| Description |
1 online resource (xxiii, 148 pages) : color illustrations. |
| Series |
Report ; TR-1189-AF. |
|
Technical report (Rand Corporation) ; TR-1189-AF.
|
| Bibliography |
Includes bibliographical references (pages 141-148). |
| Contents |
Increasing the language proficiency of incoming Air Force officers -- RAND's study -- Organization of the report -- Background on adult language learning -- Measuring language proficiency -- Categories of difficulty -- The supply of language expertise -- Individual differences among language learners -- Educational programs designed to achieve high levels of proficiency -- After language learning: attrition and maintenance -- Implications -- Survey of Air Force officers -- Survey sample -- Survey content -- Survey results -- Language skills among Air Force officers -- Language learning experiences -- Relationships between language skills and other desirable outcomes -- Mandatory proficiency policies -- Incentives and disincentives for learning a second language -- Open-ended responses -- Conclusions and recommendations -- Conclusions -- Recommendations -- Immediate next steps -- Closing comment -- A. Descriptions of the ILR proficiency levels -- B. List of language flagship programs -- Screenshots of the survey -- Language courses at ROTC detachments -- E. Additional details on "other" and open-ended responses. |
| Summary |
Would it be feasible to require all Air Force officers to attain a specific level of proficiency in a second language at commissioning? Would there be unintended consequences? To find out, the authors asked Air Force officers about their own language-learning experiences, what they thought about language learning and mandatory language proficiency policies, what incentives and disincentives they perceived, among other questions. While the officers felt language proficiency was important for mission success, they were not convinced about its importance for career success. They also noted that the time and commitment required to attain proficiency might interfere with other, more pressing academic demands. The languages most have studied already are not among those most critical to national security, and those who were required to study a language considered themselves less proficient than those who had studied it voluntarily. Language skills were, however, associated with other desirable outcomes, such as greater interest in and tolerance of other cultures and being interested in and capable of learning another language in the future. But requiring all to attain such proficiency before commissioning would mean fewer would be eligible for it. Instead, we suggest implementing a variety of pre- and post-commissioning language-learning incentives and opportunities designed to accommodate learners at all levels (from those just starting out to those who are at more advanced levels) and to increase acquisition of underrepresented and strategic languages. Career-long policies for maintaining and increasing language proficiency would be needed to make pre-commissioning and early career efforts worthwhile. |
| Note |
Print version record. |
| Subject |
United States. Air Force -- Officers -- Training of.
|
|
United States. Air Force. (OCoLC)fst00538280
|
|
Second language acquisition.
|
|
Communicative competence -- United States.
|
|
EDUCATION -- Multicultural Education.
|
|
Armed Forces -- Officers -- Training of.
(OCoLC)fst01351837
|
|
Communicative competence. (OCoLC)fst00870361
|
|
Second language acquisition. (OCoLC)fst01110576
|
|
United States. (OCoLC)fst01204155
|
| Added Author |
Hardison, Chaitra M.
|
| Other Form: |
Print version: Second language skills for all? 9780833060341 (DLC) 2012041174 (OCoLC)812531832 |
| ISBN |
9780833083180 (electronic bk.) |
|
083308318X (electronic bk.) |
| Report No. |
RAND/TR-1189-AF |
|
