; each service member must maintain basic general language proficiency, but the military unit must identify the language related skills that help the unit do its job. As a result, this literature review accounts for both individual and institutional perspectives. The review will first sketch broad theories underlying SLA and consider bilingual identity before turning to specific SLA fields directly related to military foreign language requirements. These relevant fields include the following: language for specific purposes, needs analysis, and autonomous learning. The literature review will then survey pragmatic views of SLA that are outside traditional academic circles but no less earnest and disciplined in their approach. These practical approaches stem from self-taught enthusiasts that may or may not participate in formal language learning pedagogy, but their insights nonetheless have value for military professionals seeking to define how they can contribute their unique experience learning a foreign language to mission requirements on the job. The review concludes with a look at relevant DOD and service policies that address the identified gap.
SLA Theory and Bilingual Identity
Two broad theories underpin how people acquire the ability to use a second, nonnative language. The cognitive approach emphasizes the mental processes occurring within the learner’s mind—the ability to process, memorize, and reproduce the language accurately. In contrast, the social approach emphasizes the inherently interpersonal and cultural nature of language and the context within which a particular language is used and develops. This method stresses the identity of the language learner and what drives the learner’s choices and needs to use the new language (Lafford 738). As summarized by Barbara Lafford, in 1997 the scholars Firth and Wagner argued that SLA overemphasized the cognitive approach and advocated SLA scholarship better integrate the sociocultural context (Lafford 736). This broad distinction between the cognitive and social is important for military professionals approaching foreign language learning with a “mission-focused” mindset. Given that their duties occur mainly in a military unit rather than a target language community, military professionals tend to approach second language learning from an outsider perspective, thereby gravitating toward a cognitive emphasis in their learning because they do not habitually participate in communities using the desired language. Devising ways to regularly converse and relate to people who speak the target language in a learning or natural lifestyle context rather than a mission-focused environment is a challenge for military professionals seeking to adopt a more sociocultural approach. Some insight into bridging this gap comes from the work of François Grosjean, an established expert on bilingualism. His work spans decades and is born of both professional expertise and personal experience as a bilingual.
Grosjean’s core insight for military professionals learning or maintaining a foreign language is to embrace a bilingual identity, even if one does not come from the cultural background of the second language. For Grosjean, bilinguals are simply “those who use two or more languages in their everyday lives,” emphasizing “regular language use” over fluency (Grosjean, Bilingual 4). This definition counters conventional thinking that a bilingual must be at the same cultural and social level of two or more distinct linguistic communities—a view he calls “two monolinguals in one person” (Grosjean, A Journey 111). This monolinguistic view stresses that so-called “real” bilinguals are equally and fully proficient in two (or more) languages, which often causes bilinguals to criticize and downplay their own second language competence. A monolinguistic view also mistakenly asserts that bilinguals “are born translators” (Grosjean, Bilingual 36). Instead, Grosjean observes that the great majority of bilinguals have distinct needs in their respective language use: “Bilinguals usually acquire and use their languages for different purposes, in different domains in life, with different people.” (Grosjean, Bilingual 29; Grosjean, A Journey 112). Military foreign language learners will never escape monolinguistic norms over their foreign language journey (e.g., the interagency language roundtable scale and DLPT). But embracing a practical bilingual identity per Grosjean can lead FAOs to deliberately consider the context and tasks for which they must use their assigned language. They can jettison the conventional ideal of what is considered target language fluency and social acceptance by that language’s community, which for most individuals is so unrealistic that it dampens motivation. FAOs who adopt a vision of the self as a bilingual military professional will help them deduce key tasks in the target language that enable mission accomplishment and take daily effort to practice these. Taken together, the two broad theories of SLA along with Grosjean’s insight into bilingual identity provide a philosophical context for the following review of more academic and empirical components of SLA. Moreover, Grosjean’s insight that bilinguals use different languages for discrete reasons is the premise for language for specific purposes, a subset of SLA.
Language for Specific Purposes (LSP)
LSP promises utility for autonomous learning military professionals, but the focus this field holds on classroom instruction and pedagogy limits its applicability once service members move on from the schoolhouse. LSP is foreign language instruction and teaching on specific target language uses based on an identified set of specialized needs. The needs of learners—often professionals—drive the curriculum rather than educational theory or general language needs (Trace et al. 2). An overview of LSP at the United States Military Academy at West Point found that embedding LSP instruction into foreign language curriculum motivated students to learn the language by integrating post-graduation language use cases (military related) and involving students in shaping language learning activities (Miller et al. 231). The same study found similar conclusions regarding LSP programs at the U.S. Air Force Academy and the Army of Spain (Miller et al. 223). As a relatively nascent field, LSP is presently an approach to curriculum development by teachers for teachers. It can certainly help in the institutional environment but offers little to language professionals “in the field.” At the heart of LSP is needs analysis: the curriculum must reflect the “needs of the learners, the community, the language program itself, the university, international trends, or any number of factors or combination thereof” (Trace et al. 7). Complementary to LSP, the area of needs analysis provides the foundation upon which any solid LSP programs rests.
Needs Analysis (NA)
NA1 is an important process within SLA for curriculum and course design. Emerging from a perceived need for SLA educational programs to be relevant, NA helps educators reconcile uniquely specific language learning requirements found across diverse populations with appropriate pedagogical course design and instruction (Long, “Overview: A Rationale” 1–2; Long, “Methodological Issues” 19). NA can also inform policy. A survey of NA in a military context found it “provided an essential foundation for language policy in the U.S. military” (Lett 122). Methodology is crucial to achieve a useful NA. An effective NA centers on language tasks as the primary unit of analysis (Long, “Methodological Issues” 22). “Tasks” represent the various activities learners want to or must do with the target language, which often correspond to classroom activities (van Avermaet and Gysen 144). Also, tasks are compatible with both cognitive and sociocultural language learning approaches identified previously (Serafini and Torres 448). Compiling the right tasks to inform effective SLA curriculum or policy is complex. As a result, NA methodology must pay attention to the sources for tasks, which include language learners themselves, domain experts, curricula writers, and SLA educators, along with amassing a variety of source products (e.g., target language media or literature). Given the diversity of sources, skill in research methodology in gathering tasks is crucial to avoid skewed or inaccurate results (Long, “Methodological Issues” 62–64). For example, Lett found that some DOD NAs were marred by poor methodology, such as taking task samples of convenience (Lett 123). Long’s and Lett’s emphasis on methodology illustrates the importance NA has for curriculum development at the institutional level—which is why learners typically cannot do their own NA. As a result, the field of NA is mainly relevant to the institutional level. Even so, DOD must complete adequate NA not just to shape policy and curricula, but to directly inform the FAO corps. FAO branch managers or service proponents should both participate in NA and publish the results to their FAO populations because the NA informs them what skills and vocabulary to prioritize when maintaining a second language. A new DOD-led NA for FAOs will also reveal how advanced language technologies using artificial intelligence are changing how FAOs use their foreign language skills in the field. Additionally, individual FAOs can use these NA results to shape their own self-directed learning.
Learner Autonomy or Self-Directed Learning
Learner autonomy in SLA emphasizes the task of helping students acquire the skillset of learning a second language on their own. It places this on equal footing with teaching the language (see Little et al., Leaver, Wenden, and Pawlak et al.). According to Little, language learner autonomy arose in Europe from a desire to make language learning “more democratic.” Henri Holec saw the need to move from “directed teaching” to “self-directed learning” (Little et al. 4). Experts in the field discuss two core autonomous learning strategies: cognitive and self-management (or metacognitive). In essence, cognitive strategy is how the learner approaches memorizing and retrieving desired material, while self-management strategy—no less important—is how learners plan, monitor, and evaluate their progress toward their learning goals (Wenden 29–31). One pedagogical approach has teachers and learners cooperating to plan language learning, executing the plan together, evaluating execution, and then creating a new plan (Little et al. 16). Mindset is also important, especially a willingness to take responsibility for self-learning and self-confidence as a learner, and this includes the bilingual identity encouraged by Grosjean. Fostering these desirable attributes should lead teachers to seek to mitigate ways the learning environment develops dependence on teachers and institutions as the sole source of knowledge and authority for learning (Wenden 59). More recent scholars of language learner autonomy underscore that even the metacognitive language learning tasks should be done in the target language—maximizing output in the target language is the core “third principle” of learner autonomy. Failure to do this risks that proficiency remains superficial (Little et al. 14–15). Learner autonomy approaches nonetheless tend to cater toward educators rather than directly to students.
Another approach in this field that centers the learner is the “Strategic Self-Regulation Model” (S2R), where “learners actively and constructively use strategies to manage their own learning” (Oxford 7). The S2R strategies are holistic and span the cognitive and sociocultural approaches outlined previously. These strategies include cognitive strategies (e.g., remembering and processing the target language, conceptualizing broadly and with details and reasoning), affective strategies (e.g., maintaining motivation, activating supporting attitudes and emotions), and sociocultural-interactive strategies (e.g., dealing with one’s sociocultural identity and dealing with issues of context, communication, and culture) (Oxford 16). Like learner autonomy, S2R emphasizes “meta-strategies” that direct and prioritize the various strategies in the cognitive, affective, and sociocultural areas, much like a conductor synchronizes the various instruments (strategies) of the orchestra. Insights on autonomous learning and S2R are directly applicable to FAOs because each FAO is largely responsible for their own language sustainment. While some FAOs naturally figure out how to manage their own learning, at the joint or service level, FAOs could benefit from Bridging the Gap Between General Ability and Discrete Skills 207 learning these strategies prior to graduating from the Defense Language Institute or as a unit during the Joint FAO Orientation Course (JFAOC). An even more effective approach would be to introduce these principles to FAOs conducting in-region training (IRT), e.g., Army and Marine Corps FAOs during their year-long focused orientation to the FAO’s assigned region involving further language study, travel, and mission-set familiarization, and to Navy and Air Force FAOs embarking on travel to refresh their language skills (Mikkelsen).
Pragmatic Approaches
While the academic field of SLA is of significant relevance to military professionals who learn and use a foreign language, little is of direct applicability to FAOs because there are no firsthand academic studies of this specific cohort of autonomous learners who use the target language for their specific purposes. The insights for FAOs must be inferred rather than deduced. As a result, this chapter also considers more practical approaches outside of traditional academia from, for example, the “ultralearning” community. As described by author Scott Young, “ultralearning” is a “self-directed and intense strategy” to learning and mastering difficult knowledge or skill, where “intense” denotes methodical deep work and deliberate, dedicated practice (25). While the ultralearning process can be applied to any skill, knowledge set, or hobby, second language acquisition is a common goal for ultralearners. Of the nine principles of ultralearning mentioned by Young, the following are most salient to military foreign language professionals: retrieval, retention, and experimentation.2 Ultralearning leans toward the cognitive approach in SLA because it emphasizes the individual learner’s reliance on best practices from psychology and neuroscience to memorize, retrieve, and self-evaluate progress. In contrast, another practical approach to autonomous foreign language learning aligns with the sociocultural approach, which can complement ultralearning techniques.
Written to help new missionaries quickly learn a target second language while living in a foreign country, linguist Greg Thomson’s sociocultural approach emphasizes learning in a social context. His three interdependent principles for “language learning in the real world for non-beginners” are as follows: 1) expose yourself to massive comprehensible input, 2) engage in extensive extemporaneous speaking (and possibly writing), and 3) learn to know the people whose language you are learning (2). Thomson also recommends a simple adaptation of NA for the individual: make a list of purposes for which you would like to use the language and rate them by frequency and urgency (21). This will give you a prioritized list of what to work on by yourself or with a tutor. There are two key insights here for an autonomously learning military professional: first, gravitate toward material that is aligned with your proficiency level rather than material that is less comprehensible. Second, get to know the people whose language you are learning—this provides a rich cultural context that enables deeper understanding of the language. Much like ultralearning stresses individual effort, the likely drawback to Thomson’s real-world approach is that outside of in-region training, it may not be feasible for FAOs to deeply immerse themselves in a foreign context as Thomson’s method presumes.
DOD Policy and Curricula Review
This literature review concludes with a summary of relevant DOD and service policies and curricula that address the general-specific skill gap. For policy, a recent Instruction from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCSI) requires units to identify specific priority language skills. CJCS Instruction 3126.01C of March 2023 requires CCMDs to ensure “LREC capability requirements are identified in all plans . . . and security cooperation, as well as day-to-day staffing needs” (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff A-2).3 The CJCSI outlines a methodology for CCMDs and Defense Agencies to use in identifying these specific requirements. This CJCS Instruction is an excellent start to bridge this gap at the institutional level. However, its drawback is that it outlines a staffing process rather than a holistic academia-informed language NA. Insights from the literature review above suggest that the result will be suboptimal unless it attends to diverse sources and NA methods. Specifically, the CJCSI assigns the Senior Language Authority as primary lead for conducting the assessment, but the senior language authority on the Joint Staff is the J-1, whereas in CCMDs, the primary subject matter experts for LREC will be in the J-2 and J-5 directorates. In addition, the CJCSI requires the services only to comment on equipment needs, not to provide any input on tasks or requirements (Chairman B-4). However, it is the services who determine the training required to meet these requirements (and the unique military challenges in respective warfighting domains—land, sea, air, space, etc.), particularly FAO proponents or other LREC experts at professional military education institutions. Finally, according to the CJCSI, the results should be recorded in a database, but do not automatically transfer to the end user (Chairman D-1). In summary, the CJCSI is a much-needed kickstart to bridge the identified gap between proficiency and skill, but it lacks key provisions to solve the real-world problem.
In the area of language learning curricula and resources for the joint FAO corps, the Defense Language Institute (DLI) manages the FAO language program with FAO-specific online course content and online person-to-person tutors available. This language program is intended for FAOs to develop unique FAO-related skills in contrast to the DLI primary course which emphasizes a general proficiency and DLPT preparation. In general, the DLI FAO program develops online courses for high demand strategic languages such as Chinese, Arabic, and Korean, while relying on tutors for low density, less commonly spoken languages (Mikkelsen). The Joint Knowledge Online Learning Management System (JKO) currently hosts FAO tailored Advanced Language Enhancement Courses (ALEC) for 10 languages, with 18 courses total offered (Thorp 3). A survey of available modules demonstrates the challenge of finding relevant specific skills for FAOs. The ALEC Courses for Chinese collectively have the following modules: Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Response, Border Security and National Sovereignty Issues, Peacekeeping, Energy, Piracy and Maritime Security, Health Issues, Trafficking in Persons, Proliferation Issues, Crime and the Black Market, Terrorism, Corruption, and Strategy and Policy Engagement (Joint Knowledge Online). The challenge here is that these modules are still too general: only a few of them apply to FAOs interacting in Chinese with Chinese-speaking interlocutors or reading source language intelligence, while other modules only apply to FAOs working with allies and partners who face these problems. No module offers a primer on U.S. DOD and foreign policy offices and matters—something FAOs often need to translate to foreign partners. Taken together, this highlights the need for a comprehensive NA for FAOs, and for the Defense Language Institute (DLI) to be involved in it. (DLI is not mentioned once in the CJCSI.) That said, the ALEC modules nonetheless provide a good resource for FAOs looking to improve their security-related vocabulary at an intermediate and advanced level. FAOs whose language does not have an ALEC on JKO can use a DLI tutor. Developing skills in S2R and Thomson’s principles could help FAOs maximize the benefit an online tutor provides.
Implications
The results of this literature review show that the academic literature on second language acquisition is focused on teaching and teachers. Military professionals responsible for independently maintaining a foreign language capability are a niche group and little studied in this field. Not much of the SLA literature speaks directly to the FAO population in terms of best practices for self-directed, autonomous language learning. The review in this chapter also showed that DOD policy— while making strides—remains inadequate to bridge this gap. Nonetheless, the review still uncovered ways the LREC enterprise can assist FAOs as the FAO corps and the services assess the FAO training pipeline and core competencies. From an academic perspective, further studies examining the overlap of learner autonomy, needs analysis, and language for specific purposes can inform language policy at the DOD and service level, and help FAOs sustain the right language skills more efficiently. Academic research should focus on independent adult learners outside of a formal curricular program of study, such as how a FAO population (or proxy adult learner population) has benefitted (or not) from strategic self-regulation. From a policy perspective, commissioning a joint FAO community needs analysis would provide critical inputs to update the FAO-focused curriculum at DLI and shape joint FAO career-long language sustainment norms and meta-learning skills. These studies should incorporate how advanced foreign language technologies are changing what tasks FAOs must accomplish with their target language skills. This would start at the JFAOC but extend into FAO IRT as a key program of instruction (FAOs not conducting IRT could integrate this at the Naval Post Graduate School or during the Air Force’s Language Enabled Airman Program). The CJCSI on LREC capability requirements is a noble effort, but it should be shaped by needs analysis to achieve an optimal outcome. From the service perspective, needs analysis and language for specific purposes can enhance language training and generate ideas for how the language “core competency” supports the roles in discrete FAO billets by requiring a basic, Thomson-style needs analysis as part of the IRT program of instruction. Finally, from an individual FAO perspective, this literature review found several best practices that can help FAOs leverage their language skill to achieve strategic impact wherever they are posted.
If the opportunity costs of over-prioritizing language training impair mission accomplishment, the critics are right to advocate for readjusting priorities. Bridging the gap between general ability and discrete skills—tailored for each FAO role—can enhance how FAOs leverage their language ability to strategic effect. A relatively small investment in needs analyses and emphasis on language for specific FAO purposes can enhance the self-learning that FAOs are expected to carry out and will focus them on the mission impact their costly LREC skills ought to provide.
About the Author
Colonel David H. Bradley is a U.S. Army Foreign Area Officer focused on the Indo-Pacific region. He earned an AA in Chinese Mandarin from the Defense Language Institute, a BA in Philosophy from Wheaton College, Illinois, a Master of International Public Policy with China Studies Affiliation from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and a Master of Strategic Studies from the U.S. Army War College.
Notes
1. Also referred to as “needs-based assessment” or “needs assessment.” This chapter uses “needs analysis” per Long.
2. The nine principles are meta-learning, focus, directness, drill, retrieval, feedback, retention,
overlearning, and experimentation.
3. The CJCSI calls this the “LREC Capabilities Based Requirements Identification Process (CBRIP).”
Works Cited
“Air Force Foreign Area Officer.” Secretary of the Air Force International Affairs. https://www.safia.hq.af.mil/Force-Development/International-Affairs-Specialist/Foreign-Area-Officer. Accessed 15 Aug. 2024.
Bump, Nathan. “Re-Thinking the Utility of Foreign Affairs Generalists.” FAOA Journal of International Affairs, 23 July 2024, https://faoajournal.substack.com/p/re-thinking-the-utility-of-foreign.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Language, Regional Expertise, and Culture Capability Identification, Planning, and Sourcing. CJCSI 3126.01C. Joint Chiefs of Staff, 8 Mar. 2023, https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Library/Instructions/CJCSI%203126.01C.pdf.
Department of Defense. DoD Instruction 1315.20: Management of the DoD Foreign Area Officer Program. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness,25 Mar. 2022, https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/131520p.pdf.
Department of the Army. Foreign Area Officer (FAO) Functional Area (FA48). U.S. Army,23 Apr. 2021, https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2022/08/03/8dc3f824/1-fa-48-foreign-area-officer-da-pam-600-3-as-of-23-apr-21.pdf.
Dominguez, Agustin E., and Ryan Kertis. “A New Foreign Area Officer Paradigm.” Military Review, vol. 101, no. 3, 2021, pp. 92–104.
Grosjean, Francois. A Journey in Languages and Cultures: The Life of a Bicultural Bilingual. Oxford UP, 2019.
---. Bilingual: Life and Reality. Harvard UP, 2012.
Holman, Don. “Regional Language and Culture Studies: Redefining the Discipline.” Applied Language Learning, vol. 31, no. 1–2, 2021, pp. 1–14. Joint Knowledge Online (JKO) Learning Management System (LMS). J14. Joint Training and Experimentation Network (JTEN), U.S. Joint Forces Command, https://jkodirect.jten.mil/Atlas2/page/desktop/DesktopHome.jsf. Accessed 25 Sept. 2024.
Lafford, Barbara. “Second Language Acquisition Reconceptualized? The Impact of Firth and Wagner (1997).” Modern Language Journal, vol. 91, no. s1, 1997, pp. 735–56, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00666.x.
Leaver, Betty Lou. Review of Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy, by Anita Wenden. Modern Language Journal, vol. 77, no. 2, Summer 1993, p. 236, https://doi.org/10.2307/328956.
Lett, John A. “Foreign Language Needs Assessment in the U.S. Military.” Long, Second Language, pp. 105–24, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667299.004.
Little, D. G., et al. Language Learner Autonomy: Theory, Practice and Research. Multilingual Matters, 2017.
Long, Michael H. “Methodological Issues in Learner Needs Analysis.” Long, Second Language, pp. 19–76, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667299.
---. “Overview: A Rationale for Needs Analysis and Needs Analysis Research.” Long, Second Language, pp. 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667299.
Mikkelsen, Ed. Personal communication. 24 Sept. 2024.
Miller, Zachary F., et al. “Leveraging Language for Specific Purposes as a Motivating Factor for World Language Study.” Language Program Vitality in the United States, edited by Emily Heidrich Uebel et al., Springer International Publishing, 2023, pp. 221–32, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43654-3_20.
Oxford, Rebecca L. Teaching and Researching Language Learning Strategies. Pearson Education, 2011.
Pawlak, Mirosław, et al., editors. Autonomy in Second Language Learning: Managing the Resources. Springer International Publishing, 2017.
Serafini, Ellen J., and Julio Torres. “The Utility of Needs Analysis for Nondomain Expert Instructors in Designing Task‐Based Spanish for the Professions Curricula.” Foreign Language Annals, vol. 48, no. 3, Sept. 2015, pp. 447–72, https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12150.
Thomson, Greg. Language Learning in the Real World. SIL International, 1999.
Thorp, Howard. “From the Program Manager.” Joint Knowledge Online Courseware and Capabilities Catalog. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Apr. 2024, p. 3, https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/JKO/JKO_Course_Catalog.pdf.
Trace, Jonathan, et al. Developing Courses in Languages for Specific Purposes. National Foreign Language Resource Center, 2015, https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/7bd5823b-469f-4df4-8007-638d7ce31c69/content.
“U.S. Navy Foreign Area Officer.” My Navy HR, https://www.mynavyhr.navy.mil/Career-Management/Detailing/Officer/FAO/. Accessed 15 Aug. 2024.
“USMC Foreign Area Officer.” United States Marine Corps International Affairs Program, https://www.ppo.marines.mil/Units/Strategy-and-Plans-Division/International-Affairs-Branch/International-Affairs-Program/Foreign-Area-Officer. Accessed 15 Aug. 2024.
van Avermaet, Piet, and Sara Gysen. “From Needs to Tasks.” Task-Based Language Teaching: A Reader, edited by Kris Van den Branden et al., John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2009, pp. 17–46.
Wenden, Anita. Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy: Planning and Implementing Learner Training for Language Learners. Prentice Hall, 1991.
Young, Scott H. Ultralearning: Master Hard Skills, Outsmart the Competition, and Accelerate Your Career. Harper Business, 2019.
KEYWORDS: Defense Language Proficiency Test, Oral Proficiency Interview, second language acquisition, language needs analysis, self-directed language learning, DOD LREC policy, target language skills