THE YARDSTICK FOR MARITIME ENGLISH STCW ASSESSMENT ...

Download PDF
0 downloads 0 Views 541KB Size Report
Comment
internationally accepted descriptive scale that clearly identifies the Maritime English ... appropriate link between the legal requirements of the maritime authorities or ..... the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and ...
THE YARDSTICK FOR MARITIME ENGLISH STCW ASSESSMENT PURPOSES Clive W. COLE

1

, Peter TRENKNER 2

1

World Maritime University Box 500 201 24 Malmö Sweden Fax : 0046 40 128442 Tel : 0046 40 356347 [email protected] 2

Wismar University Dept. of Maritime Studies R.-Wagner-Str. 31 18119 Warnemünde Germany Fax : 0049 381 498 5802 Tel : 0049 381 498 5856 [email protected]

ABSTRACT Assessing student performance accurately and meaningfully has always been one of the great predicaments of education. A result expressed as a number of marks out of a maximum total, or as a percentage, is simple to read but often lacks any true meaning when read by an outsider with little or no knowledge of the subject and/or the difficulties involved in achieving the result, and when read by the student if there is no additional feedback. This has become no less important when the IMO STCW 78 Convention as amended in 1995 is under review and global assessment goals are being required. Reliably assessing competence is no easy task, especially on an international level, but the process can be facilitated by establishing credible “Yardsticks” against which student performance can be measured while at the same time providing goals for the tasks and requirements of the seaboard ranks. Thus a practicable and internationally accepted descriptive scale that clearly identifies the Maritime English communication performance required for the STCW Operational and Management Levels would be more than an academic exercise – it being meaningful for students, MET institutions, officers and not least for end-users (i.e. shipping company management) who have frequently asked for the creation of such a device. This paper argues for the adoption of minimum skills levels for the shipboard ranks and promotes an internationally accepted proficiency scale that clearly describes levels of competence. The Yardstick presented in this paper is an attempt to provide a single standard instrument that gives benchmarks for training, testing and assisting candidates to attain the required STCW Operational and Management Levels and ensure that the entire maritime industry is operating from the same page. In this respect the authors suggest that it establishes an appropriate link between the legal requirements of the maritime authorities or administrations reflected in the STCW Convention on the one hand and the consequences regarding Maritime English instruction at MET institutions taking into account the needs of the end-users in the shipping industry on the other. Key words: Communication, Maritime English, Competence, Yardstick, STCW.

163

1. INTRODUCTION There was a time, until quite recently, when any paper involving Maritime English would begin with a definition of the term and a justification of its importance within the maritime industry, and consequently Maritime Education and Training. This is no longer the case, or at least it should not be. Today, more than ever before, we are all practiced communicators. Indeed communication, supported by an array of technical devices, is at the very heart of our modern existence allowing us to instantly access almost anywhere in the world. It may be a question of chickens and eggs but certainly communication and globalisation go hand in hand, as do the resulting increases in trade and the need for shipping to satisfy the demands. That competent (English) language skills not only facilitate but enhance our communication needs is surely indisputable. Communication and the usefulness, often necessity, of a unifying working language is central to all of us working within the maritime industry, whether shore-based or at sea, whether employer or employee, whether new recruit or ancient mariner. As the Secretary-General of the IMO states, today more than ninety percent of global trade is carried by sea and this “has fostered an interdependency and inter-connectivity between peoples who would previously have considered themselves completely unconnected” (Mitropoulos 2005). Therefore, communicative competence is a prerequisite not only to facilitate international trade but also to ensure that it functions in a safe, secure and environmentally friendly manner. That there was a need for a working language, and that this would largely be English, was recognised by the initiatives of the IMO to develop the Standard Marine Navigational Vocabulary (SMNV), adopted in 1977 and amended in 1985, the Standard Marine Communication Phrases (IMO SMCP) adopted in November 2001 as resolution A.918 (22) and numerous references in various conventions, including those listed in Annex 1 of this article. However, while IMO has clearly made considerable efforts to strengthen provisions concerning Maritime English requirements, this does not necessarily mean that the graduates of maritime academies are consistently well prepared and that the levels of competence attained during training match the (minimum) levels envisaged, but not precisely determined, by the international regulations where the STCW 1978 Convention as amended in 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the STCW Convention) is the leading light. The current article thus argues for the adoption of minimum skills levels for the shipboard ranks as described in a new Maritime English proficiency rating scale, the Yardstick, below. 2.

BACKGROUND

According to Bloxham and Boyd (2007) “Student marking is inherently frail” and many “assessment procedures would struggle to stand up to legal challenges.” Indeed, assessing student performance accurately and meaningfully has always been one of the great predicaments of education and training. A result expressed as a number of marks out of a maximum total, or as a percentage, is simple to read but often lacks any true meaning when read by an outsider with little or no knowledge of the subject and/or the difficulties involved in achieving the result, and when read by the student if there is no additional feedback. This has become no less important when the STCW Convention is under review and global assessment goals are being required. The creation of a practicable and handy Yardstick was first addressed within the Maritime English context at the German Association of Maritime English (GAME) Summer Seminar held in Gdynia, Poland in 1994 in a paper entitled “Bring on the bands” (Cole, 1994a). Here the author proposed supplementing assessment scores (marks and percentages) with banded descriptors that would be “accurate, easily understood and meaningful to both the individual student and to faculty members at large” and challenged the participants to draft appropriate Yardsticks for maritime purposes. This was taken up in the same year at the GAME Autumn Seminar held in Hamburg, Germany, where in a session entitled “Language performance assessment of (future) ship’s officers and ratings” working groups were asked to consider two Yardstick proposals prepared by Palti and Katarzynska. As a result of the discussions Cole (1994b) compiled a “Yardstick of English language competence for ship’s officers”. This document, while often referred to in the literature, received no further attention, most likely due to the fact that in the mid to late nineties the development and application of the IMO’s Standard Maritime Communication Phrases dominated the activities at Maritime English workshops and conferences. Nonetheless, what has become evident, as voiced at the time, is that a practicable and internationally accepted assessment measuring tool, namely a Yardstick that determines the Maritime English communication performance as set out in the STCW Convention Operational and Management Levels and in the SOLAS Convention, 2004, has great potential – it being meaningful for students, MET institutions, officers and not least

164

for the end-users. In particular the personnel departments of the shipping companies which recruit their shipboard crews on a worldwide scale, frequently voice the need for a practicable instrument against which they could determine the Maritime English proficiency of an applicant for a deck or engineer officer position and assess whether s/he is suitably qualified to meet the communicative requirements of the position envisaged or whether a recurrent testing of an actively sailing officer is necessary – such an instrument may prevent shipping companies from making costly or even safety-endangering wrong choices. This issue will gain even more importance since current technological and legal developments will allow reliable data to be accessed; for example, oral communications among the bridge team. Up until now such data, when available, has been largely drawn from anecdotal reports, observation reports and interviews which have differed widely (Trenkner, Nielsen, 1998). Nowadays, however, passenger ships and vessels of 3000 GT or more constructed on or after July 01, 2002 must carry Voyage Data Recorders (VDR), comparable to the "black boxes" in aviation which record VHF communications relating to ship operations and oral communications on the bridge that are then stored (SOLAS 1974 as revised, Chapter V). In this way the possibility for collecting reliable data has significantly improved and communication deficiencies may be revealed thus opening the door for interested parties to take appropriate action. It is worth noting that this has not been met with the utmost appreciation or unrestricted acceptance among active ships officers (Clements 1996). It is these parties who have voiced that they would appreciate having access to an instrument, viz. a yardstick, against which recorded communications could be measured and checked according to the relevant requirements or prescribed Maritime English competence. This matter was addressed during research for the IAMU PROFS Project, (Cole, Pritchard, Trenkner, 2007) leading the authors to recommend in their report that “issues concerning assessment … should be the topic of further research; in this respect standards should be established”. As a result, the 1994 Yardstick table has now been revisited and considerably revised by adding depth and more accurate content to the descriptions and identifying the minimum band levels expected of the various officer ranks. The table is presented below for consideration and hopefully for international recognition which the authors believe, would be best achieved by ensuring that it is included among the list of STCW Convention issues to be reviewed by the IMO STW SubCommittee due to be finalised during 2008; or in any other appropriate directive IMO document as, for instance, an annex to the IMO SMCP. 3.

THE YARDSTICK

The Yardstick, as presented in the table below, is an attempt to provide a standard that could be applied internationally. It was inspired by the “English Speaking Union Framework – performance scales for English language examinations” (1991) which proposed the Yardstick ladder as a tool for describing language performance in terms of quantity and quality where: 

quantity means the scale has a number of levels, or bands, corresponding to the rungs on a ladder, so that a learner's performance can be measured at a certain level on the scale, and



quality refers to the accompanying descriptions which are intended to outline briefly and clearly the main features of the language performance to be expected at each of the levels.

When developing this Yardstick the authors deliberately did not include the identification of Maritime English communication requirements of the different shipboard rating ranks, i.e. the STCW Convention Support Levels, but restricted themselves to the personnel covered by the STCW Convention Operational and Management Levels educated and trained at higher MET institutions. The shipping industry, however, may wish to have a Yardstick available for shipboard rating ranks, too. In this case an appendix would need to be developed, together with the industry, as the Maritime English requirements set out in the STCW Convention (Part A, Chapter II, Table A-II/4 and A-III/4) regarding ratings are comparatively vague and need to be considered in the STCW Convention review. Furthermore, requirements concerning general English language proficiency have not been included explicitly as in the authors' understanding a certain command of general English is a basic prerequisite in this respect (c.f. IMO SMCP 2002).

165

YARDSTICK OF MARITIME ENGLISH COMPETENCE FOR SHIPS OFFICERS Band Definition 9

Expert User (Senior Navigation Officers/ Senior Engineer Officers/Masters)

8

Very Good User (Senior Navigation Officers/ Senior Engineer Officers/Masters)

7

Good User (Junior Navigation Officers/ Junior Engineer Officers)

Minimum required for certification as Chief Officer

6

Competent User (Junior Navigation Officers/ Junior Engineer Officers)

Minimum required for certification as

Descriptor Has a full command of Maritime English as to safe navigation, technical ship operation, emergency management, cargo handling and administration; meets fully all the Maritime English requirements as laid down in the STCW Convention. Communicates fluently on radio complying with the Radio Regulations, is fully conversant with the IMO-SMCP and uses them flexibly when the addressee gives reason to apply them. Expert in the use of glossaries/dictionaries, and seldom needs aids when reading IMO and other documents or handling professional correspondence. Unhindered when leading meetings, even controversial ones, with other officers, crew, authorities, services and outsiders. Able to develop personal skills to include the instructions of others in the use of the English language on board. A command of Maritime English approaching that of the expert user in safe navigation, technical ship operation, emergency management, cargo handling and some administrative tasks; meets fully the Maritime English requirements as laid down in the STCW Convention. Copes well even with demanding and complex language situations, whether in oral or printed/written form, with only rare uncertainties and minor lapses in accuracy, fluency, appropriateness and discourse which do not affect communication. Communicates fluently on radio complying with the Radio Regulations. Fully conversant with the IMO-SMCP. Gives clear and sufficient orders in all situations connected with job and rank. Able to develop personal skills to include the instruction of others in the use of the English language on board up to band 6. Uses Maritime English effectively but may need to take special care in complex and difficult situations; meets the Maritime English requirements as laid down in the STCW Convention. Communicates well enough on radio complying with the Radio Regulations. A few lapses in accuracy, fluency, appropriateness and discourse and in conveying or comprehending the content of a message, but communication is effective, consistent and unmistakable. Conversant with the IMO-SMCP. Can give clear and succinct orders to ratings. Understands written and spoken instructions in how to use, maintain and repair equipment. Any lack in Maritime English skills does not hinder safe ship operations. Able to draft the messages, reports and letters required for ship business occasionally using dictionaries, glossaries and/or correspondence guidelines. Uses Maritime English with confidence in moderately difficult situations; meets basically the Maritime English requirements as laid down in the STCW Convention. Noticeable lapses in accuracy, fluency, appropriateness and discourse that may lead to difficulties in complex situations. Communication is effective on most occasions. Can communicate on radio under the supervision of senior officers applying selected standard phrases and occasionally using manuals in order to comply with the Radio Regulations. Speaks, reads and writes

166

YARDSTICK OF MARITIME ENGLISH COMPETENCE FOR SHIPS OFFICERS Band Definition

5

Descriptor

OOW/EOW

Maritime English sufficiently well for ship operations. Is familiar with the IMO-SMCP. Competent use of language in giving and executing orders. Able to respond competently in emergencies. Able to comprehend nautical/engineering publications. Able to write up logbook without causing misunderstandings.

Effective User

Uses the language independently and effectively in all familiar and moderately difficult situations. Can read and pronounce the IMOSMCP applicable to the working sphere. Frequent lapses in accuracy, fluency, appropriateness and discourse, but usually succeeds in communicating. Basically abilities as at band 6 but permitted to act only under constant supervision. Effective use of Maritime English in giving and carrying out orders.

(Assistant Navigation Officers/Assistant Engineer Officers)

4

Modest User

Uses basic range of Maritime English, sufficient for familiar and non-pressure situations. Many lapses in accuracy, fluency, appropriateness and discourse that restrict continual communication so that frequent efforts and guidance are needed to ensure that the communicative intention is achieved. Renders the minimum level required to follow specialist instruction in Maritime English using the IMO-SMCP. Able to ask and answer basic questions referring to the vessel, its cargo, equipment and machinery. Can pass on distress/urgency and safety messages and ask for assistance in cases of emergency using the relevant IMO-SMCP.

3

Limited User

Can communicate using sentences and questions. Problems in accuracy, fluency, appropriateness and discourse so that communication frequently breaks down or is difficult to maintain. Understands and executes orders from the IMO-SMCP for basic shipboard needs such as general emergency drills, person over board, and standard wheel/engine orders. Can speak about basic duties on board.

2

Intermittent User

Uses a very limited range of Maritime English. Adequate for basic needs and simple situations. Able to verbalize and understand such items as names and ranks, ship’s name and certain specifications of the vessel and/or its machinery. Can look up basic phrases from the IMO-SMCP but uses them inflexibly. Can ask for help and assist officers directing passengers in different situations, particularly in cases of drills or emergencies.

1

Non User

Uses a few words or phrases such as common greetings. Capacity limited to elementary listening and reading skills. Recognizes notices and signs within the working sphere but has difficulty in interpreting the information into action. At the lowest level, recognizes which language is being used. Should not be admitted as Navigation Officer Cadet/Engineer Officer Cadet without prior pre-sea Maritime English training.

167

It should be noted that the highest levels, 8 and 9, do not require officers to demonstrate native or native-like proficiency, but they do, nonetheless, determine the minimum safe operational levels of English language proficiency required by these ranks. Regarding the lowest levels 1 to 4, these could be deleted so that only those levels describing the minimum proficiency standards for officers remain. However, the authors have provided these levels primarily as a guide to MET staff and students so that institutional entry levels can be determined and individual progress can subsequently be monitored. 3.1. Testing An adopted Yardstick logically needs to be accompanied by corresponding testing tools. Such tools may exist already, or need to be created to determine the communication performance of an examinee according to the descriptors corresponding to the different bands of the Yardstick. In both cases this will warrant significant international input and cooperation that could be undertaken by a body like the IMLA-IMEC, favourably in cooperation with IAMU. However, it is not the intention of this article to present ideas concerning assessment methods, nor comment on the various language proficiency tests currently in use within MET. Nonetheless, what is apparent to the authors from their research and experience is that the assessment methods currently employed worldwide are almost as numerous as there are institutions. This, together with the notable lack of lists of learning outcomes is not particularly supportive in satisfying the ambition of the IMO to ensure that ships are safe and secure and the oceans on which they ply are clean. Thus, there is a pressing need to harmonise the learning outcomes of Maritime English courses along with the results of tests and other forms of assessment. In this respect the Yardstick above provides the standard which curriculum designers, teachers, students and career professionals are able to work towards. 3.2. The Yardstick and the STCW Convention As mentioned above, criticism may be heard concerning the lack of a detailed break-down of the relevant STCW Convention requirements in respect of the Maritime English competence to be expected from deck and engineer officers; essentially this suggests that the standards mentioned are not sufficiently detailed and precise enough to be applied either at sea or in the classroom. Generally, it may be said that this kind of criticism often results from a superficial study of the Convention. Those who are familiar with the lyrics and policy of drafting the STCW Convention know that the corresponding requirements are deliberately worded in a generalized manner to give each national administration the scope to apply them according to the specific conditions prevailing in their MET systems and to implement them creatively. Furthermore, the current version was the lowest common denominator practically attainable during many years of in-depth considerations at IMO as the conditions and pretexts in MET and pre-MET areas of IMO member states vary considerably and could hardly be placed under one umbrella. With regard to Maritime English, the requirements laid down in the Convention are somewhat more detailed than probably observed at first glance: the STCW Convention actually sets out minimum standards regarding the knowledge and competence for deck and engineer officers in the field of Maritime English expressis verbis only in Tables A-II/1 and A-III/1(English Language), and in Table A-IV/2 pertaining to GMDSS radio operators; this has to be regarded as progress compared to the STCW Convention of 1978. However, there are more than a hundred rules, regulations, provisions, etc., in the STCW Convention the enforcement of which tacitly requires a sound command of Maritime English otherwise the corresponding requirements will not be met. To illustrate this, the following examples from Column 4 (Competence) of the corresponding tables in the STCW Convention are drawn upon.

TABLE A-II/1

168

Competence

Knowledge, Understanding, Proficiency

Maintain a safe navigational watch.

 Thorough knowledge of the principles to be observed in keeping a navigational watch.  Thorough knowledge of effective bridge teamwork procedures.

Respond to emergencies.

 Precautions for the protection and safety of passengers in emergency situations.  Initial action to be taken following a collision or grounding.  Appreciation of the procedures to be followed for rescuing persons from the sea, assisting a ship in distress, responding to emergencies which arise in ports.

Prevent, control and fight fires on board.

 Evacuation emergency shutdown and isolation procedures are appropriate and implemented promptly.  Making reports and informing personnel on board are relevant to the nature of the emergency.

Monitor the loading, stowage, securing, care during the voyage and the unloading of cargoes.

 Ability to establish and maintain effective communication during loading and unloading.

Operate life-saving appliances.

 Ability to organize abandon ship drills.

TABLE A-III/2 Competence

Knowledge, Understanding, Proficiency

Plan and schedule operations.

 Use internal communication systems.

Organize safe maintenance and repair procedures.

 Organizing and carrying out safe maintenance and repair procedures.

Maintain safety and security of the vessel, crew and passengers.

 Organizing of fire and abandon ship drills.

Develop emergency and damage control plans and handle emergency situations.

 Actions to be taken to protect and safeguard all persons on board.

It is obvious, that the realization of these requirements from a far longer list (see Annex I) is not manageable by the personnel concerned, i.e. the deck and engineer officers on shipboard, without an adequate command of Maritime English. Taking into account that almost 90% of the world's merchant vessels presently sail with multi-

169

lingual or "mixed" crews, the following proposal may be justified with respect to the impact Maritime English proficiency has on the STCW Convention: Whenever a provision in the Convention requires language communication for its realization within an international context, the medium for the interchange of corresponding intelligence among the personnel concerned should be Maritime English in specified forms; for safety related verbal ship-to-ship, ship-toshore and on board communications the IMO Standard Marine Communication Phrases (SMCP) should be applied wherever practicable. This intent, introduced at an appropriate place within the STCW Convention, for instance in Code Part A, Chapter I, Standards regarding general provisions, Section A, would dispose of the arguments regarding the allegedly imprecisely drafted Maritime English requirements in the Convention and would make any further reference to Maritime English superfluous. This would also be in line with the recommendation submitted by the EU Member States and the European Commission, IMO STW 39/7/11, Regulation I/14a – Communication on board (November 2007) relating to the forthcoming revision of the STCW95 which reads: Effective communication Each administration shall hold companies responsible for ensuring that there are at all times on board all ships adequate means in place for effective oral communication and communication between the ship and the shore based authorities in accordance with chapter V, regulation 14, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the SOLAS Convention, relating to safety and security, between all members of a ship's crew, especially with regard to the correct and timely reception and understanding of messages and instructions. So far there are two internationally accepted legal foundations or dimensions upon which Maritime English instruction and research is established. First, the STCW Convention provides the essential contents of Maritime English instruction for navigational and marine engineering students, i.e. for future deck and engineering officers. Second, the SMCP, which being entirely in compliance with the Convention (Trenkner 2002) provides the language and the speech acts to be used in verbal safety-related communications. A third dimension involving the communication competence expected to be rendered by students and officers, is not referred to in the STCW Convention and is inherent only to a certain extent in the SMCP. However, the Yardstick as proposed in this article, attempts to define this communication competence for the different groups of shipboard officer ranks at the STCW Convention Operational and Management Levels. It has been developed in a practicable manner and is thus a manageable instrument for both MET institutions and managers in shipping companies as well as crewing agents who need to determine the exact levels of Maritime English communication competence among their students and officers, and where necessary suggest any remedial action that needs to be taken. 4.

RELATED ATTEMPTS TO PROVIDE PROFICIENCY RATING SCALES

In completing this article the authors have reviewed other attempts to provide proficiency rating scales for specific communication purposes of which the following, in the opinion of the authors, are relevant in the context of this article. 4.1. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) The International Civil Aviation Organization, which like IMO is also a specialised agency of the UN System dealing with international transportation, has integrated a language proficiency rating scale into its Procedures for Air Navigation Services (Montreal 2006), consisting of six competence levels: Pre-elementary, Elementary, Preoperational, Operational, Extended and Expert, and six language categories: Pronunciation, Structure, Vocabulary, Fluency, Comprehension and Interactions. An accompanying explanation of the Rating Scale gives additional information and provides descriptors for each category and competence level. ICAO has also developed a language proficiency test that “will be used to discover the true English language capabilities of pilots and air traffic controllers in the work environment” (ICAO 2007a). Here, the Operational Level (Level 4) has been identified as the minimum required proficiency level for radiotelephony communication. The intention was for this inclusion to become effective as of 05 March 2008, however, at this juncture 75% of ICAO’s member states remained non-compliant. As a result, a new deadline, March 2011, has been established, at which

170

time pilots wishing to fly internationally must have met the requirements of at least the level 4 Operational Level demonstrated by taking the ICAO proficiency test; a test that has to be re-taken every third year. Further, regarding the formal evaluation of language competence for benchmarking purposes ICAO states: The establishment of the training programme required to bring existing staff to the appropriate level would require an accurate assessment of the level of language proficiency of existing staff. (ICAO 2007b). In the opinion of the authors, these aspects should also be considered by the STCW Convention reviewers, although for pragmatic reasons the conclusions the aviator regulators have arrived at may not necessarily be the same. 4.2. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages is a guideline used to describe the achievements of learners of foreign languages across Europe with the intention of providing a basis for the mutual recognition of language qualifications. In November 2001, a European Union Council Resolution recommended this Council of Europe instrument in setting up systems of validation of language competences. Essentially the CEFR document comprehensively describes the competencies necessary for communication, the related knowledge and skills, and the situations and domains of communication. Learners are divided into three broad divisions which are further sub-divided into six levels: A

Basic User A1 Breakthrough

B

A2 Waystage

Independent User B1 Threshold

C

B2 Vantage

Proficient User C1 Effective Operational User

C2 Mastery

Accompanying each reference level are descriptors detailing the required competencies in the four language skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing. To ensure that the levels are uniformly interpreted by all language professionals, a Language Policy Division develops illustrative material; DVDs showing oral performances, online examples of written performance, and CD-ROMs containing items and tasks for testing reading and listening comprehension skills. The authors note the impressive achievements of the large body of international experts who produced the CEFR and the on-going complementary projects of the Language Policy Division. Certainly the scientific research and wide consultation undertaken, resulting in an extensive resource of information, is of great value and worth calling upon when the matter of a Maritime English Yardstick for language proficiency rating purposes is further discussed. 4.3. Two Additional Scales Like the CEFR both the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Proficiency Guidelines and the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) also provide a means of rating the proficiency of foreign language speakers. The systems are similar in that they identify stages of proficiency, i.e. what individuals can and cannot do, rather than assessing achievements based on specific classroom instruction. Specifically, for each of the four language skills of Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing, the ACTFL Guidelines distinguish four or five levels: Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, Superior (Distinguished), where each level is further sub-divided into Low, Mid and High, whereas the CLB consists of 12 benchmarks sub-divided into 3 parts: Basic, Intermediate, Advanced Proficiency; each benchmark then being described in terms of “can do” statements or “performance descriptors". It is worth noting that all of these systems focus on the successful completion of communicative tasks, rather than on linguistic accuracy and are thus suitable for teachers employing the Communicative Language Teaching methods recommended in IMO Model Course 3.17, Maritime English.

171

5. CONCLUSION Even without legal obligations it is self-evident that all those involved in ship operations should have the necessary language skills to successfully manage the communicative needs associated with specific duties and rank during any operational event. Since, in practice this is clearly not always the case, the legal tool of the IMO, the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping 1978 as amended in 1995, emphasises directly and indirectly the importance of acquiring appropriate language proficiency and the need to assess an individual’s (English) language skills, primarily in listening and speaking, for operational purposes. Consequently, MET institutions inevitably test their students who then present the resulting scores and grades to potential employers. However, a result expressed as a number of marks out of a maximum total lacks any true meaning, especially on the international level, when read by an outsider who has little or no idea of the intended learning outcomes of the course of instruction. An internationally accepted proficiency scale that clearly describes levels of competence would therefore aid employers in assessing whether a potential employee is up to the task in hand or not. The Yardstick presented in this article is an attempt to provide a single standard instrument that gives benchmarks for training, testing and assisting candidates to attain the required operation levels and ensure that the entire maritime industry is operating from the same page. Thus this Yardstick could be regarded as an appropriate link between the legal requirements of the maritime authorities or administrations reflected in the STCW Convention on the one hand and the consequences regarding Maritime English instruction at MET institutions taking into account the needs of the end-users in the shipping industry on the other. Finally, a decisive step towards ensuring that effective and reliable language communication takes place between ships, from ship to shore and on board would be the inclusion of the proposal presented in section 5 of this article in the revised STCW Convention, namely that Maritime English should be used in the international context to guarantee the requirements and spirit of the Convention are implemented wherever language communication is involved. 6. REFERENCES Bloxham, S., Boyd, P. (2007). Developing effective assessment in higher education: a practical guide. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Clements, M. E. (1996). On Board Communication Problems Due to the Lack of a Common Language, Master of Science dissertation (pp. 98-99). WMU, Malmö, Sweden. Cole, C. (1994a). Bring on the bands – a student centred faculty friendly assessment. Echo 28/August. pp 4-12. Warnemünde: German Association for Maritime English. Cole, C. (Ed). (1994b). A Yardstick of English language competence for ship’s officers. Echo 29/December. p11. Warnemünde: German Association for Maritime English. Cole, C. W., Pritchard, B., & Trenkner, P. (2007). Maritime English instruction – ensuring instructors’ competence. IBÉRICA, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes (pp 123147). Spain: AELFE. Cole, C. W., Trenkner, P. (2004). Whither Maritime English? – In retrospect and prospect. In Proceedings of the International Maritime English Conference IMEC 16 (pp. 22-36). Manila: Maritime Academy of Asia and the Pacific. International Civil Aviation Organization. (2006). Procedures for Air Navigation Services, Rules of the Air and Air Traffic Services, Annex Aeronautical Telecommunications, as revised. Montreal: ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization. (2007a). Retrieved January 06, 2008 from www.flightspeak.co.uk/gloss7htm International Civil Aviation Organization. (2007b). Retrieved January 06, 2008 from www.icao.int/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#24 International Maritime Organization. (1978). Standard Marine Navigational Vocabulary (SMNV). London: IMO. International Maritime Organization. (2002). Standard Marine Communication Phrases (SMCP). London: IMO.

172

Mitropoulos, E. (2005). International Shipping – Carrier Of World Trade. A message from the Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization. Retrieved December 11, 2007 from www.IMO.org Trenkner, P., Nielsen, D. (1998). A Method for the Acquisition of Statistical Data on Maritime Communication Deficiencies. Project under the Germany/Hong Kong Joint Research Scheme 1997/98. Hong Kong: Warnemuende. Trenkner, P. (2002). The IMO-Standard Marine Communication Phrases and the Requirements of the STCW Convention 1978/95. In Proceedings of the International ITUMF-JICA Seminar on Maritime English (pp. 37-57). Istanbul Technical University, Turkey. Yorke, M. (2007). Grading Student Achievement in Higher Education: Signals and Shortcomings. UK: Routledge.

173