CHARLES UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE

FACULTY OF EDUCATION

Department of English Language and Literature

ESP – Developing a Course for Aviation English

DIPLOMA THESIS

Prague, 2016 Author: Bc. Magdaléna Přívorová

Supervisor: Mgr. Karel Žďárek

Declaration

I hereby declare that this thesis is a result of my own work and that it is based on no
other sources than those stated on the Works Cited page.

………………………………………..

Prague, April 2016 Bc. Magdaléna Přívorová

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Mgr. Žďárek for his support,
guidance, and valuable comments. I would also like to thank Mrs. Hochmanová who
enabled me to teach at the Czech Air Navigation Institute. Lastly, my thanks go to my
colleagues who served as my students and who cooperated with me despite their initial
doubts.
Abstract

The diploma thesis deals with the development of an ESP (English for specific
purpose) course for aviation English. The theoretical part introduces the methodology
for ESP course development, the demands on the teacher and other specifics associated
with ESP; the practical part focuses on the contents of the course and its evaluation
based on the feedback provided by the teacher and the students. In the conclusion the
results of the feedback are discussed and the possible solutions suggested.

Key words: ESP, aviation, course development

Abstrakt

Diplomová práce se zabývá vývojem kurzu v rámci ESP (English for specific
purposes) pro leteckou angličtinu. V teoretické části je představena metodologie vývoje
kurzu, nároky na učitele a další specifika vázající se na ESP; praktická část obsahuje
náplň kurzu a jeho zhodnocení na základě poskytnuté zpětné vazby ze strany učitele a
studentů. V závěru jsou projednány výsledky a nabídnuta možná řešení.

Klíčová slova: ESP, letectví, vývoj kurzu

Table of Contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

Theoretical Part ..................................................................................................... 3

1 Profession of Simulator Pilots .................................................................... 3
1.1 Requirements and Training .................................................................. 3
2.1 Simulators ............................................................................................ 4
3.1 Job Content........................................................................................... 5
2 Aviation English ......................................................................................... 7
1.2 History of Aviation English ................................................................. 7
2.2 Genre of Aviation English ................................................................... 9
2.2.1 General Characterisation ................................................................ 9
2.2.2 Phraseology .................................................................................. 10
2.2.3 Plain Language ............................................................................. 12
3 English for Specific Purposes ................................................................... 13
1.3 Introduction ........................................................................................ 13
2.3 Types of ESP ...................................................................................... 14
3.3 Influences on ESP teaching and learning ........................................... 15
4.3 Needs Analysis ................................................................................... 17
5.3 Specialist Discourse ........................................................................... 19
6.3 Developing Syllabus .......................................................................... 21
3.6.1 Link between Curriculum and Syllabus ....................................... 22
3.6.2 Syllabus Organization .................................................................. 23
3.6.3 Approaches to Course design ....................................................... 24
3.6.4 Wide-angle and Narrow-angle Courses ....................................... 25
3.6.5 Course Content and Materials ...................................................... 26

Practical Part ....................................................................................................... 28

4 Course Specifics ....................................................................................... 28
1.4 Initial Teaching Situation ................................................................... 28
2.4 Needs Analysis ................................................................................... 29
4.2.1 Procedure...................................................................................... 29
4.2.2 Target Needs – Proficiency .......................................................... 29
4.2.3 Target Needs – Language Functions and Domains...................... 33
4.2.4 Students‘ Expectations and Motivation ....................................... 35
 4.2.5 Global Aim of the Course ............................................................ 38
5 Syllabus Development .............................................................................. 39
1.5 Procedure............................................................................................ 39
2.5 Organization of the Week and Real Content ...................................... 39
3.5 Syllabus Development of the Aviation Refresher Course ................. 41
5.3.1 Syllabus Characteristics and Organization................................... 41
5.3.2 Materials Selection ....................................................................... 45
6 Teaching Experience and Reflections....................................................... 49
1.6 Procedure............................................................................................ 49
2.6 Day One – Problems Linked to Passenger’s Behaviour .................... 49
6.2.1 Group 1 (3rd of July) ..................................................................... 49
6.2.2 Group 2 (13th of July) ................................................................... 51
6.2.3 Group 3 (20th of July) ................................................................... 52
6.2.4 Summary ...................................................................................... 53
3.6 Day 2 – Health Related Problems ...................................................... 54
6.3.1 Group 1 (7th of July) ..................................................................... 54
6.3.2 Group 2 (14th of July) ................................................................... 55
6.3.3 Group 3 (21st of July) ................................................................... 56
6.3.4 Summary ...................................................................................... 57
4.6 Day 3 – Aircraft Breakdowns ............................................................ 58
6.4.1 Group 1 (8th of July) ..................................................................... 58
6.4.2 Group 2 (15th of July) ................................................................... 59
6.4.3 Group 3 (22nd of July) .................................................................. 60
6.4.4 Summary ...................................................................................... 61
5.6 Day 4 – VFR Flight in Difficulties and Weather Conditions............. 62
6.5.1 Group 1 (9th of July) ..................................................................... 62
6.5.2 Group 2 (16th of July) ................................................................... 63
6.5.3 Group 3 (23rd of July)................................................................... 64
6.5.4 Summary ...................................................................................... 65
7 Course Evaluation ..................................................................................... 66
1.7 Evaluation of the Course Aim ............................................................ 66
7.1.1 Test Content ................................................................................. 67
7.1.2 Interview Content ......................................................................... 68
7.1.3 Test Results .................................................................................. 69
 7.1.4 Interview Results .......................................................................... 74
7.1.5 Summary ...................................................................................... 78
2.7 Evaluation of the Course Content ...................................................... 79
7.2.1 Summary ...................................................................................... 84

Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 86

Sources ................................................................................................................ 89

Lesson Planning Sources .................................................................................... 92

Appendices .......................................................................................................... 95
Appendix 1 ...................................................................................................... 95
Appendix 2 ...................................................................................................... 96
Appendix 3 ...................................................................................................... 98
Appendix 4 ...................................................................................................... 99
Appendix 5 .................................................................................................... 115
Appendix 6 .................................................................................................... 120
Appendix 7 .................................................................................................... 121
Appendix 8 .................................................................................................... 123
Introduction

Millions of people all around the world are employed in the field of aviation.
Some of the more widely known professions are widely known and noticed, such as
pilots or air traffic controllers; however, there are many more which are obscured and
the content of which no one outside of aviation understands. That is the example of my
part-time job – the position of a simulator pilot.

Simulator pilots help to train future air traffic controllers by controlling

simulated aircrafts and pretending to be real pilots. The job therefore requires not only a
knowledge of English, which serves as a lingua franca in aviation, but also a familiarity
with the main aviation procedures and simultaneously the skills of multitasking and
high concentration. The Czech Republic has its own guidelines for licencing simulator
pilots, one of which is the level of English. The currently required level is B2 with a re-
examination every 3 years. In between this period, no additional English courses are
required and it is up to each person whether they feel the need to deepen their language
skills.

The only compulsory course simulator pilots have to attend is a summer course
scheduled as a normal work shift when not all simulator pilots are needed. Based on my
colleagues’ remarks and comments these courses have not been popular throughout the
years since the teachers taught predominantly aviation phraseology (which my
colleagues knew since they use it every day) and no plain English1, which is, however,
the content of the re-examinations. Understandably, the motivation of my colleagues
towards such courses is very low and their distaste rather high.

This thesis, hence, deals with the problematic of English for specific purposes, a
branch of English language teaching which is concerned with teaching English for a
particular context such as studying or occupation. Even though there are many
similarities it shares with general English teaching, there are also some major
differences without which teaching English for specific purposes would not be possible
– a detailed analysis of the target situation, discourse and students’ needs, and the
course development stemming directly from its results.

1
Plain English is a term used in aviation field for standard spoken English.

1
 As these factors also apply to aviation English, since it falls under the category
of English for Professionals, and the experience of my colleagues with such courses is
rather poor, the thesis describes an attempt to develop a weeklong refresher aviation
course for simulator pilots based on the methodology designated for English for specific
purposes.

The thesis is divided into two parts. The theoretical part introduces the
profession of a simulator pilot (chapter 1), followed by the characterisation of aviation
English and its history (chapter 2). The next section of the theoretical part deals with
English for specific purposes, its features and the requirements it imposes on the course
developer (chapter 3).

The practical part provides the reader with information about the course
specifics coming from the needs and teaching situation analysis (chapter 4). Based on
this description the process of the course development is explained and illustrated
(chapter 5). The syllabus is then put into practice and the teaching experience recorded
through daily reflections (chapter 6). At the end, the results of the course evaluation in
the form of testing and students’ feedback are analysed (chapter 7) and a final
conclusion presented.

2
Theoretical Part

1 Profession of Simulator Pilots

The profession of the simulator pilot (PP) is not known to many people outside
the world of aviation since these pilots neither come into a direct contact with
passengers nor appear in movies as ATCOs or pilots. Nevertheless, their position is
crucial to the ATCO’s training, as without them it would be impossible to train future
controllers. Not every Air Navigation Service Provider (ANSP) has its own simulator
pilots, but those who do define the requirements for this profession themselves
(Materna). The following requirements, therefore, proceed from the Czech Air
Navigation Institute’s (CANI) Operational Manual, for the position of PP falls under its
authority.

1.1 Requirements and Training

Every candidate for the position must have completed at least secondary school
education and achieve English Language Proficiency at level B2 or above as specified
by CEFR. The CANI’s English department either examines the language proficiency of
candidates or, if a valid proficiency certificate is submitted, the candidates may skip this
part of the selection. Those who pass the English examination are invited to an
interview with a committee consisting of the head of simulator pilots and other
instructors who then select the most suitable candidates. No previous experience with
aviation is required; even though it is certainly an advantage to know at least basic
information about the procedures and regulations (Materna).

After the selection procedure, the admitted candidates undergo training, which
includes about one week of theory and two to three weeks of training in simulated
conditions. The theoretical part is partially taught (35 lesson units) and partially covered
by a self-study (17 lesson units), where the lectures given by individual instructors
contain mostly information which could be confusing or which demands a deeper
knowledge of a particular theme. The topics these lectures discuss are, for example,
airspace classification, airport facilities and their surroundings, meteorology, principles
of flight or non-standard situations and the use of aeronautical phraseology. Candidates
learn on their own the basic aviation laws, ICAO airfield and airlines codes,
performance parameters of the most common aircrafts, phraseology and the aviation
spelling alphabet (Pichl).

3
 After the theoretical part candidates begin the practical training in simulated
conditions. They have to go through at least 50 exercises each of which is evaluated and
marked by an instructor. If any exercise is marked with a “D,” it needs to be retaken.
During the beginning exercises, trainees learn how to handle the simulator and
simultaneously speak and be aware of where their targets (planes) are. As the training
progresses, the difficulty rises as well and at the end, candidates undergo the so-called
“heavy-duty” exercise in which they have to manage about 10 targets and at the same
time perform a simulation of some non-route situation, as well as an on-job-training
where they communicate with ATCO students instead of instructors. All the simulations
are carried out in English and it is not rare that candidates learn new phraseology as they
go, as not all situations are covered in Annex 10 Vol II. and Doc 4444.

The whole training process finishes with an exam supervised by an examiner

from CANI. Trainees have to pass a test focusing on all the theory they have learned
and undergo one simulation with the CANI supervisor monitoring their speech,
simulator management and knowledge of aviation practices and recommendations.
After successfully passing the exam, trainees obtain a certificate enabling them to
perform the job of a PP on the CANI simulator (Materna).

2.1 Simulators
As the name of the position suggests, simulator pilots control simulators used for
training and renewal of licenses of air traffic controllers. Currently, there are five
different simulators:

1. CANI Simulator
The simulator is located directly in the building of the Aviation Academy and is
used either for the basic training of ACC (area control centre) and APP
(approach) trainees or for commercial trainings of foreign customers (Materna).

2. Rose
This simulator is situated in a building opposite to the Aviation Academy and serves
similar purposes as the previous simulator. Both ACC and APP exercises can be run
there; however, its users are only Czech trainees during their basic ACC training and
licensed army approach ATCOs who undergo their maintenance training there
(Materna).

4
 3. 3D Tower
The simulator is two floors below Rose and the training of APP trainees takes
place there. During their training a 3D simulation of an airport is used, so that
trainees can “see” taxiing of aircrafts and other situations related the
management of an airport. This simulator is available for both the Czech and
foreign trainees (Materna).

4. TR 7 Simulator
The only device, which is not situated in Prague, but is located in Brno and
Ostrava. It is used for ATCO trainees for that region, maintenance training of
licensed ATCOs of that region and also for retraining in case of implementation
of new procedures (Materna).

5. Simulator E2000
The simulator is located in Jeneč in the centre of Air Navigation Services of the
Czech Republic and is in operation exclusively for Czech ATCO trainees and
licensed ATCOs. It resembles the real system used for navigation and can be
used for both the ACC and APP. The second part of ATCO training,
maintenance training and refresh trainings take place here.

For each of these simulators a PP has to go through special training, so that he or

she would know how to handle it; however, despite the differences among simulators
aviation procedures and language use remain the same, and therefore the content that is
described applies to any simulator.

3.1 Job Content

In the middle of the month, the head of PPs sends an email with a shift list for
the following month, so that every PP knows where they will be working each day (as
the simulators are at different places). A shift takes usually eight hours (only
occasionally ten) and during that time approximately five simulations are performed
each of which can take from 20 up to 80 minutes. During the day PPs change neither
their position (from approach to en-route or tower) nor simulators.

Every simulator is separated into two rooms – one being for the ATCOs or
trainees, the other one being designated for PPs. ATCOs see on their screens the map of

5
the area they have to control with plane targets and other information (such as speed,
flight level or the next point the plane flies across), but they cannot manipulate the
simulator itself. The PPs, on the other hand, not only see the same map and plane targets
as the ATCOs, but they can also enter commands for individual planes and thus control
the planes and at the same time simulate the behaviour of pilots ATCOs would
encounter in real life. The entire communication between an ATCO monitoring the
planes and a PP controlling the planes takes place only via frequency and during the
simulation they do not see each other at all.

As has been already mentioned, each simulator serves different purposes and
therefore different types of exercises can be uploaded to the simulators – some being
with regular traffic, others having a central focus such as radio failure or avoidance of
weather. Without guidance PPs would not know where the core of the exercise lies and
which planes should make requests (such as a shortcut or change of flight level) or
perform a specific action (e.g. emergency descend). For these purposes every PP gets
the so-called pilot-log, which contains all the information a PP needs to know before the
start of an exercise. The pilot log has three columns – in the first one the time at which
an action should be executed is given, the second one contains the call sign of the
aircraft to which the action and the time apply and the third one covers the action the PP
has to perform with that specific aircraft at that specific time. The instructions in the
third column may vary greatly depending on the type of exercise.

After the beginning of an exercise, PPs communicate with ATCOs as the

aviation regulations and recommendations suggest and carry out the commands given to
them by the ATCOs (for more information about the controller-pilot communication see
chapter 2.2 Genre of Aviation English). Simultaneously, they also check the pilot log
and at given time execute the prescribed actions with the particular aircraft.
Standardized aviation phraseology is used throughout; however, it is not rare for an
instructor of ATCO trainees to come and demand a change of plans and improvisation.
At this moment a good knowledge of English language and aviation phraseology comes
in handy, as the PP does not have time to think about how to communicate since he has
to control the simulator, think of the best way to execute the wish of the instructor and
still communicate fluently for the aircrafts he manages and which are not affected by the
new plan.

6
2 Aviation English

1.2 History of Aviation English

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is one of the most
important aviation-related agencies, which was founded in December 7, 1944, after the
signing of the Convention of International Civil Aviation (also known as the Chicago
Convention) by its 52 member states. The original purpose for establishing the
organization was to promote and maintain safety, efficiency and cooperation in civil
aviation. Nowadays, ICAO works with its 191 Member States and other groups to
ensure the compliance with Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) for civil
aviation. The SARPs are to be observed by the ICAO Member States, which in turn
enables the management of more than 100 000 daily flights all over the world. The
recommendations and policies deal not only with traffic management or personnel
licencing of aviation employees, but also with aviation communication and the use of
language (ICAO, “About ICAO”; “History”).

Until the year 2003 there had been only two Recommended Practices in Annex
10 and one Standard found in Annex 1 dealing with the use of the English language. The
Recommended Practices state that “the air-ground radiotelephony communications shall
be conducted in the language normally used by the station on the ground or in the
English language” (ICAO, Annex 10 2: 5.2.1.2.1) and that “the English language shall
be available, on request from any aircraft station, at all stations on the ground serving
designated airports and routes by international air services” (ICAO, Annex 10 2:
5.2.1.2.2). The Annex 1 declared air traffic controllers should be able to speak the
language or languages nationally defined for air-ground communications without any
hindrance that might affect the communication. However, the recommendations did not
apply to flight crews nor did not specify the required level of language proficiency
(ICAO, Doc 9835 1.3.1).

Three major accidents2, in which more than 800 people lost their lives, proved
these recommendations and practices had been insufficient and needed to be altered. In
all three accidents insufficient English proficiency was determined to be a crucial

2
1. 1977: Two Boeings 747 (KLM and Pan Am airlines) collided on the runway in Tenerife,
583 victims (Kebabjian)
2. 1990: Boeing 707 (Avianca flight) crashed into a village due to fuel exhaustion near the JFK airport,
73 victims (Kebabjian)
3. 1995: American Airlines Boeing 757 flew into terrain in Cali, 159 victims (Kebabjian)

7
causative factor for accidents. There are three ways in which language use can conduce
to accidents (ICAO, Doc 9835 1.2.2):

1. Incorrect use of standardized phraseologies

Even though ICAO has published its standardized phraseology, the purpose of
which is to offer clear and unambiguous language, one survey revealed that 70
per cent of all speech acts uttered do not comply with the recommended
standards. Since the phraseology has been developed for safety reasons, its
correct use can be crucial in many circumstances; nevertheless, it does not cover
all possible situation and pilots’/air traffic controllers’ (ATCOs) needs (ICAO,
Doc 9835 1.2.4).

2. Lack of plain language proficiency

The lack of plain language proficiency has also played a very important role in
some accidents. When the level of language proficiency of both the pilot and the
ATCO is not balanced and one of the sides struggles to understand the nature of
the problem or simply cannot express his or her concerns, a dangerous situation
can result in a catastrophe.

3. Use of more than one language in the same airspace

This can negatively influence the alertness of flight crews who do not
understand all the languages used for radiotelephony and has been determined as
one of the playing factors in several accidents as well (ICAO, Doc 9835 1.2.6).

As a result of the catastrophes the ICAO Assembly adopted during its 32nd
session Resolution A32-16, in which the Assembly proposed the idea of minimal
language requirements for air traffic control personnel and flight crews and thus the
Proficiency Requirements in Common English Study Group (PRICESG) was
established. The main tasks of this group were to review the existing provisions for air-
ground and ground-ground voice communication in international civil aviation, to create
standardized English language testing requirements and procedures, and to develop
minimum skill level requirements for the usage of the English language (ICAO, Doc
9835 1.4.3).

8
 After three years of work, Amendment 164 was created and added to Annex 1 –
Personnel Licencing. This document stated that all flight crews and ATCOs must (as of
March 5, 2008) prove their language proficiency by reaching the Operational Level 4 of
the ICAO Language Proficiency Rating Scale. To reach the language requirements, an
applicant must comply with the Holistic Descriptors published in Appendix 1 (ICAO,
Annex 1 1.2.9). Without achieving this minimum level of proficiency, the applicant will
not be licenced and will not be able to perform his or her job (Institute of Air
Navigation Service).

There are currently two recognized ICAO tests, which can be used for testing the
language proficiency – ELPAC (English Language Proficiency for Aeronautical
Communication) and RELTA (RMIT English Language Test for Aviation) (ICAO,
“ICAO Recognized Tests”). In the Czech Republic, the ELPAC test has been used since
March 5, 2008 (“List of States”).

2.2 Genre of Aviation English

Every language mirrors its specific use and even the most general situations in
which language is used have unique characteristics that proceed from the context of
communication and the intentions of the user. Such typical features can be found also in
aviation language – in its speech functions, themes, interactive schemata or conditions.

2.2.1 General Characterisation

The field of aviation language is wide – it covers everything from the language
use of engineers, flight crew and technicians to the specialized language of pilots, air
traffic controllers or aircraft constructors. The ICAO language proficiency requirements
deal, however, just with aeronautical radiotelephony communications, which apply to
only two groups of people – ATCOs and flight crews. The requirements themselves
regard the use of standardized phraseology, which has been developed and approved by
ICAO, and the use of plain language (ICAO, Doc 9835 3.2.6). These two subgroups do
not, nevertheless, fully characterize the language used in radiotelephony
communications as there are more details to be taken into consideration.

In radiotelephony communication only speaking and listening skills are currently

required since the entire communication between ATCOs and pilots is executed orally
via a frequency. Due to this kind of communication lacking all conversational gestures,
clear and accurate speech is fundamental. Both speakers are also unable to maintain the

9
common conversational customs such as interrupting one another’s stream of speech to
ask clarifying questions or comments because both cannot transmit their messages at the
same time and so more information is needed to negotiate the meaning of the message.
Poor acoustics and background noise, which may be considerable in the cockpit, play
another important part in the communication between ATCOs and pilots. It is not rare
that a part of the message being cut off because of the use of microphones or two
speakers starting to talk at the same time. The missing part of the message or even the
whole message must be then repaired. The last fundamental part of the radiotelephony
communication lies in its heavily context-dependent nature, which is based on the
knowledge of aviation themes and procedures (ICAO, Doc 9835 3.3.1).

Even though the general features of the aviation language proceed mainly from
the nature of radiotelephony communication, there is more one has to take into account,
one of which being the pronunciation and different levels of speakers’ proficiency. The
aviation community is international, which means the proficiency of speakers may vary
to a large degree and this inequality may cause problems to poorer speakers as well as to
native speakers. Native speakers have to adjust their speed of speech and accent
influenced by the region they are from, whereas weaker speakers have to overall
improve their proficiency (ICAO, Doc 9835 3.3.3). These differences put both groups of
speakers as well as their teachers under pressure since human lives are at stake and there
is no room for misunderstandings.

2.2.2 Phraseology
In comparison to ordinary communication, the correct use of language and
clarification of any misunderstandings are crucial in aviation. Each mistake and
misunderstanding can have fatal consequences (as mentioned in chapter 2.1.1 History of
Aviation English) and is therefore to be prevented and/or corrected at any time. To
facilitate the communication between pilots and ATCOs and to prevent tragic accidents,
ICAO has developed and issued aviation phraseology which “shall be used in all
situations for which it has been specified. Only when standardized phraseology cannot
serve an intended transmission, plain language shall be used” (ICAO, Annex 10 2:
5.1.1.1). All procedures related to the pilot – controller communication and to the use of
phraseology are prescribed in Annex 10 Vol. II and in Chapter 12 of DOC 444.

10
 The aviation phraseology contains a reduced number of words with precise
meanings “exclusive to the aviation domain” (ICAO, Doc 9835 3.3.3) and short
sentences which stem from the deletion of any excessive parts of a sentence, such as
determiners, auxiliary verbs or prepositions. The sentences and other structures are
mostly composed of nominalizations (“Request low pass”), imperative forms (“Report
intentions”) and passive structures (“Cleared to intercept localizer”). These sentence
structures are mirrored in the predominant communicative functions, which can be
traced in the radiotelephony communication and which are divided into four groups
(ICAO, Doc 9835 3.4.6).

The first group is directed toward triggering an action and is the core of the
communication. It includes orders, requests and offers to act, sentences dealing with
advice (giving advice, requesting advice etc.), permissions and approvals and
undertakings (ICAO, Doc 9835 Appendix B 1). The typical phrases belonging to this
group are for instance:

“Immediately descent to flight level 130.” (Order)

“Unable to maintain rate of climb.” (Refuse to act)

“Follow standard flight plan route due to restricted areas.” (Deny permission)

The second group of communicative functions is concerned with sharing information

about the present, future and past events as well as the necessity and feasibility of the
orders and plays a supporting role (ICAO, Doc 9835 Appendix B 2). An example
sentence can be a description of a holding pattern for the pilot, announcing expected
flight level over a certain point or asking about the ability to take a higher flight level:

“Hold over present position, inbound track present heading, left hand pattern,
outbound time one and a half minutes.”

“We expect flight level 190 over VLM.”

“Are you able to take flight level 350 in about 15 minutes due to traffic?”

The third and fourth group deal with the management of the pilot-controller relation and
with the management of a dialogue. These two categories are not as important as the
first two and they add some kind of a negotiating element to the communication since

11
they contain phrases such as greetings, confirmations or corrections. Some of these
phrases are used in plain language (greetings), but for others the ICAO phrase is
prescribed (ICAO, Doc 9835 Appendix B 2).

“Confirm reducing speed to two five zero knots?”

“Correction, changing to frequency 127,575.”

“Negative, maintain level 310.”

Due to the distinct roles of pilots and ATCOs, some communicative functions are
relevant only for one group (e.g. only ATCOs can give orders or advice), whereas other
functions apply to both sides (e.g. giving information or asking about necessity). This
distinction is especially important for the teaching context, as not all the functions need
to be taught for both production and comprehension (ICAO, Doc 9835 3.4.9).

2.2.3 Plain Language

The ICAO standardized phraseology is sufficient for most of the daily situations
an ATCO or a pilot may encounter; however, during non-standard situations (such as a
pilot in distress or having a sick passenger on board) the standardized phraseology
cannot fully serve and plain language is necessary instead.

Plain language in the aviation context “means a spontaneous, creative and non-
coded use of a given natural language” (ICAO, Doc 9835 3.3.14) which is still restricted
by the nature of aeronautical radiotelephony communications, as well as by safety
requirements and recommendations. The range of vocabulary used during such
situations is wider and although it usually refers to the aviation domain, in some cases it
may also apply to other non-aviation topics such as medicine or unlawful interference.
The grammatical structures are more complex as well and the sentence condensation
typical for standardized phraseology is loosened and replaced by the normal use of
pronouns and articles (ICAO, Doc 9835 3.3.13-16). The following conversation is a
transcription of a belly landing in Scottsdale (Mori):

Controller: “ and… Comanche 00P say intentions.”

Pilot: “I am trying to sort out here, I want to make sure I have exhausted all my
possibilities…and if this… if this doesn’t work out the way I want it to, would
you please tell my wife I love her?”

12
While the use of plain language during emergency situations is necessary and
justifiable, it plays quite a big role during day-to-day communications as well, since
pilots and ATCOs need to negotiate certain information for which there are either no
standardized phrases or they use phrases which despite not being prescribed are used by
the vast majority of pilots and ATCOs (ICAO, Doc 9835 3.3.17-18). The following
example is the first case as such a question is not covered in the ICAO documents
dealing with radiotelephony communications and it shows two aircrafts descending
towards the airport:

Pilot: “Who goes first? Us or Berlin 335?”

The second example presents a typical phrase pilots use instead of the standardized
phraseology:

Controller: “CSA 123, Ruzyně radar, radar contact. Descent to flight level 120,
no speed restrictions.”

Pilot: “Roger, descending to flight level 120, speed is mine, CSA 123.”

No matter if plain language is used as a substitution for the standardized phraseology or

its necessity arises during an emergency situation where the majority of utterances takes
place in plain language, speakers must be at all times fluent, intelligible, brief and must
be able to resolve misunderstandings (ICAO Doc 9835 3.3.20). Otherwise its use may
cause greater distress for both parties and could result in an even more difficult
situation.

3 English for Specific Purposes

1.3 Introduction
The end of the Second World War was the beginning of an expansion in the
whole world, primarily on the economic and scientific scene. The expansion brought not
only new inventions and commercial connections, but also the necessity of an
international language, which was, due to the economic dominance of the United States
and other reasons, taken over by English. Until this point, the knowledge of a foreign
language had been “a sign of a well-rounded education” (Hutchinson and Waters 6) and
had been done mainly for its own sake; however, with the boom of English as an
international language, the demands of learners changed. They did not want to study for

13
pleasure or entertainment any more, but for business and educational purposes, which
put English teachers under pressure, as the learning content started to be ruled by the
needs and demands of their students (Hutchinson and Waters 6 - 7).

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, several studies were carried out the results of
which supported the view that the language we use varies significantly based on its
context and that a proper analysis of the particular context (such as work or study) could
serve as the point of departure for specifying course content (Hutchinson and Waters 8).
All this resulted in the establishment of a new branch of English Language Teaching
(ELT) – the “teaching of English for Specific Purposes (ESP)” (Kennedy and Bolitho
1).

Not only the researcher and studies, but also two other important developments
contributed to the progress of ESP. The first was shifting the learner to the centre of
course design with the underlying premise being “relevance to student’s needs and
interests equals higher motivation.” The second development was the perception of
language as a set of functions, and not only grammatical structures. This view not only
headed towards the more “communicative approach” of ELT, but it also offered those
students who had already some experience with the English language and needed
practice and opportunity to talk (Kennedy and Bolitho 2 - 3).

Proceeding from the brief history above, we may characterize ESP as a branch
of ELT, which finds its basis in the analysis of students’ needs and then guides the
topics, grammar and overall course development around this analysis.

2.3 Types of ESP

There are many terms currently used to describe the types of ESP and even
though the most fundamental are quite broad, it is necessary to mention them to give the
overall distinction of the field of ESP.

We can generally divide ESP into two groups – English for Academic Purposes
(EAP) and English for Occupational Purposes (EOP). Basturkmen (Developing Courses
4) adds a third group – English for Professionals (EPP). Learners of EAP are usually
university students, who need language knowledge in concrete discourse communities
and during their studies. Typical examples of EAP are medical or legal English. EOP
applies to learners, who use English as a part of their occupation (or who try to prepare

14
themselves for future jobs), such as English for the industry sectors (Knight 6). The last
group, EPP is more narrowly focused EOP, since it is concerned with specific
professions – pilots, nurses etc. (Basturkmen, Developing Courses 5).

ESP can be viewed not only from its perspective of purpose, but also with
respect to “work and study experience of learners” (Basturkmen, Developing Courses
6). Pre-experience ESP contains preparatory courses for learners, who have never
worked in the professional field, but want to apply for that position. During-experience
ESP courses are designed for students still working in their professions at the time of
the course. The last group, post-experience courses are prepared for students no longer
working in their occupations, but who want to resume the job after thei acquire the
necessary skills (Basturkmen, Developing Courses 6).

All these types of ESP should be taken into consideration during course
development since injudicious classification might impede the process of selecting
appropriate techniques, approaches or materials. As there are other factors influencing
the teaching and learning in ESP, the correct classification is crucial and necessary for
smooth course development.

3.3 Influences on ESP teaching and learning

There are many factors and conditions which teachers need to take into
consideration when planning the course syllabus. Some of these resemble the influences
one encounters during English for general purposes (EGP) others are ESP specific and
therefore essential for the course development.

1. Role of English

The role English plays within students’ countries impacts students’ familiarity
and knowledge of the language and thus their perception of their need for the
language and its usefulness. For some students, English can be the only source
of scientific or academic information and therefore English will be more
prominent for them, which will naturally influence their approach to the
language (Kennedy and Bolitho 12). The position of English in a specific
occupation or field also impacts the course development. For some positions
only certain skills are required (e.g. ATCOs need to speak and listen perfectly;
however, reading and writing are not necessary at all), others need to develop all

15
skills, such as pilots who also fill in the pre-flight checklist. These needs and
demands challenge the teacher because he has to determine whether it would be
worth including all skills despite the obvious students’ needs and then motivate
the students who have their own opinions on what is necessary.

2. Resources and teaching conditions

The ease with which a teacher can obtain necessary materials and teaching
facilities also influences the course development. It makes an immense
difference if the teacher has to create all the materials himself, or if they are able
to use ready-made worksheets. Another important factor is the “quantity of
instruction” (Kennedy and Bolitho 13), which relates to the number of lessons
available and the course duration (intensive or long-term) as this influences the
extent and depth of the course content, materials and objectives of the course. A
teacher’s willingness to learn at least some information from the specialist
subject is equally important and mirrored in the course content validity to the
real occupational context (Kennedy and Bolitho 13).

3. The learner

Even though the factors already mentioned influence the course development to
a great extent, it is the learner who has the biggest importance during course
preparations and progress. Their age, level of English, motivation and general
attitudes towards learning are displayed in their expectations and behaviour
during the course. The older the student is, the more they think about their
reasons for further studies and the more definite opinion they have on their
needs. It is therefore important that the needs perceived from both (student’s and
teacher’s) sides meet and that the objectives and purposes are explicitly stated.
Student’s motivation and attitudes towards learning can influence, on the other
hand, the selection of materials. When the student’s motivation is low and their
previous learning experience rather poor, it is important to incorporate such
materials and methodologies that would raise natural interest and prove to
students there are more inspiring of how to teach ESP (Kennedy and Bolitho 13
– 18).

16
 4. Specialist discourse

The most demanding factor teachers have to cope with is the requirements and
the nature of the specialist discourse. Teachers might not know the language
context and so they find themselves in two roles at the same time – teacher, on
one hand and student, as they have to study the specialist vocabulary and
context. The teacher must, therefore, spend a considerable amount of time
exploring the discourse, which is covered by the needs analysis carried out prior
to syllabus design (Kennedy and Bolitho 19).

4.3 Needs Analysis

ESP focuses on teaching specific language learners need in their occupations and
studies and because of this specificity; one stage of the course development is usually
the identification of skills in the targeted situation in relation to the present state, also
known as the ‘needs analysis’ (Basturkmen, Developing Courses 17 - 19).

Many questions need to be asked during the analysis; however, the very first
question suggests itself: ‘What is meant by needs?’ Hutchison and Waters (54 – 58)
offer a basic distinction of target and learning needs, which helps with the further, more
in-depth analysis. The target needs are the skills and knowledge students need in the
target situation, whereas learning needs show what students need to do in order to
achieve them. Target needs are derived from various factors – the necessities (given by
the target situation), deficiencies (the gap between students’ current and desired
proficiency) and wants (expectations and desires of students, teachers and sponsors, the
perceptions of which usually differs).

Learning needs show the course developer the route to the desired goal, since the
mere identification of the target situation does not indicate how to get there. The “needs,
potential and constraints of the route (e.g. the learning situation) must also be taken into
account” (Hutchinson and Waters 61) for the analysis to be valid and helpful. The target
situation is not always the best point of reference for the selection of suitable techniques
and materials, since not every related text will necessarily have the desired motivating
effect and some skills may develop target skills effectively without being needed in the
target situation.

17
 It is therefore useful to remember to perform the learner and teaching context
analysis as well. In the learner analysis, questions concerning the learner’s motivation
should be addressed as well as their expectations, experiences and learning styles. The
results of the teaching context analysis will determine the selection of materials (what is
available and suitable) and also a realistic estimation of what can be achieved and
offered during the course period (Basturkmen, Developing Courses 19). It is sometimes
possible target needs do not correspond to the teaching context and need to be adapted
to be achievable and more realistic.

The last analysis, which should be carried out before the beginning of the course
and without which teaching would be impossible, is discourse analysis. Since there are
many options how discourse analysis can be approached, it will be dealt with in a
separate chapter (2.3.5.)

The success and validity of needs analysis depends on the quality of the
collected data. There are many collecting techniques available, but unless the teacher
has enough time for conducting the analysis he or she has to be very careful about what
data to collect. Frequently used forms of collecting are questionaries, interviews and
“observations of interactions and language use in target situation” (Basturkmen,
Developing Courses 30) (Hutchinson and Waters 58). As has been previously argued,
needs analysis is very complex and should therefore consist of multiple types of
collecting techniques, which is, however, not always achievable due to lack of time or
resources. Teachers also need to bear in mind the advantages and disadvantages that
occur by each collecting technique. Even though questionaries are easy to use and can
cover large number of students, the interpretation of them can be intricate because of the
impossibility to ask further clarifying questions. Interviews, on the other hand, are more
time-consuming and students might not be as honest as in a questionnaire, but can lead
to deeper understanding of the present situation. Observations belong to the same time
demanding category, but the data they afford easily justifies this inconvenience and can
considerably help the teacher to understand the target situation. Teachers sometimes
utilize additional sources of information to support their analysis, such as talking to an
expert, observation of another course, previously used materials or reflections on
previous programmes; however, all this depends on the required data, time and overall
opportunities of the teacher (Basturkmen, Developing Courses 31 – 33).

18
 In spite of needs analysis being a crucial part of course development in ESP,
there have also been some criticism and issues pointed out which should be taken into
account while analysing the results. Some of them are (Basturkmen, Ideas and Options
19 – 20):

1. The institution offering the language course can determine the information about
needs, which can negatively influence the course content and move it into an
undesired direction at the expense of students. The course developer has to then
decide whose perspective is more reliable and balance the wishes of both parties
(institution and students).
2. Students of pre-experience ESP courses may be unaware of their own needs and
thus be unreliable sources for the analysis if they do not know the specific
content of their future job. During-experience ESP students might have, on the
other hand, insufficient meta-language and might not be able to describe their
needs. Basturkmen also adds it is improbable students without some linguistic
knowledge would be able to pertinently decide on their needs.
3. Target and learning needs may not be congruent to each other, as students might
not be prepared to acquire the target language functions and structures.
4. Language use in the target situation varies too much and cannot be fully
described. Attempts of analysis may produce a rigid and false perspective of the
language use in the target situation.

The ultimate fact course developers should remember is that needs analysis does
not apply only to the beginning stages of course development, but that it is an ongoing
process. While gaining experience and understanding of the target situation, teachers
should re-evaluate the existing course and modify it, so that it would better fit students’
needs and ultimately lead them to the desired destination.

5.3 Specialist Discourse

ESP curricula concentrate on the description of language use and
communication in the target situation and the main objective of most of the courses is
better use of language and better communication in the specialist field. Crucial for ESP
course development is thus the language content, which needs to be based on a very

19
specific analysis and description of the language use. There are two ways how the
specialist discourse can be brought into ESP course development – either by “providing
concepts about communication and language use in a community of practice” or by
“providing descriptions of language use in a community of practice” (Basturkmen,
Developing Courses 36). When teachers and course developers obtain the concepts used
in the target situation, they are able to execute their own research; whereas in the latter
case they can start directly planning the language content and further investigation is not
necessary.

It is important to notice course developers do not always have to conduct their

own research as it takes a large amount of time and effort. They can often use already
existing lectures, studies and other resources as the base for course development.
Nevertheless, it is sometimes not possible to use somebody else’s surveys (since there
might not be any source dealing with the specialist field or the data might not be
relevant) and an investigation needs to be carried out. Four basic approaches are
commonly recognized with regards to investigating the discourse for specific purposes.
They may be carried out individually or combined:

1. Corpus-based analysis
Corpus-based lexical analysis tries to identify patterns in the data from
corpora. A corpus is “a collection of authentic written or spoken texts
available…” (Basturkmen, Developing Courses 46) where the text can
represent either a specific field (e.g. Aviation English) or a language variety
(e.g. Indian English). The analysis consists of identification of specific
linguistic characteristics, which are common for that given field or variety
(such as common words or collocations)(Basturkmen, Developing Courses
47).
2. Genre Analysis
Genre analysis shares similar features with the corpus-based approach to
language as it tries to identify the conventions and similarities of texts of the
same genre. Genres are types of texts (such as pre-flight checklists or
academic essays), which when organized according to their genre share
similar functions, patterns or other language features. Every community of
practice has a set of genres that are fundamental for its proper running and
their analysis helps teachers to understand how the genres are connected to

20
 the work and why some learners struggle to produce it correctly
(Basturkmen, Developing Courses 44 – 46).
3. Ethnography
Ethnographical analysis has a different view on how to analyse field-specific
language. It is based on qualitative research, which tries to analyse domain-
specific language in its natural setting, as well as the behaviour of speakers.
Ethnography looks at the events (speaking situations) through participants’
eyes and then interprets what these events mean for the participants.
Researchers use observations, interviews or documents to get the general
notion of the setting in which language is used (Basturkmen, Developing
Courses 43 – 44). Just how important this analysis has become is
acknowledged by Hugo Bowles in his article in The Modern Language
Journal 96 stating that for some methodologists a discourse analysis is not
sufficient without the results from the ethnographical analysis, since the
workplace plays too fundamental role to be omitted (Bowels 52).
4. Conversational Analysis
This final approach to discourse analysis stems from ethnomethodology and
studies how the organization of interactions displays the target situation. As
the name suggests, conversational analysis applies only to spoken
interactions and at its centre stand concepts such as speech, speech acts or
conversational repair. The collected data can be then used either directly in a
classroom and bring relevance to the classroom interaction or can be taken as
a point of reference for the expected oral language proficiency (Bowles 50 –
52).

6.3 Developing Syllabus

The process of syllabus development consists of two parts - collecting all the
necessary information through needs analysis, and using theory in order to use the
collected data efficiently and to produce or adapt appropriate materials. During the latter
stage it is important to remember there will never be a full correspondence between the
results of needs analysis and the course design as there are always some external
limitations (as described in chapter 2.3.3), which prevent this (Hutchinson and Waters
65). What is noteworthy as well is the interchangeability of the sequence of these two
parts. Decisions about the course content may sometimes be taken before other research

21
and vice versa. A teacher may first decide some items should be a part of the course
content and first then search for appropriate language descriptions (Basturkmen,
Developing Courses 52) or base the syllabus on results of needs analysis.

3.6.1 Link between Curriculum and Syllabus

It is the course designer’s responsibility to set “not only broad, general goals but
also [to specify] objectives that are accessible to all those involved with the program”
(Dubin and Olshtain 34). These goals are usually stated in written documents, the names
of which are traditionally known as curriculum and syllabus. Curricula describe general
goals related to the educational approach, which apply to any subject and which are
connected to learning theories based on the subject matter. Syllabi, on the other hand,
are more detailed and transform the general approach into specific moves related to
more narrow objectives (Dubin and Olshtain 35).

The connection between a curriculum and a syllabus is clear when the

curriculum’s general goals have an influence on the three main areas of a syllabus.
Frequently curriculum goals focus primarily on the following areas: language content
(influenced mainly by language theories), process/means of delivery (shaped by
language learning philosophies) and product/outcome (affected by specific
achievements contained in the curriculum). It is not, however, uncommon that there is
no curriculum the specific syllabus should emanate from, which is especially the case
for syllabi outside of the public educational system. The lack of a concrete teaching
policy in written form does not, nevertheless, mean a complete lack of general
objectives. These are, rather, mirrored in the teacher’s and course proprietor’s beliefs
and views on language teaching despite their absence in written curriculum (Dubin and
Olshtain 42 – 44).

ESP could be considered as one of those situations, since its teaching is

autonomous in respect to a general or state curriculum and depends solely on the
proprietor of the language course. Nonetheless, this does not fully apply to the field of
aviation English because there are many documents published by ICAO which give the
course developer a general perspective on how to approach the course development and
methodology. Additionally, different approaches to ESP teaching and course design
(some of which will be discussed in chapter 6.3) are available based on the specific
teaching situation, so the aviation course developers have sufficient materials and

22
documents they can use instead of an official curriculum, such as ICAO’s Guidelines
for Aviation English Training Programmes.

3.6.2 Syllabus Organization

Once the course developer determines the content of the course, they are faced
with the question of its organization. Dubin and Olshtain outline in their Course Design
five different types of possible organization, which a developer can choose from based
on the course objectives (51 – 63).

The first format is called linear. It is traditionally used for organization of

discrete grammatical items because it allows sequencing the content based on
pedagogical and linguistic principles, such as proceeding from less complicated
structures. Once the sequencing is done, its order must be kept, otherwise its purpose
would be lost. This format is suitable when a course book is used and the teacher wants
to follow its order.

The modular format enables to connect topical syllabus with the skills contained
in course aims and, therefore, does not need to follow a prescribed sequence. Due to this
fact, the course developer may use any material which is related to the topic and is not
restricted by one course book. Since skills play an important role, they are all integrated
(based on their importance for the target situation) in a “sequence of skill-building
tasks” (Dubin and Olshtain 54) which are then used for every topic covered by the
course. That means the students follow the same sequence of tasks in every unit
regardless of its theme.

The third possibility for organizing a syllabus is the cyclic format with the help
of which students return to the same topic multiple times but the topic is more difficult
every time it reappears. The students, for example, discuss in unit one the basic
difference between present simple and continuous and then they proceed to other
grammatical structures. After completing all the structures or units on that level, they
start again with the difference between present continuous and simple but this time
more rules are added, such as using always with present continuous.

The matrix format is slightly similar to the modular format but it gives the
teacher and students even more opportunities to choose topics randomly and so it is best
suitable for situational context. The matrix table is a combination of situations (e.g.

23
family, school life, media) on one axis and tasks (interviews, role plays, writing stories)
on the other one. The situations and tasks intersect and create a certain number of
squares each of which contains a number of different activities assigned for that
situation and within that task. It is then entirely up to the teacher or students which tasks
and which situational context they are interested in that particular day.

The last format was created in order to bring structure and order into
functional/notional syllabi. As a result the story-line format was proposed, for it
maintained coherence in between functions with the help of a story. The format is, thus,
a narrative during which students encounter different language functions and which can
be used together with any above-mentioned formats.

3.6.3 Approaches to Course design

The approach to course design depends entirely on the course developer as there
are no prescriptions or rules to follow; nevertheless, there are three major approaches
(as described in Hutchinson and Waters) a developer can encounter and adapt in the
ESP methodology – the language-centred, skills-centred and learning-centred
approaches.

The language-centred approach endeavours to make a direct connection between

the needs analysis of the target situation and the content of the course. Although this
process seems reasonable, there are a few deficits; course developers should take into
consideration. The needs analysis identifies only the target situation; however, it takes
no interest in students and their needs, motivations and expectations. The course
syllabus is inevitably inflexible as it proceeds from only one assumption, which may
have furthermore incorrect data and hence be useless for the target situation. The
approach is therefore quite unsuitable, since it completely avoids learners and perceives
learning as a linear process (Hutchinson and Waters 65 – 68).

The skills-centred approach to course design not only identifies the desired
performance of learners (as does the language-centred approach), but also analyses the
skills and strategies underlying this performance. The objectives are then presented
from the standpoint of both performance and competence. This is further supported by
the assumption that many course objectives cannot be achieved due to various
hindrances and that if courses are designed only with respect to goals, many students
will inevitably fail. Yet, ESP is a process that should facilitate learners to achieve their

24
intentions and so by perceiving course objectives in terms of skills, the distinction
between ESP course and target situation disappears. Learners are then able to achieve
what they can and the whole learning process is seen as a continuum without strictly
given objectives to reach. The negative side of this approach is, nevertheless, the image
of the student as a user of language, not a learner (Hutchinson and Waters 61 – 71).

Although learners play at least some role in the skills-centred approach, the
target situation is still the ultimate point of reference during the process of course
design. The learning-centred approach goes even further. It is no longer focused only on
competence and performance, but rather on how someone acquires them. During the
developing process, the learner is always thought of, because the learning-centred
approach views course design as a “negotiation process” (Hutchinson and Water 74) as
there is no sole factor determining the course content. The factors (learning situation,
materials, methodology and others) also influence each other, which makes the whole
developing process dynamic; and needs, materials and students’ expectations are
constantly re-evaluated, so that they would be permanently valid (Hutchinson and
Waters 72 – 75). Hence, the learning-centred approach may be considered a
combination of the two previous ones and the most balanced, for it attempts to design
the syllabus in terms of all the influencing factors.

3.6.4 Wide-angle and Narrow-angle Courses

Irrespective of the approach the course developer decides to adopt, he or she
should also ponder the specificity of the course. As has been already mentioned, the
content of the course is determined by the target situation and other factors; however,
the specificity of the course is based mostly on the target audience. Wide angled
courses are created for a “general group” of students (Basturkmen, Developing Courses
53), whose needs are not as specific. Such courses concentrate on broader skills and a
register with more subfields. Narrow courses, on the other hand, have a very specific
audience with more homogenous needs and a particular work environment, the focus is
therefore directly related to their occupation (such as English for pilots) (Basturkmen,
Developing Courses 54 – 55).

Regarding these narrow and wide-angled courses there are certain factors and
criticism of the distinction which should be taken into account, the first of which being
the universality of language. There has been an ongoing discussion whether broad

25
description of language (e.g. Business English) is helpful to its learners, for they have
specific needs either way, and such a concept as core vocabulary for that register may
not exist. The second factor centres on generic skills, which can be described as skills
relevant for the target situation. The question is if there are some wide angled skills,
which can be transferred into specific jobs and if students are able to do that. Opponents
of wide-angled courses argue that different disciplines and specific fields mean different
focus on what is important and a wide approach is therefore not necessary (Basturkmen,
Developing Courses 54; Hyland 114 - 117).

3.6.5 Course Content and Materials

When planning a course syllabus, the major question every course developer has
to face is what should be included in the course and how the syllabus will be structured.
During the decision-making, a distinction between real content and carrier content must
be made in order to plan the course well. Real content indicates pedagogical objectives
of a teacher – skills, language functions and vocabulary learners will have achieved by
the end of the course. Carrier content stands for the “means of delivering the real
content” (Basturkmen, Developing Courses 59), which means materials, specific
activities and use of texts.

Real content is then determined by the results of needs analysis (as argued in
chapter 2.3.4) and carrier content stems from the defined course objectives. There are
multiple criteria for organizing the syllabus (carrier content), such as according to the
topic (airfield, navigation systems), situation (at check-in, lost luggage), language
functions (reporting weather, asking for clarification) or skills (taking notes, giving a
speech). Even though these syllabi attempt to structure the knowledge, they are
individually not sufficient, for a simple term as “navigation systems” may mean a great
many things – from vocabulary, to grammar or other language functions. Hence, most
of the courses are a combination of several syllabi (Hutchinson and Waters 85 – 88).

For better orientation, syllabi are usually structured into units, which may consist
of several areas – grammar, vocabulary, language functions or skills. The units then
contain specific content items for each area. During the structuring process, the teacher
must also remember and consider suitable sequencing of grammar - grading based on
complexity, learnability and teachability of individual grammatical items (Thornbury,
How to Teach Grammar 9), vocabulary items (the criterion of immediate need) and

26
logical flow (first teaching ordering and then asking for a receipt) (Basturkmen,
Developing Courses 61).

After specifying the course content, a course developer has to select appropriate
materials. He can either select from already existing materials, adapt some texts or other
sources or develop new ones. The selection process involves comparing and matching
results from subjective (with regard to materials requirements) and objective (evaluating
individual materials) analysis (Hutchinson and Waters 97 – 99), where course books are
usually evaluated. When adapting or developing materials, ESP teachers tend to use
authentic texts for they naturally include the target language and also garner students’
attention. During adaptation grammatical or vocabulary items are altered to suit
students’ proficiency.

For materials design, two options are available – to create a brand new text or to
use already existing input and assign it a specific task, as described by Hutchinson and
Waters (108 – 109). Their model contains input, content and language focus, and task.
Input is any piece data depending on the needs. Language focus gives students the
opportunity to learn new language items, to analyse its use and to practice it, while
content focus expands their non-linguistic knowledge and creates opportunities for
meaningful conversation. Task is where language and content knowledge meet and
acquire purpose.

Picture 1: Model for designing new materials (Hutchinson and Waters 109)

27
Practical Part

Developing a course in ESP is a very intricate process, which is influenced by

many factors. Students’ needs, institutions’ expectations and teachers’ knowledge and
experience meet amid and need to be taken into consideration during the development
phase itself, but also re-assessed during the teaching phase so as to be up-to-date. To
demonstrate how elaborate the whole process is will be demonstrated in the practical
part of this thesis. First, the teaching situation will be introduced and described, as well
as the results of needs’ analysis discussed. The objectives following from this
discussion will then be determined and the planning process explained. After this, every
lesson plan will be reflected and compared. Lastly, feedback from students will be
discussed and the whole course evaluated.

4 Course Specifics

1.4 Initial Teaching Situation

The refresher course of aviation English for simulator pilots has been done in the
last five years by the language department of Aviation Academy, which offers
mandatory and optional English courses to all employees of the Air Navigation Services
of the Czech Republic. The course for PPs is held during summer (July and August),
when there are not that many ongoing courses for ATCOs, and is mandatory for PPs,
since it substitutes their normal shifts. The course lasts one week, with approximately 5
hours per day, Fridays being reduced to 4 hours (Materna).

Many stories about the course of the week have circulated over the years, from
watching movies all day, over filling in grammar exercises to speaking only Czech or
learning phraseology with which PPs had been already familiar. The impression these
comments PPs made was there was no real objective behind the course and there was no
follow-up as it did not prepare PPs for the English examination they have to pass every
three years. In fact, the exam contains predominantly English grammar, which is not
related to aviation English and students are required to pass a spoken part as well,
during which they have to answer conversational questions. As can be expected, PPs
have quite an aversion towards this summer course and approach it with contempt.

The official beginning of the course was announced two weeks prior with the
objective being stated “Refresher course of Aviation English for PPs.” Three different

28
groups of students were to be taught in the course of three weeks (one group per week),
their proficiency and sympathies towards one another being very diverse. No materials
or further instruction were provided, as the teacher3 was not an official member of the
Language Department of Aviation Academy. The time remaining for the course
development was thus limited as was the teacher’s initial knowledge about the
anticipated course’ content.

On the other hand, the teacher had had five years of experience with the
occupation (and therefore aviation English) by that time and she was familiar with the
attitudes of her students. A classroom in the Aviation Academy, which was equipped
with a computer, interactive white board and a projector, was also reserved for the
course. Furthermore, one of the former English teachers, who had previously taught this
course, was willing to answer any questions and share her experience and advice
regarding the course content, which was later implemented in the needs analysis.

2.4 Needs Analysis

4.2.1 Procedure
As has been argued in chapter 2.3.4 about needs analysis, the investigating
process usually includes several steps, for there are numerous matters which need to be
scrutinized and taken into account. This needs analysis contained three parts – stating
the target needs through investigating specialist discourse, assessing students’
expectations and based on the results determining the ultimate objective of the course.
Lastly, the learning needs were discussed and defined. With the objective being
designated later on in the process, the analysis was in fact carried out in reverse. This
had a very simple reason – the original objective to “develop a refresher course in
aviation English for simulator pilots” was too vague and needed more specificity, which
was only determinable after the discourse analysis. A more unconventional approach
was thus implemented to achieve the desired aim.

4.2.2 Target Needs – Proficiency

It has been noted that as of March 5, 2008 every flight-crew member and ATCO
has to comply with at least Level 4 of the ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements.
As a point of reference for teachers and test developers, a set of holistic descriptors and

3
Since the author of this thesis developed and taught the course herself, she will be referred to
as “the teacher” for the rest of the thesis.

29
the ICAO Rating Scale were published, both of which describe a proficient speaker. The
holistic descriptors set the proficiency skills into the communicational context, whereas
the Rating Scale assesses individual language components (for the full ICAO Rating
Scale see Appendix 1). Both the descriptors as well as the Scale apply not only to
phraseology, but also to the use of plain language (ICAO, Doc 9835 4.5.1). Even though
simulator pilots are technically neither a flight crew nor ATCOs and thus the ICAO
proficiency requirements do not apply to them, they still have to reach at least level B2
as defined by CEFR, which is comparable to ICAO’s Level 4. The ICAO proficiency
requirements were therefore selected as the point of departure, but with regards to
simulator pilots’ occupational context and needs.

Holistic descriptors as presented in Appendix 1 to Annex 1 (ICAO, Doc 9835 4.5.3) state
that:

1. “Proficient speakers shall communicate effectively in voice-only

(telephone/radiotelephone) and in face-to-face situations.”
Since radiotelephony communications lack any non-verbal cues, they require
“higher degree of language proficiency” (ICAO, Doc 9835 4.5.3). Furthermore,
there are other attributes that influence communication considerably. Sometimes
the sound is poor (to simulate real pilot-controller communication) and it is
difficult to comprehend the message ATCO is sending, other times the workload
is heavy with instructors talking to PPs and arranging future events while the
simulation is still running. Therefore, PPs must possess well-developed listening
skills and strategies in order to execute their duties. Crucial are especially
recognizing grammatical word classes and communicative functions of
sentences, and predicting the outcome from the situation (Brown 256).

1. “Proficient speakers shall communicate on common, concrete and work-related

topics with accuracy and clarity.”
The ICAO proficiency requirements concern both phraseology as well as plain
language; however, speaker’s proficiency may differ in language contexts. The
descriptors therefore limit the proficiency of pilots and ATCOs to work-related
topics. PPs encounter in their profession foreign instructors and learners with
whom they should be able to communicate fluently especially about their
occupation. Appendix B of Doc 9835 contains a non-exhaustive list of topics

30
 proficient speakers should have knowledge of, from which the most relevant
were selected based on PPs occupational context, as PPs do not necessarily need
to discuss “types of strike” or “demonstrations”, but “health problems” and
“aircraft breakdowns” (ICAO, Doc 9835 Appendix B) are quite common and
therefore useful to know during simulations.

2. “Proficient speakers shall use appropriate communicative strategies to exchange

messages and to recognize and resolve misunderstandings … in general or
work-related context.”
The pilot-controller communication happens only in spoken form, and since
human lives are at stake, any kind of misunderstandings must be resolved. It is
therefore important to practice speaking strategies of rephrasing, correct
assessment of partner’s comprehension or clarification of meaning (Brown
272), as well as other speaking microskills.
3. “Proficient speakers shall handle successfully and with relative ease the
linguistic challenges presented by a complication … that occurs within the
context of a routine work situation or communicative task with which they are
otherwise familiar.”
One of the most important parts of PPs’ job content is the simulation of
unexpected events such as decompression diving, hijack or aircraft
breakdowns, for ATCOs have to be trained how to react with serenity to such
complications. Nevertheless, these situations are not only demanding for the
ATCO, who has to resolve the situation, but also for the PP, who has to
successfully simulate the pilot in distress. It is also possible and quite common
that an instructor decides to change the emergency (because ATCO students
have already experienced it) and the PP has to improvise. In such situations, the
PP must employ all his skills, vocabulary and grammar in order to fulfill the
instructor’s wish.
4. “Proficient speakers shall use a dialect or accent which is intelligible to the
aeronautical community.”
The aviation domain is an international field, where different accent and
dialects meet, yet all of them have to be eligible to others and ATCOs or pilots
with a strong regional dialect are advised by professionals to be more easily
understood. Even though the Czech accent is not very strong, PPs should be

31
 aware of the different issues in pronunciation not only because of their
occupation, but also for ordinary language use.

The holistic descriptors have demonstrated what the overall proficient speaker
(simulator pilot) should possess – listening and speaking strategies and corresponding
microskills, aviation domain related terminology and grammar adequate for
improvisation. Such description is, however, not sufficient as it does not indicate to
what extent a speaker should demonstrate these proficiency skills and what their
individual constituents are. These components therefore appear in the ICAO Rating
Scale, which also serves as a point of reference for the proficiency assessment.

There are six components comprising the ICAO Rating Scale – vocabulary,
structure, pronunciation, fluency, comprehension and interaction. These areas of the
ICAO Rating Scale are mentioned in Doc 9835 as the “component skills” (2.6.3) of the
proficiency in listening and speaking and their demands on proficient speakers are very
similar to what the users of general English should master. As there are many processes
of each component skill the students need learn and command, only the most crucial are
mentioned below.

Vocabulary contains the knowledge of function and content words, the

proficiency being displayed in the range and accuracy of vocabulary (e.g. the correct
use of phraseology); nevertheless, the speaker should not be limited to the knowledge of
individual vocabulary items only, but should also know basic rules for word formation
and appropriate collocations. (For example collocations with the word landing – forced
landing, landing procedures or emergency landing.) Structure refers to grammatical
competence, which applies to the mastery of both simple and complex grammatical
structures. The speaker should be able to use suitable grammatical structures in both
isolation (e.g. “Fuel dumping terminated.”) and context (such as description of
emergency), as well as grammatical elements (e.g. modality). Pronunciation skills based
on the ICAO requirements demand the familiarity with stress patterns, intonation and
rhythm. Furthermore, students should also adjust their accent if needed to be more
intelligible (ICAO, Doc 9835 2.6.3).

These first three components can be perceived as the foundation for the
following two – fluency and comprehension both of which require the mastery of

32
previously mentioned language systems. Fluency and accuracy are best developed by
graded tasks, starting with monitored practice (e.g. imitative speaking and reactive
listening) and leading to interactive situations (ICAO, Doc 9835 2.6.3; Brown 255,
274).

The last part in the ICAO Rating Scale is interaction, the proficiency of which
consists of the mastery of all previous skill components. Interaction means appropriate
reactions, ability to initiate a conversation and resolve possible misunderstandings. The
lack of one skill means decreased proficiency in interaction, and thus practice and
observation of others are the best methods for acquiring this ability.

It can be very easy for a course developer to focus on only some of these skills
based on the deficiencies and needs of students. However, ICAO’s Guidelines for
Aviation English Training Programmes clearly quotes that “any valid aviation English
training must contain activities that are designed to address all six language skill areas
specified in the ICAO Rating Scale and holistic descriptors” (ICAO, Cir 323 1.1.3). It
might be therefore helpful to view the desired language proficiency as pyramid of skills,
which complement each other and which are equally important.

Picture 2: A pyramid structure of language proficiency skills (ICAO Doc 9835 2.6.4.2)

4.2.3 Target Needs – Language Functions and Domains

After analysing the expected proficiency of an aviation English speaker,
appropriate language functions and aviation domains were to be selected for the
duration of a week. It was clear a precise selection of topics was needed, otherwise the
content of the week would be overwhelming and time-wise unmanageable. Appendix B
to the Manual on the Implementation of ICAO Language Proficiency Requirements was

33
a great help for this part of the analysis, as it contains all the communicative functions
and lexical domains speakers are expected to know. Further beneficial information was
provided by a former teacher of the course, who suggested concentrating on those
lexical domains, which require the most improvisation on the side of PPs and which are
the most common in the aviation field, as only those are practiced during the ATCOs
training.

Proceeding from this recommendation and own experience, the following

language functions were selected: sharing information concerning present facts, future,
recent past events and past; expressing necessity, giving advice and giving reasons. The
rest of the language functions either did not apply to pilots at all (such as giving
permission) or there was a suitable phrase with which they could be expressed (e.g.
“unable” or “negative” instead of the language function “refuse to act” in plane
language). The teacher also relied on the proficiency of PPs (which should have been
B2 level) by anticipating these language functions and corresponding grammatical
structures need revision only.

For the selection of aviation-related domains and events the perspectives of the
teacher and students were combined to increase students’ motivation. At first, eight
domains from Appendix B were preselected based on their occurrence in the chapter
Structure of training for qualification for PP in Operational Manual DPLR/SLŠ (30)
and their relevance for the position of a PP: approach/departure (holdings, endurance,
missed approach), lack of fuel (locations, airport facilities, ground services), health
problems (symptoms, aircraft interior), problems linked to passenger’s behaviour
(weapons, physical descriptions), weather conditions (storms, natural disasters),
aerodrome environment, aircraft breakdowns (navigation systems, loss of radio contact)
and VFR (visual flight rules) flight in difficulty (forced landing, position). These
options were then incorporated into students’ needs analysis, where students had to
select four, which caused them the greatest difficulty during improvisation.

It was apparent from the results (as can be seen in the chart 1) two areas were
distressing from the beginning – health problems and problems linked to passenger’s
behaviour. The rest of the domains was almost even, as those with 11% differed only by
one vote from those with 7%. Nevertheless, not all domains could have been included,
for there would not be enough time to practice the related vocabulary and other

34
structures. It was therefore decided to comprise the three domains with 11% of votes
into two because weather conditions and VFR flight in difficulty are usually
interconnected in reality as well 4. Aircraft breakdowns, on the other hand, is such a
large area containing different lexical domains that connecting it with any other aviation
event would be impractical. The final selection of domains contained therefore

a) health problems
b) problems linked to passenger’s behaviour
c) aircraft breakdowns
d) VFR in difficulty and weather conditions.

Approach/Departure Lack of fuel

Health problems Problems linked to passengers
Weather conditions Aerodrome enviroment
Aircraft breakdowns VFR flight in difficulcy

11% 7%
7%
11%

7% 21%

11%

25%

Chart 1: Students’ selection of the most troublesome domains during improvisations.

4.2.4 Students‘ Expectations and Motivation

Students’ needs analysis played a very important role not only during the
selection of suitable domains, but also during the selection of materials and appropriate
activities. It was very important to know as much as possible about the expectations
students had as well as their learning styles and so a four-part analysis was created. The
individual parts dealt with students’ self-confidence in the items contained in the ICAO

4
VFR flights are not controlled by ATCOs because they fly with the help of a map or satnav in
lower flight levels. It is not uncommon bad weather causes problems to pilots as they cannot see
anything outside and thus fly properly.

35
Rating Scale, their motivation and expectations, learning styles, and troublesome
language domains (which have been already discussed in the previous chapter).

The analysis was sent ten days prior to the beginning of the course to all 17
students, 8 of which (47%) completed it and sent back. This rather insufficient response
was caused by two factors – some students had been on holiday before the course began
and some were simply “not interested” and “did not expect anything” as they explained
during the course. The results must be therefore taken with certain discretion, for it was
mostly the motivated students answering it. Some students also did not answer all the
questions or provided their own suggestions, which was recorded as well. For the results
in one table see Appendix 3.

The first part of the analysis contained all the areas of the ICAO Rating Scale,
which were to be evaluated with school marks, based on student’s confidence in each
area. The results proved comprehension and pronunciation being the least demanding
(marks 1,8 and 1,9) for the students, which mirrors the nature of students’ occupation as
they mostly listen or repeat commands after ATCOs. Vocabulary, fluency and
interaction were almost even with marks 2,2 and 2,3 followed by grammatical structures
with the worst mark of 2,5. These numbers revealed students were confident in the
assessment of their own skills (only one student evaluated himself with mark 5 in all the
areas); however, they were also aware of the areas that needed improvement, which was
taken into consideration during syllabus development.

The second part dealt with previous experience with the refresher English
course, students’ expectations and motivation. Three students (37,5%) did not like the
previous aviation course due to “filling gaps,” the course being “boring” and
“everything [being] revision.” The same number of students said the course “was fine”,
mostly because it depended on the teacher. One student (12,5%) had never taken the
course, so he did not answer and another student decided not to answer for unspecified
reason. Students’ expectations of the upcoming course were mostly neutral and positive.
Three students (37,5%) did not mind the course and stated they “might learn something
new”; two (25%) expected to “revise phraseology and grammar” and one (12,5%)
assumed he would “improve [his] English skills”. There were only two respondents
(25%) who anticipated the course would be a “waste of time” and who just “wanted to
survive the week”. These results were encouraging as 1/3 (35, 3%) of the total number

36
of students had positive attitude towards the course, which demonstrated there were
students willing to participate and learn. The overall motivation was, however, rather
small with the average of 2,56 on the scale from 1 (very low motivation) to 5 (high
motivation).

The last two areas incorporated into the analysis dealt with multiple intelligences
of students (Larsen-Freeman 169 - 172) and an analytical and holistic approach to
learning (Alesandrini, Langstaff, Wittrock 151) Students were first asked to check four
methods out of seven, which help them best with learning (Multiple Intelligences) and
then pick one word from a pair, which they prefer in learning (analytical and holistic
approach). Multiple intelligences revealed even numbers – logic, visual and linguistic
were preferred always by five students (17,24%), musical and intrapersonal by six
(20,69%). Only one student (3,45%) learned kinaesthetically and none favoured
interpersonal learning. The last two numbers captures well the group characteristics of
my students – many of them do not like one another and tend to criticize the whole
group a lot and so it was understandable they did neither prefer interpersonal style of
working nor role plays and games because they might need to cooperate.

As far as analytical and holistic approaches to learning were concerned, the

results were equal – 22 answers (53,65%) preferred analytical aspects of learning, such
as word by word reading or order; and 19 answers (46,34%) valued the holistic
approach with experience, chaos and broad picture. These results offered the teacher
wide range of activities to apply, since there were no limitations from the side of
students.

Lastly, only two students provided additional comments regarding the course
content. One, a former student of the Faculty of Education, promised to cooperate with
the teacher because he knew what it is like to be in [her] shoes; the second one
appreciated that someone was “finally interested in the course content in advance.”

The overall results of the analysis clarified in a greater detail some assumptions
the teacher had prior to its design. On one hand, it proved the expected lower
motivation; but on the other hand, it also showed students were not as indifferent to the
course as had been previously anticipated and that 1/3 viewed the course favourably.
The analysis also displayed the fact that learning preferences and styles were similar
across all respondents, but that students did not favour working with one another.

37
Lastly, the analysis exposed students’ greater confidence in their pronunciation and
comprehension skills in contrary to lower confidence in interaction and grammatical
structures.

4.2.5 Global Aim of the Course

Even though the time for course development was limited, inclusion of needs
analysis proved to be crucial for the subsequent syllabus development as well as for
stating more clearly defined aims for the week. Once the results from the individual
parts of the analysis were connected, a clear picture of the aims of the week emerged.

Discourse and proficiency analysis indicated students should be able to

communicate on at least level 4 of the ICAO Rating Scale, which corresponds to B2 of
CEFR. The analysis of ICAO requirements further revealed it is necessary students are
proficient in all areas (pronunciation, structures, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension
and interaction) of the Rating Scale. Previous discussion of the nature of aviation
English and PP’s occupation also pointed to the essential necessity of plain language
and improvisation making it the central object of the course.

Analysis of language functions determined relevant items for simulator pilots -

sharing information concerning present facts, future, recent past events and past;
expressing necessity and giving advice. Students’ selection of problematic language
domains during improvisations specified health problems; problems linked to
passenger’s behaviour; weather conditions; VFR flights and aircraft breakdowns as the
main vocabulary areas of the week.

With those results stated and discussed, it was then possible to define the global
and more specific aim of the week – by the end of the course, students would have
revised or learned language items from all six areas of the ICAO Rating Scale on at
least level 4, with special focus on the language domains and functions emerging from
the needs analysis.

38
5 Syllabus Development

1.5 Procedure
The course development process contains two parts – analysing needs and
putting the results into practice. They do not, however, need to go in this order, since the
development process is dynamic and influences change, as will be displayed later.
During syllabus development, employment of the learning-centred approach was
attempted. Both learners’ wishes and target needs were considered and incorporated as
well the learning situation. The whole syllabus was created prior to the beginning of the
course with some modifications arising as the course progress. (These will be discussed
in reflections of individual teaching days.)

The development process contained first the organization of real content into
logical connections and order. The second step was to determine the carrier content
emerging from the real content and to organize it into a syllabus. Thirdly, suitable and
available materials were chosen, the selection of which exposed some gaps and the need
of adapting and developing new ones; and finally, the syllabus was put into practice, re-
evaluated and modified to better suit students’ needs.

2.5 Organization of the Week and Real Content

The course syllabus was to be planned for one week, 5 hours per day with Friday
shortened to 4 hours. It was therefore sensible to teach for 4 days and Friday dedicate to
oral and written testing. The language domains following from students’ needs analysis
were thus comprised into 4 as has been mentioned in chapter 4.2.3 and each of them
assigned to one day with its related vocabulary items. Language functions were then
linked to individual domains based on their logical relevance (weather and predictions;
passenger’s behaviour and describing present situation) and suitability5. At last, the days
were arranged according to the common order of presentation of grammatical structures
related to the particular language functions, such as describing present facts and the use
of present simple and progressive:

5
It is important to mention there were more possibilities of linking the domains and functions;
however, the selection above was the most sensible and logical for the time being.

39
 Aviation domains Language functions

problems linked to passenger’s

describing present facts
behaviour
sharing information regarding recent past
health related problems making suggestions
giving reasons
stating possibility, necessity
aircraft breakdowns
sharing information concerning past events

weather conditions and VFR flight in difficulty sharing information concerning the future

Chart 2: Real content of the course organized into individual teaching days

The next decision to be made was the time schedule for each day. Since there
were no restrictions regarding the length of lessons, many options were feasible from
the traditional 45 minutes-long units to 90-minute periods. After careful consideration
of every possibility, a more uncommon solution of lessons taking 75 minutes was
found, which will be now explained in-depth.

The decision was made due to several aspects, the first of which being the age
of students and their experience with studying. All the students were 30 to 40 years old
and only 4 of them finished university, which meant the majority had not been at school
for at least 10 years. ANS of the Czech Republic does not require of PPs to attend any
other courses but the summer English course) and so if they do not study at home or
visit a school while working, they are not used to sitting and learn for long periods of
time. Moreover, only very few simulations last more than 60 minutes and students are
therefore accustomed to shorter periods of focusing at a time. The 90-minute lessons
were thus not very suitable.

The second factor determining the length of lessons was the motivation of
students and their punctuality. Although the students’ needs analysis pointed out some
students were willing to learn, the overall motivation was rather low, especially when
the students, who had not replied to the analysis at all, were also taken into account. The
teacher’s experience with students’ punctuality during their normal simulator pilot
profession also suggested some of them might tend to come late and forget themselves
in the café next to the lobby area. The 45-minute lesson concept was thus not very
sensible, for students would come late, 10 minutes-long breaks in between lessons

40
would probably not be long enough for smokers and coffee drinkers and above all, the
idea of having approximately 5 lessons each day would be a completely discouraging
prospect for some students. From the teacher’s prospective, 45 minutes also did not
seem very convenient for lesson planning, because every lesson would need a lead-in at
the beginning and a conclusion, which would leave less time for focusing on the
important language items.

The third and last factor, which decided the 75-minute units, was the time period
assigned to the course. The course was to start at 9 am and finish around 2 pm. In
between this time period there was one hour reserved for lunch. If the 60-minute lessons
had been implemented, the lunch would have been either too soon or too late with some
extra 30 minutes left, which seemed too complicated to put into practice, not to mention
the demand on lesson planning for the remaining 30 minutes. After considering all these
factors, the 75-minute lessons were chosen for being the most suitable to students’
needs and the teaching situation with the teaching times between

9:00 – 10:15 10:30 – 11:45 12:45 – 14:00.

After creating this general schedule of the week, it was finally possible to design the
syllabus and review and select existing materials.

3.5 Syllabus Development of the Aviation Refresher Course

5.3.1 Syllabus Characteristics and Organization

It has been already mentioned there are cases of language syllabi, which do not
follow from an official curriculum. Such was the situation of the aviation refresher
course, whose approach to teaching was based on ICAO’s Guidelines for Aviation
English Training Programmes. Nevertheless, even though it was not based on an
official curriculum and its length and profundity were time restricted, there were still
matters which needed to be scrutinized and resolved. For that the results of the students’
needs analysis and discourse analysis were taken as the point of departure because they
contained all the necessary data.

First to be selected was the organization and format of the syllabus. There were
many possibilities to choose from regarding the organization of the syllabus (as
described in chapter 3.6.3). Nevertheless, only two of them were sensible due to the
results of the discourse analysis – the functional-notional and topical arrangement. Both

41
of them were adopted, since ICAO organizes the expected knowledge related to the
aviation language in Appendix B into functions and domains as well. It was, hence,
easier to work with the course content with the same consideration. The functional-
notional arrangement was also suitable for the learning-centred approach to the course.
It offered greater flexibility to the course developer who could, thus, better upgrade or
downgrade tasks depending on the students’ needs; and it helped to set realistic tasks
through which the students’ motivation could have been increased (Nunan 36). The
topical organization helped set the functions into a context and enabled the development
of a greater awareness of the aviation situations related to each topic, which students
may use during their improvisations or other non-standard situations.

Once the syllabus organization was determined, the format of the syllabus (see
chapter 3.6.2.) needed to be evaluated and chosen. After a careful deliberation, two
formats were selected and combined due to being the most suitable for the course needs
and purposes – the modular and linear format.

The first format was employed, because it facilitated the incorporation of

aviation domains with the language skills and sub-skills stemming from the ICAO
Rating Scale, since they were a part of the overall course aim. The format also
supported the use of various authentic texts and other materials, which was from the
beginning a crucial aspect for the teacher, as she was hoping to raise students’
motivation by that. Moreover, as there was no connection between the individual days,
the modular format offered the necessary flexibility, yet a certain structure to the
syllabus. The teacher was thus able to plan each day of the refresher course as a self-
contained unit that focused on specific vocabulary and language functions given for that
day and at the same time did not omit the areas stated in the ICAO Rating Scale, since it
integrated all of them (“Moving from modular to linear qualifications”).

Even though the modular format provided the teacher with the necessary
flexibility in the materials selection and day sequencing, the teacher decided to partially
apply the linear format as well, because She wanted the sequence of the grammatical
items, which were related to the selected language functions, to be convenient for the
students. The partial use of the linear format helped her to do that, since she applied one
of Comenius’ pedagogical principles - proceeding from less complicated to more
complex structures. The teacher, thus, first determined the language functions through a

42
discourse analysis, broke the functions down into “subfunctions” and finally assigned to
them the appropriate grammar items. By employment of this principle, it was easier for
the teacher to scaffold (especially by the lower level students) and to use the already
reviewed grammar in the subsequent days without losing the flexibility supported by the
modular format, as the day could have been still reordered in case of need.

The last aspect to be determined was the specificity of the course. Following
Basturkmen’s scale with wide-angle courses on one side and narrow-angle courses on
the other side, the narrower approach was chosen due to several factors. First, the
students were fairly homogenous with similar needs and wishes. Second, the target
situation was very specific in its particular use of English and vocabulary. Third, even
though there are many subfields in Aviation English, the relevant subfields were
accurately stated through the needs analysis and the rest could, thus, be omitted.

The organization of the whole syllabus can be found in the chart below. Friday,
which was assigned for testing, is mentioned there as well, even though it will be
discussed in a later chapter.

43
 Course Syllabus

Related vocabulary and

Day Aviation domain Language functions Language Content
situations
describing present facts present simple reasons (drunkenness etc.)
Monday Problems linked to stating possibility, present continuous physical description
passenger’s behaviour necessity
modal verbs violent behaviour
unlawful interference
sharing information present perfect first aid kit
Health related problems regarding recent past should symptoms
Tuesday making suggestions
expressing cause and effect conjunctions: because, due health problems
to, for, since, therefore
past simple aircraft parts
Wednesday Aircraft breakdowns sharing information
reported speech emergencies
concerning past events
aircraft systems
Thursday Weather conditions and weather conditions
VFR flights sharing information future tenses (will, going emergencies
concerning the future to, present continuous)
landscape
Friday test – written and oral

Chart 3: Course Syllabus

44
5.3.2 Materials Selection
Having stated the needs and created the syllabus outline, the last remaining step
in the course development process was the selection of materials. As has been
mentioned previously, some courses have prescribed course books that they need to
follow. However, since the refresher course took place within a week and the needs
stemmed only from the discourse and the students’ needs analysis, the selection of
materials depended solely on the teacher. The selection process contained four stages –
defining the available materials, determining the criteria for evaluation, analysis of the
materials and, in case of unsatisfactory results, creating one’s materials from authentic
texts and videos (Hutchinson and Waters 97).

There are currently four course books available for teaching aviation English
with all four skills integrated6 - Aviation English for ICAO Compliance by Macmillan
publishers, English for Aviation by Oxford, Flightpath by Cambridge University Press
and Clear for Takeoff by AE Link Publications. Each course book contains similar
content since all are based on the ICAO’s Guidelines for Aviation English Training
Programmes and Manual on the Implementation of ICAO… Requirements and all aim
to raise students’ language proficiency to level 4 on the ICAO Rating Scale. At the time
of course development, it was possible to obtain only three of these books - Aviation
English, English for Aviation and Flightpath and, even though all three course books
originally contain a CD, the CD was attached to only the first two mentioned.

After acquiring the materials, the criteria for the book evaluation had to be
defined by taking into consideration the results of the discourse and the students’
analysis. There were several points arising from the results that were crucial for the
material evaluation regarding the audience, aims, content and methodology (adopted
from Hutchinson and Waters 99 – 104).

1. Audience
The students’ experience with the book was the first significant factor since students
and their former teacher had mentioned working with one of the course books
several times and the motivation of students was already low without the need of
being decreased further by using the same book again.

6
Based on the results on amazon.co.uk search with the headword “Aviation English”.

45
 2. Aims
As the level was fundamental for the overall course objective, the level of
English used in the course book needed to be on at least level B2. Moreover, all
six parts of the ICAO Rating Scale were expected to be included and developed
to comply with the overall course aim.

3. Content
The content of the book was another important criterion for the material
selection, because the language domains, events and functions selected for the
course syllabus were to be covered in the course book. The content of the book
was, preferably, supposed to be organized by topics similar to the course
syllabus.

4. Methodology
The last crucial aspect was the methodology employed in the course books.
ICAO encourages aviation English teachers to integrate all four skills into their
courses but, at the same time, gives the reminder that the ultimate goal of any
aviation course is communicative proficiency. The activities included should,
therefore, not only be guided towards improving accuracy but also give the
students an opportunity to speak and practice fluency (ICAO Cir 323 2.1.3) as
well as meet the students’ multiple intelligences.

Since interaction plays one of the fundamental parts in the ICAO Rating Scale,
other supplemental aids such as CDs or videos were also a deciding factor for the
materials evaluation.

Once the deciding aspects were written down, a chart (as seen below) with the
individual course books and aspects was created. In this chart “X” marked all the
matching factors. Those that were missing or did not comply with the expectations were
left blank. In the end the most suitable course book was determined through the ratio of
missing to matching aspects. The students’ previous experience with the book was
considered as a missing aspect for better orientation.

46
 Evaluated course books

Aviation English English for Aviation Flightpath

Deciding aspects
(Macmillan) (Oxford) (Cambridge)

previous experience with X

Audience the book - -
(only weather, lost
aircrafts, animals, fire)
B2 level of English X X X
Aims all parts of ICAO scale X X X
included
Problems with passengers X - -
Health problems -
X -
(only mentioned with
general emergencies)
Content
Aircraft breakdowns -
X X
(only general emergencies)
Weather X X X
VFR flights X - -
Guided exercises X X X
Methodology
Free exercises X X X
CDs included X X -
Score (missing : matching aspects) 1:10 5:6 5:6
Chart 4: Materials evaluation

47
 The comparison of the available materials revealed the book the students had
had experience with was the most suitable. This was because it contained the necessary
topics and CDs in comparison to the remaining two where some topics were missing or
were only mentioned as a part of a larger domain. Nevertheless, a more detailed analysis
of the individual topics’ adaptation showed that some course books approached the
topics more in depth than others and that the content differs slightly. As an example, the
topic of aircraft breakdowns can be mentioned. Aviation English deals in Unit 3 –
Technology with Datalink, instruments in the cockpit and flight control systems on a
very surface level – the topics are mentioned in reading or listening activities, students
learn a few new words and then discuss their opinions. However, this approach would
not be satisfactory for simulator pilots during non-standard situations, since, if asked,
they have to provide the ATCOs with the nature of their distress in some detail.
Flightpath, on the other hand, provides students with detailed exercises on what system
or part of the aircraft can be clogged, jammed or intermittent, which are words PPs
might use in simulations. It was, therefore, apparent the course book alone would be
more limiting rather than helpful due to the distinctive depth of topic’s adaptation.

There was also another question arising during the material evaluation – the
approach to language functions and language content. In all three books language
functions were presented and practiced; yet, there were no rules for using the language
content suitable for the specific language function. Moreover, most of the practice
exercises consisted of filling in prescribed words or transforming sentences. Since the
teacher had only estimated the language proficiency of her students, but could not rely
on it, it was concluded grammatical exercises would be used for the relevant and
necessary language functions. The teacher supposed this would bring reinforcement of
accuracy and would help the students in the future during their language proficiency test
they have to pass every three years.

The last point the material evaluation presented was the use of authentic
materials. Even though it was possible to plan the lessons solely with the help of the
above mentioned course books, the idea was soon rejected as unnecessary and
discouraging for the students. Some of the exercises were also not suitable for the PPs,
as they did not need to know certain procedures (applicable to ATCOs) or had already
been familiar with the exercises from the previous refresher courses. The use of
authentic texts and videos was, therefore, considered and agreed upon. These authentic

48
materials could bring not only a more relevant content for the students but would also
better encourage them and challenge them. ICAO supported this assumption, for it
states itself that “content-based language instruction is appropriate to aviation
professionals” (ICAO Cir 323 1.3.6) and that “exposure to authentic material … is
required to make substantial progress towards proficiency” (ICAO Cir 323 1.3.8).

With this analysis in mind, all three evaluated course books as well as authentic
texts and videos and other grammatical materials were integrated during the process of
lesson planning based on their relevance for PPs occupation and the students’
familiarity with the materials.

6 Teaching Experience and Reflections

1.6 Procedure
Having analysed the target situation and the students’ needs, created the syllabus
and selected appropriate materials, the second to last step in the course development
process was to put into practice what had been only theoretical up to that point. Four
daily lesson plans were prepared from the syllabus outline and taught a total of three
times. After each day the teacher analysed the course of the day and suggested
improvements for the following groups and, from these, wrote a reflection. At the end
of the course (three weeks in total), there were, thus, three reflections written on each
day. These were then compared and the day evaluated with the perspective of three
different teaching experiences. Nevertheless, as the aim of the thesis was to develop an
aviation refresher course and to describe that elaborate and demanding process, the
space for reflections was limited and only the most noteworthy events and issues were
mentioned.

2.6 Day One – Problems Linked to Passenger’s Behaviour

6.2.1 Group 1 (3rd of July)

Having heard many stories about how difficult teaching simulator pilots can be,
the anticipation on the side of the teacher was quite high. Fortunately, the negative
prognosis did not turn out to be true and the first teaching day was pleasant despite a
few problems, which were the unevenness of the students’ levels of English, antipathy
of the students towards another student, the wrong order of grammar exercises and time
management.

49
 Even though all students have to pass an exam on a B2 level of the CEFR, it was
soon apparent there were students whose level of English was B1, at the most. Some
omitted the suffix –s by the 3rd person singular while others were not able to form a
correct question. On the other hand, there was also one student who reached level C1
during the English exam, knew all the words and was bored by his colleagues. Since the
teacher had relied on the B2 level and all grammar materials were prepared for this level
of English, it was difficult to differentiate and prepare (while teaching) other materials.
In the end it was not that complicated, since the students first remembered what they
knew about present simple and continuous, the teacher then pointed out some other
necessary details (such as stative verbs not forming the progressive aspect) and together
they were able to complete the exercises from Murphy’s English Grammar in Use. The
following exercises were designed for practicing grammar orally, which meant students
could use their own sentences depending on their level of English.

The second problem, which needed a solution, was the antipathy of the group
towards one of the students. Whenever he tried to answer some of the teacher’s
questions, the rest started to talk so loudly that even the teacher could not properly hear
what the first one was saying. Even though the teacher tried to manage the disturbance
of the others, it was quite difficult, as the students did not mind being asked to keep
quiet or to listen to their colleague. In the end the teacher used Czech to express her
wish, which was probably so surprising for the students, that they were finally quiet,
although it was obvious they did not listen to their unpopular colleague.

The third difficulty the teacher had to deal with was time management. Despite
the lesson plan being written with enough time for individual activities, the group
managed to go through only the first two lessons. This was caused by three reasons –
the students were very talkative and would rather endlessly discuss teacher’s questions
instead of doing grammar or reading, their tempo of work (especially in reading) was
very slow due to their level of English and, third, the teacher herself struggled to keep
the students on track with the time limits. The teacher decided to prioritize the activities
for the following days so that the aim of the day would be reached despite skipping
some activities.

The last struggle the teacher should have foreseen was the order of the grammar
exercises. After the guided exercise in English Grammar in Use, students were asked to

50
pick a person in a picture, describe him or her and explain why the person might be
suspicious. However, by that time students had not reviewed how to speculate and use
related modal verbs. Luckily, students knew all the modal verbs and used them naturally
without the teacher interfering, but the lesson plan was still adjusted for future groups.

6.2.2 Group 2 (13th of July)

Teaching the second group for the first time was very different than teaching the
first group, even though the teacher already knew what to expect and learned from her
mistakes from the previous week. Additional exercises (for lower and higher levels) had
been prepared and the teacher had been determined to better balance the time
management as well as discussions, but what appeared as the biggest issue in the end
were the completely different personalities of students in comparison to the fist group.

As it turned out, all the students were shy and did not want to answer any of the
teacher’s questions despite their good level of English (B2-C1). When asked
specifically about their opinion (activities “imagine you are the security” and
“expressing modality – airport security”), students either shook their heads or answered
with one word sentence. Since this behaviour was vastly different from the first group,
the teacher fell into the trap of the talk-talk loop by talking endlessly because the
students were quiet (Scrivener 146). After some time, the teacher realized her mistake
and offered her opinion only after at least two of the students commented on the given
question. This was really difficult at the beginning but, as time passed and the teacher
got used to being quiet, the students began to prefer to talk rather than to sit in silence.

Because of the lack of discussion, the lesson plan was finished 45 minutes prior
to its expected end. The teacher anticipated this outcome and before the lunch break the
students were asked what they would like to practice from the content discussed so far.
Surprisingly, everyone wanted to do more grammar and because of their higher level of
English, the teacher explained more advanced rules regarding present simple and
continuous (annoying habits, commentaries etc.) and for guided practice Advanced
English Grammar in Use was used. This was not the most professional solution,
because the teacher should have prepared extra activities other than differentiating the
grammar. However, since there were problems during the first week finishing activities
on time, the possibility of having 45 spare minutes did not look very probable.

51
 For the last 10 minutes, the teacher decided to discuss the students’ expectations,
because no one had completed the student’s needs analysis. This decision proved right,
as the students revealed they wanted to practice interaction as much as possible and
were only silent because of getting used to talking in front of each other and the teacher.
Two students also mentioned fear of making mistakes, so the teacher noted down
sufficient scaffolding before the beginning of the discussion that might solve this
problem.

6.2.3 Group 3 (20th of July)

The last group to teach for the first day was a combination of personalities from
the first and second groups. The students were very good at English (everyone but two
students reached level C1 in the English test), yet they appeared not convinced of
having the English refresher course and, hence, resulted in longer periods of silence or
discussions in Czech. The teacher had to call the students by name and it was very
difficult to overcome their reluctance to cooperate.

After the first listening activity, the teacher decided to use the inductive method
of teaching grammar, as students would be bored by simple lock step. The students were
given three sentences for each use of present simple and progressive and were asked to
say the function of the sentences and a situation when such sentences would appear. At
the beginning the students were complaining that the exercise was too difficult and
suggested to watch a movie instead (“like last summer”) and were, overall, unpleasant.
Nevertheless, the teacher did not give in and asked two students she had had the best
relationship with for their answers. Once these two students provided their answers and
the rest of the group saw how easy the exercise was, they became genuinely interested
and were engaged. After the written guided practice, there was no problem with the
picture description – all students volunteered, tried to find the most suspicious person
and even came up with a background history for each person they selected.

During the second lesson, students were very active and enjoyed the
pronunciation exercise (which was only done with the second group) the most, which
was surprising. According to their comments they found it really interesting, had never
done an exercise like that and all wanted to be corrected while practicing. The lesson
after the lunch break was, unfortunately, very difficult again. The students came back,
complained about the video being too incomprehensible and refused to say more than

52
one sentence. This was probably caused by tiredness and the student’s lack of
motivation, since four of them did not complete the student’s needs analysis and those
who did rated their expectations of the course low. Because of the slower pace of work,
the lesson finished after the listening exercise with no time for role-play and review.
Yet, even if there had been more time, the teacher would have only revised the content
of the day, since the climate in the room was not good enough to try such an activity.

6.2.4 Summary
The first day with a new group of students is always stressful as the teacher tries
to create rapport with his or her students, find out the actual level of the students’
English and teach at the same time. The above-mentioned teaching experiences proved
how difficult it is and how much a teacher should be over-prepared for an unexpected
turn of events. The teacher of the aviation refresher English managed to do this only
partially. The teacher prepared differentiating exercises only after her first experiences
with the uneven levels of the students’ English and failed to have extra activities in case
of having some spare time (which happened with the second group). Despite these
obvious missing aspects in the teacher’s preparation, she also managed to improvise and
to solve the situation while teaching (for example - picking only some grammar
exercises for the lower level students and providing the more advanced students with
more detail).

As far as the lesson plan and teaching was concerned, the activities appeared to
be interesting and suitable for the students. The teacher always pre-taught vocabulary
before reading/listening (with the help of the advanced students) and no one had
problems with understanding. The students especially appreciated the authentic texts
and videos, and at the end of the day they said they might actually use some of the
content they had learned for their job as a simulator pilot. Even though only one group
managed to go through the whole lesson plan, it can be concluded that the aim of the
day was achieved by all groups, since they all learned the crucial vocabulary items and
practiced, to a certain extent, all parts of the ICAO Rating Scale.

53
3.6 Day 2 – Health Related Problems

6.3.1 Group 1 (7th of July)

The aim of the second day was to revise health related vocabulary (health
symptoms) simulator pilots might use during emergencies, the use of present perfect,
expressing cause and effect, giving advice and practice of echo questions. The aim was
only partially met, since the pace of the first group was again slower than what the
lesson plan was created for; however, the teacher having foreseen that had decided prior
to the beginning of the lesson which activities to omit if there would not be enough time
to manage them all. The biggest issue the teacher had to deal with was the behaviour of
the students during the activity used to practice expressing cause and effect.

The beginning of the first lesson went well. The students were excited about
learning the medical equipment contained in a first aid kit with real objects and even
asked for more body parts they were interested in (such as groin or instep). After that,
the teacher let the students come up with all the different conjunctions that can be used
for cause and effect, as it is one of the most common language functions during
emergency situations – pilots have to state their intentions and the reason for an
emergency situation. The students formed sentences, which were written on the board
and derived rules from those sentences. After the explanation and rules, students were
asked to write two “half” sentences – two beginnings of a sentence explaining what had
happened and two endings of the sentence giving the reason. The halves were then
mixed together, distributed among the students and each of them had to made up either
the reason or the cause of what was written on their piece of paper. Even though the task
was to “use health and aviation related vocabulary,” almost all of the students used
different sexual transmissible diseases or sex-related injuries, some of which were very
explicit. It was obvious the students were waiting for the reaction of the teacher, who
chose not to comment their selection of words and injuries and instead asked everyone
to read out loud each sentence. Because of this, the activity turned out very
embarrassing for the students but at the same time, helped to raise the teacher’s
authority.

It has been mentioned previously that the teacher had decided in advance which
activities to drop in case of the slower pace of the students’ work. This proved correct in
the end, as some students could not form present perfect at all and it needed to be

54
properly explained and practiced. The omitted activities were reading, echo questions
and Desperate Decision from the third lesson because their importance was smaller in
comparison to the rest. During the third lesson, “symptoms” (from the second lesson)
and “what is your illness” (the last activity of the day) where done instead, because
“symptoms” reviewed present simple and continuous and “what is your illness”
appropriately reviewed present perfect.

6.3.2 Group 2 (14th of July)

Having known the level of students was higher than the average, the teacher had
determined to differentiate some activities and make them harder for the students. This
was somewhat more difficult for the teacher, as she had to look for advanced grammar
activities. Yet, in the end it proved worthwhile, since the students participated more and
some evaluated the lessons positively at the end of the day.

The first adjustment appeared right at the beginning of the lesson. The students
were only given the real first aid kit without any supportive vocabulary and had to recall
all the words themselves. Not only did they remember most of the words but they were
also able to deduce even the equipment they had not known before from the Czech
translations. From this activity they learned how to handle situations when they might
not know all the words, which is sometimes very useful for the job of a simulator pilot.
They had to improvise during a difficult exercise which proved to be really important in
the second group.

During the following activity for practicing cause and effect, the importance of
the student’s needs analysis was manifested once again. Even though the students were
allowed to use any medical and aviation related vocabulary for their “half” sentences,
most of the students remained conventional with sentences such as “I broke my leg
because of…” The teacher, therefore, learned through this activity that not only were
students shy to talk but all of them (except one very talkative student) were also
analytical and did not like to come up with sentences or ideas on their own for fear of
failure and making mistakes. This discovery troubled the teacher, as there were more
activities with similar a concept. Yet, this did not happen because of sufficient
scaffolding that was applied in a speaking activity following the grammar practice.

Once present perfect was reviewed and practiced in a written exercise focusing
on accuracy, the teacher wanted to practice accuracy through a more unguided exercise

55
Oh!, which was adopted from Grammar Practice Activities by Penny Ur. The teacher
was hesitant at first to try it, but interjections, such as “Cheers!” or “Yay!” were
sufficient for the students to come up with a recent situation that has just happened
when someone would use these interjections. This activity encouraged the teacher to use
more free exercises with this group as well, since the students needed only a little
guidance to feel confident and talk.

During the last lesson a complete teacher’s failure happened. Even though the
teacher thought she had checked the texts for a jigsaw activity, she somehow misplaced
the second part of the text with the advice for the health symptoms and, so, it was not a
jigsaw activity but a complete confusion. Some students had advice unrelated to any
symptoms while others had the same text. The teacher had to improvise, so she let the
students think of their own suggestions for their colleagues’ health problems. They were
able to come up with some, but since the main focus of the text was to use suggestions,
it was difficult for the students to use different structures for suggestions and unknown
vocabulary at the same time.

6.3.3 Group 3 (21st of July)

The second day with the third group of students turned out better than the first
day, partly because the group was joined by one more student who had been ill the day
before. This student was very talkative and friendly and, following his example, the
others started to be more cooperative as well. His influence had a negative side though,
because when he was bored he started to speak in Czech and by that carried away the
rest also. This was, therefore, one of the biggest issues, since the teacher had to
constantly reprimand the students and, at the same time, remain persistent in speaking
English.

As for teaching, the teacher went through the whole lesson plan except one
activity, Desperate Decision, in the third lesson because of the longer amount time
spent on grammar. As the teacher had experienced the first day, the third group was the
most advanced group from the three, so she decided to include the continuous aspect of
perfect tense into the review as well. She knew it would motivate the students and teach
them something new. The teacher elucidated all the rules with example sentences that
the students knew for the use of present perfect and present continuous and then
provided extra, more advanced rules the students did not know. During the grammar

56
practice itself some of the students got quite frustrated by the two aspects, because they
could not see the differences, even though their choices were usually correct. They even
started arguing with the teacher trying to show her their point of view, which was, on
one hand, demanding and difficult but, on the other hand, encouraging because it was
obvious the students were thinking about it and trying to understand it.

During the last lesson all except the Desperate Decision activity was completed.
During the jigsaw reading the students were not allowed to use the suggestions in their
texts but were asked to come up with their own structures based on those in the texts.
With the help of the examples, the students coped with the task without any problems as
they tried to only use structures that had not been used until that point. In the remaining
time the group revised vocabulary and symptoms (creating a sentence with the help of a
given word and explaining the word) instead of the discussion, because the teacher
found it more useful for the students regarding their occupation.

6.3.4 Summary
Even though the second day of teaching appeared easier in all the groups due to
further rapport building and establishing the role of the teacher, there were situations
which showed how important the student’s needs analysis as well as the role of students
are. The students and their behaviour played an important part in all three groups.
Regardless of how well the lessons had been prepared, the students managed to disrupt
the lesson in some cases and to prolong it. On the other hand, real objects (the use of
first aid kit) and activities tightly bound to the students’ occupation (symptoms of
diseases) proved it was possible to motivate students enough to participate.

The teaching itself was successful since two groups managed to go through the
whole lesson plan with only minor exceptions and the first group reached all the aims of
the day but one (a review on how to make suggestions). Nevertheless, the lack of the
student’s needs analysis results was apparent in some groups, as the teacher had to cope
with activities being too difficult or unpleasant for some students, which stemmed from
their preferences. Had the teacher known it earlier, she would have not tried some
unguided activities in the second group and would have, rather, supported them at the
beginning with words or sentences the students could build on.

Scaffolding was also very important during the second day, because its use
helped the lessons to be more balanced and motivating for students. More advanced

57
students were provided with more information regarding the discussed grammar and
more challenging exercises. Insecure students or students with a lower level of English
were always pre-taught words for listening or reading activities. However, this could be
done mainly because the students with the same level of English being placed in the
same group, so it was easier to do, otherwise it would have been a much greater
challenge for the teacher.

4.6 Day 3 – Aircraft Breakdowns

6.4.1 Group 1 (8th of July)

The topic of aircraft breakdowns was the most challenging day to teach because
of the topic itself. The teacher, despite having experience as a simulator pilot, had to
learn new words regarding aircraft parts and all the different systems. She was,
therefore, very nervous before the beginning of the lesson, because she was not sure she
would be able to explain all the functions of the aircraft systems if the students asked
her. It was soon clear, though, that many students flew VFR7, so they were very helpful
in explaining everything to the teacher. Through their assistance to the teacher the
students not only practiced the content and vocabulary for the day but also fluency.
They truly enjoyed lecturing the teacher. Apart from that, the group enjoyed two other
activities worth mentioning.

The first one was the use of a real aircraft model for practicing vocabulary
related to aircraft parts. The teacher knew the students had dealt with a similar topic
previously, so she tried to come up with a different practice activity instead of the
traditional picture. Despite her hesitancy about the appropriateness of the activity, the
students were thrilled to stick post-it notes on the model and describe what the functions
of the individual parts were.

The second activity the students were really immersed in was Mad Discussions
(Klippel 76). Each of the students picked one problem an aircraft might encounter and
had five minutes to prepare as many possible outcomes of that malfunction as possible.
They were then randomly put into pairs and had to “fight“ for their malfunction being
worse than their opponents. Some of the possible outcomes were hilarious and everyone
really got into it. After each round we voted for the winner. Through this activity the

7
Flying according visual flight rules

58
students not only revised the previously taught vocabulary but also revised expressing
possibility and probability.

Despite having gone through the lesson plan of the first and second lessons
without any problems, there was a change the teacher decided to make upon the
students’ request. Originally the students were supposed to create their own flying
machine (Harding 93 – 95), explain its parts, functions, systems and how it could be
used in the current aviation situation, but the students wanted to finish the episode of the
May Day series. The teacher prepared, therefore, more exercises during the lunch break.
As a pre-listening phase for the second part of the episode they talked about the possible
causes of the accident. During the listening the students were to write down more
sentences for reported speech, since some of them struggled with the correct conversion
of verb tenses. After the episode finished, there was a discussion of whether their
expectations and guesses of the possible cause were fulfilled.

The teacher should have guessed while preparing the lesson that the students
would like to finish the episode and should have prepared the exercises right then,
which she did for the two other groups, in case the situation should repeat itself.

6.4.2 Group 2 (15th of July)

As a result of the previous teaching experiences with this group, the teacher had
again selected more challenging exercises for the practice of reported speech and
adjusted the listening exercise related to the May Day series. She had also prepared
some extra activities in case of having spare time but, unfortunately, the selection was
not appropriate, which the teacher should have guessed based on her experiences.

As far as the teaching was concerned, the practice of aircraft parts and Mad
Discussions stood again in foreground but for other reasons than with the first group.
The problem that occurred during these activities was the confidence of the students in
their speaking skills. It has been already mentioned all the students were shy and afraid
of making mistakes but were able to overcome these fears with sufficient help. There
was one student, though, who had joined the group later, was very talkative and who
had the attitude of knowing everything. Although the students enjoyed the first activity
and the aircraft model, their knowledge of the individual functions was limited, so they
struggled to explain it. With the more active student interrupting them all the time, they
refused to answer any of the teacher’s questions and replied only “I do not know.”

59
 The Mad Discussions had to be, therefore, moderated and the teacher gave each
student precisely one minute to state his reasons. This prevented the more active student
from interrupting others and the shyer ones knew they were required to speak for only a
certain period of time. The students were also given sufficient time before the speaking
to prepare their reasons, which also helped them.

The next activity was Alibi which turned out to be rather unsuitable for the
students. After finishing the episode from the May Day series, there were still 20
minutes till the end of the lesson. The teacher selected the two most talkative students
and sent them outside of the classroom. There they should discuss their “alibi” so that
when questioned individually their answers would always match. The rest of the
students were the investigators and only asked questions. The game was chosen because
of the possibility to practice aircraft parts and systems; however, since the teacher
assigned a new aircraft accident, the shyer students had nothing to hold onto and it was
difficult for them to come up with appropriate questions. One student even started to
panic saying he was not able to think of anything and he did not know English. It was
clear that the students would have felt more competent had they been given the same
accident they had just watched, because it would have given them some sufficient
support for speaking.

6.4.3 Group 3 (22nd of July)

The third teaching experience with this group was more challenging than the day
before, because the Head Instructor of ATCOs visited the group. The teacher had
known him for several years and valued his opinion, since he himself had been teaching
ATCOs for many years and she wanted to get some feedback from him. What she had
underestimated was the mixed feelings of the students towards the visitor and their
endeavour to prove to him that teaching simulator pilots was not easy.

The Head Instructor came for the first part of the lesson, during which the
teacher managed to revise aircraft parts and aircraft failures. That first part was not easy,
as the students were talking back to the teacher, speaking in Czech and constantly using
their phones. The teacher had to reprimand them and prod them into participating the
whole time. However, when the Head Instructor left, they started being rational and it

60
was possible to work with them again 8 . During the second part of the lesson two
students gave up on Mad Discussions from the very beginning, which was strange
because their level of English was unquestionably sufficient for the task. Their
behaviour might have been caused by two reasons – they did not find the activity
relevant for their occupation (even though the teacher stated clearly at the beginning it
was to practice fluency which is needed during emergency situations and improvisation)
or they were not interested in it.

The third problem came during the grammar teaching. The students tried to find
complications in the rules for reported speech and tried to reason with the teacher about
every example and exercise they did together. Even though the students were given the
lower version of the exercises to make it easier for them, it slowed down the whole
lesson and the group only managed to see 20 minutes from the May Day series, during
which the same exercises were applied as with the previous group. The aim of the
lesson was therefore reached; nevertheless, with some obstacles and adjustments.

6.4.4 Summary
The teaching experience during the third day pointed out there are variables that,
despite not being directly linked to the lesson planning, can have a great influence on
the teaching itself. The major one was the ability of one person to disrupt the whole
lesson. At first it was a student, who by his fluency prevented his colleagues from
speaking. The second time it was an unexpected visitor, who accidently prompted the
students to misbehave. In the first case the teacher, having known the students, should
have expected this outcome and should have arranged the activity in a different way so
as to give each student a part of the airplane with a task of preparing a minute-long
presentation about the function of the part. Then the student would talk only about the
function of the plane, while the others would have guessed the name of the aircraft’s
part. This way the students would practice fluency, vocabulary and listening
comprehension and the more confident student would have to guess instead of
interrupting others. In the second case of the unexpected visitor, the teacher should have
asked the students first about their feelings towards the visitor and warned them in
advance about his presence.

8
The relationship between the students and their management had been tense for several years;
nevertheless, the teacher had not expected such a negative response to the visit of the Head
Instructor.

61
 From the teaching perspective the exploitability of the May Day episode is
definitely noteworthy. It was used for listening comprehension but also for making
assumptions and grammar practice, which the students really enjoyed. The outcome of
the activity Mad Discussions was also interesting, during which the least proficient
group performed the best and the most advanced group almost failed because some
refused to work. The reasons for this could be numerous – the students’ mood, the
unsuitability of the activity or the atmosphere within the group (the attitude of some
students in the most advanced group was demotivating when they had even sometimes
questioned the teacher about the necessity of the course and the activities).
Nevertheless, the day was successful overall and all the groups reached the given aim of
the day in spite of their different paces and willingness to cooperate.

5.6 Day 4 – VFR Flight in Difficulties and Weather Conditions

6.5.1 Group 1 (9th of July)

The last day with the first group was the hardest one to teach in that group for
various reasons. Firstly, some of the students had been in a pub the night before and, so,
they felt its influence and, secondly, the prepared activities were not as interactive and
exciting as in the previous days.

The first half of the first lesson went fine – the students particularly enjoyed the
introductory video, which showed the forecast for the last apocalyptic day. They also
enjoyed reordering letters so that they could create weather related words, but when it
came to the grammar part of the lesson, their activity dropped. It was apparent from
their behaviour they were not interested, and since the teacher began (after the inductive
method of review) with written exercises first, their activity stagnated even more. The
teacher was thinking about skipping the written exercise and going straight into the
weather forecast description, but she knew some of the students did not fully grasp the
difference between will and going to and starting on a higher level of Bloom’s
taxonomy would, therefore, be counterproductive. After the written exercises the
teacher tried to personalize the students’ use of future tenses and asked them about their
hopes and expectations for the future. Nevertheless, the students were completely
unwilling to cooperate and always answered: “I do not know” or “I do not care”.

The following activity (graph description) was, on the other hand, successful.
Each student was given a graph he had to analyse and describe (all graphs come from

62
the same study about accidents caused by weather conditions). It was again a jigsaw
activity, which had been used a lot during the course planning, as it was the only way to
get students to work together without them really knowing it. At first the students were
not convinced about it but then submitted and tried it. After the presentation of each
graph, the students seemed genuinely surprised about the results of the report and
started discussing whether they found the results believable or not.

The rest of the day continued without any bigger obstacles, even though the
students complained about the need to work in pairs during the practice of reporting
position. In this activity one student was “lost” and had to describe his surroundings
based on a map, and the other one had to navigate him to the airfield. The teacher had
been trying to come up with a different way to carry out this activity, but could not think
of another solution, since the simulator pilots do exactly the same thing during
simulations. Fortunately, this was the only activity during which the students were
asked to work in pairs, so everyone participated despite the complaints.

6.5.2 Group 2 (16th of July)

Having had a difficult teaching experience with the first group during the last
day, the teacher had been curious what the last day would look like with the second
group. The group, contrary to their colleagues, really bloomed during the whole day and
everyone participated and talked. The teacher, therefore, concluded that the lack of
success in the previous week might not have been due only to the wrong order of
activities but also because of the students’ interests and learning conditions.

The whole day took place according to the lesson plan with just one change - the
grammar. The teacher had added the use of future perfect and future continuous as she
had expected (correctly) that the students would not have any problems with the three
general future structures. Even though the future perfect and continuous brought such a
discussion that the group spent an entire lesson on it, it was worth it. From the students’
questions it was clear that they really wanted to understand it and practice it (some even
called for extra homework), so the teacher concluded it was appropriate to continue with
the grammar.

Since the group spent much longer on grammar than what had been originally
anticipated, the teacher decided to drop the reading activity because the students had
done a lot of reading and writing during the grammar practice and went straight for the

63
graph presentation. The students took the activity seriously and interpreted everything
that was there to interpret. The teacher was fortunate, because, as already mentioned,
only one student had filled in the student’s needs analysis and the teacher did not really
know what the learning styles of the others were. Because of the positive response to the
graphs, it seemed that the rest of them were also pragmatic and number oriented.

During the following lesson the group watched the video about VFR flight and
the dangers one may encounter. A lot of the students could relate to it, because all of
them had had experience with VFR or flew themselves and after a few minutes
everyone wanted to share their stories. When asked how it was possible they suddenly
wanted to talk so much, the students responded it had taken them time to find a way to
the teacher and to their colleagues and that just after the three days they were confident
enough to talk in front of each other. This was a pity and one of the main problems the
teacher found during the course – not enough time for rapport and proper practice of
new grammatical and vocabulary items.

6.5.3 Group 3 (23rd of July)

Day 4 was the most difficult to teach in the third group as well. The first cause
was that the weather itself was cloudy and rainy and, hence, everyone felt drowsy. The
second was the grammar, and the last one was the students’ lack of motivation towards
the topics discussed.

The most critical point of the day occurred during the grammar presentation. The
teacher wanted to quickly revise future tenses, as she had expected everyone to be
familiar with them. However, she overestimated the students’ skills, because the
discussion that arose about the use of future perfect and progressive took them 90
minutes and came to an end just before lunch. The problem was that even though the
students understood the use of the tenses, they started to create hypothetical stories and
contexts for each exercise and by that confused themselves. Even though the teacher
provided the students with the context for each sentence, the students started to argue
with her by claiming that she could not know what the author really meant and that the
context was ambiguous.

The reason for the students’ thinking was probably their frustration with future
structures. During the course they all had been thinking that their command of English
was advanced and then suddenly realized there were deficiencies on which they needed

64
to work. They also did not seem motivated enough, since the majority of them had been
used to using only structures with will and going to, and, even though the teacher
explained to them that with their level of English it was important they knew also the
advanced structures, they were not convinced.

As there were only 75 minutes left after lunch, the teacher skipped most of the
VFR flight lesson plan and did Charades instead, because she found it important to
revise the vocabulary and other grammatical structures. With the students’ attitude
towards the course, the teacher knew they had not learned any of the new words at
home and she wanted them to have the opportunity to practice as well. Since the VFR
lesson plan dealt only with vocabulary revision, the teacher supplied her students with a
map that the other groups had used during reporting positions and elicited vocabulary
related to describing surrounds. This exercise took about 20 minutes, including practice,
during which one student described his surroundings to the others and the rest were
trying to find his position on the map that was displayed on the board. The aim of the
lesson was, therefore, only partially reached in comparison to the rest of the groups.

6.5.4 Summary
The last day of teaching was critical in comparison to the previous days. The
students from the first and last group were tired, unwilling to cooperate and constantly
challenged the teacher by asking questions. The most escalated situations happened
during the grammar presentation regardless of the level of the students. This might have
been caused by either the wrong selection of exercises and the sequence of them or by
the seemingly unnecessary future structures.

As far as the first point is concerned, the teacher considered properly graded
exercises necessary in order to review them. Proceeding from guided written exercises
to free speaking practice seemed like the most sensible, as the teacher had experienced
the students being on different levels and not mastering the anticipated grammar
structures on a B2 level. It is true the teacher should have been better prepared for the
speaking exercises, because she had originally prepared weather forecasting based on a
picture and a discussion about the future of aviation. Nevertheless, neither of them were
well structured, so she did not manage to draw the students in. However, after the first
group the teacher prepared specific tasks regarding speaking about future and, hence,
there was no reason why the activities should fail again, yet they did. As has been

65
already mentioned, the students in the third group did not find future perfect and
continuous necessary for their English and, as a result, they were not motivated enough
to try to understand it. The teacher should have, therefore, only discussed the three most
common structures for expressing the future, having already anticipated the students’
attitude in that group towards more advanced grammar structures in that group.

The second important outcome of the last day was the confirmation of shorter
time for creating good rapport and a safe class atmosphere. Even though the students
and the teacher had been colleagues before the course, becoming accustomed to the shift
of roles took the students some time. Also, the complicated relationships in between the
students did not help to create a positive teaching environment either. The second group
was robbed from the benefits of conversation because of their shyness in front of each
other and the teacher during the last day, which was unfortunate. A long-term course
would be more suitable in this respect, since the students would be able to sufficiently
practice everything they learned and also get accustomed to speaking in front of each
other.

7 Course Evaluation
Having described the teaching experience with its difficulties, challenges and
surprises, the last remaining phase of the course development process was to evaluate
the course. To obtain the most truthful and real impression of the course effectiveness,
the perspective of both the teacher and students were taken into account. The evaluation
was to answer two basic questions: “how did the students find the course” and “what
did the students learn” (Basturkmen, Developing Courses 65).

1.7 Evaluation of the Course Aim

During the first part of the course evaluation, the teacher was concerned with the
second question mentioned above – what did the students learn. To answer this it was,
however, important to remember that the course would not be evaluated only with the
respect to how efficient the students had been in learning the course content but also
with the regard to its usefulness in the target situation. To be able to evaluate both sides

66
of that question, the global aim of the course9 needed to be considered and the specific
test content needs arising from the aim determined.

As the aim of the course was a combination of product/knowledge (language

domains) and skill (language functions and ICAO Rating Scale) approach, it was soon
apparent a two-part test would need to be conducted. An achievement test was,
therefore, created assessing vocabulary, grammar structures related to language
functions and listening comprehension. To evaluate students’ compliance with Holistic
Descriptors and the ICAO Rating Scale, the teacher decided to prepare an oral interview
for each student, during which students’ proficiency was assessed based on the Rating
Scale. The content of the oral interview originated from the second part of the ELPAC
test10 which has been used for examine the language proficiency of ATCOs and pilots
since March 2008.

7.1.1 Test Content

As has been mentioned earlier, the test prepared by the teacher was to assess the
students’ knowledge of language domains, grammatical structures related to language
functions stemming from the student’s needs analysis, and listening comprehension.
The test was, thus, divided into three parts each of which dealt with one of the above-
discussed areas (for the full test form see Appendix 5).

As far as the vocabulary items were concerned, the teacher selected only those
which were directly linked to the occupation of a simulator pilot and, therefore, useful
during emergency situations or improvisations. The teacher tried to apply as many
different tasks as possible, so that the students would be challenged to work with the
items and actively use them instead of only translating from Czech into English and vice
versa. This approach seemed appropriate, because the students also encounter foreign
ATCO instructors with whom they can speak only English. As the aviation vocabulary
domains played a crucial part in the course, the score the students could achieve in this
part comprised 38,20% of the total score of the test.

9
By the end of the course, the students will have revised or learned language items from all six
areas of the ICAO Rating Scale on at least level 4, with special focus on the language domains
and functions emerging from the needs analysis.
10
For more information and content regarding the ELPAC test, please see the bachelor thesis of
the author, where every part of the test is described and explained.

67
 A similar approach was applied to the grammatical exercises. Different types of
tasks from transformations over completion exercises to finding mistakes were selected,
so that the students’ command of discussed grammar would be manifested sufficiently.
Since the students proved their language proficiency during the spoken part of the exam
as well, the teacher perceived the test to be adequately testing the grammatical accuracy
of the students. The grammatical structures stood again in the centre of the course aim
and hence covered 41,40% of the total test score.

The last part of the written test was listening for gist and detail, during which the
students had to decide whether the stated sentences were true or false, choose between
two words and put events in the correct order. The teacher wanted to use authentic video
at first but then decided to use a listening activity from Check Your Aviation English
(46), which was complementing the Aviation English course book because its content
was already graded for level 4 and the listening tasks were suitable for the test purpose.
The teacher chose listening connected to air rage as it was one of the discussed topics
and the students could employ not only their listening skills but also vocabulary. The
achievable points in this part made 20,38% of the total score because the students had
never struggled with listening tasks during the course and it was the skill they needed to
increase the least. Moreover, their listening and interactive skills were also assessed
during the oral part of the test.

All the students wrote the same test, since the teacher wanted to compare the
results across the groups and see whether students’ individual approach to the course
would also be reflected in the results.

7.1.2 Interview Content

After completing the written part of the test, the students participated in an oral
interview, the purpose of which was to assess the individual elements of the ICAO
Rating Scale. The part was inspired by Paper 2 of the ELPAC test for ATCOs and pilots
but was readjusted for the refresher course objectives since not all tasks of Paper 2 were
found suitable.

The original version of Paper 2 consists of two different tasks, the first one of
which contains a non-visual communication during which the student pretends to be
either an ATCO managing traffic displayed on an aeronautical chart or to be a pilot of a
plane with all the flight plan details in front of him. An interlocutor hidden behind a

68
divider plays the opposite role interacting with the student. After a few minutes the
student is faced with an unexpected situation he or she has to react to and resolve
appropriately with suitable phraseology or plain language. During the second part of
task one the student is asked to explain the unexpected situation and its results
(EUROCONTROL 9; ELPACtest).

Task two involves the use of plain language during a visual communication. At
first, the student is provided with a picture related to the aviation context and they have
to describe it with appropriate vocabulary. The student is then requested to speculate
and create a hypothesis about the situation displayed in the picture. Lastly, the
interlocutor asks the student about their opinion related to the aviation problematic, such
as whether aviation safety is sufficient or not. During this part the opinion itself is not
evaluated but fluency and interaction are (EUROCONTROL 9; ELPACtest).

As the overall aim of the refresher course focused on the use of plain language
and the teacher had no experience as an ATCO and could, therefore, not serve as the
interlocutor and assessor, the first task of Paper 2 was completely left out. The second
task, however, was adopted. The teacher selected pictures related to the discussed topics
and prepared questions for the subsequent conversation. The students were then tested
individually and rated according to the ICAO Rating Scale. The interview lasted for 10
minutes, with five minutes for each task.

Even though this type of oral testing had good face validity among the students,
was authentic, reliable and objective, it was not very practical for the teacher, as she had
to simultaneously manage the conversation and note down any mistakes which
occurred.

7.1.3 Test Results

After correcting all the tests and calculating the final score by each student, the
teacher obtained a clear picture about not only what the students had learnt but also
about their motivation and self-study. In each group an average total score was
determined along with the average result in each category (listening, grammar and
vocabulary). To gain even more detailed knowledge about what the students had learnt
and to compare the results in between groups the best and the worst score were noted
down, for it best displayed the motivation and the overall proficiency of that group.

69
 Group 1 Results

Score Category Score Type Points Percentage

achieved average 110,1 p 63,69%

best individual score 143 p 91%

Overall
worst individual 52 p 33%
score
achieved average 24,8 p 77,5%

best individual score 31 p 96,87%

Listening
worst individual 18 p 56,25%
score
achieved average 34,9 p 58,16%

best individual score 55 p 91,66%

Vocabulary
worst individual 19,5 p 32,5%
score
achieved average 40,4 p 62%

best individual score 59 p 90,76%

Grammar
worst individual 6p 9%
score
Chart 5: Test results of group 1

The teacher’s experience during teaching the first group had suggested the
overall proficiency of the group was slightly lower than B2 which was also proved by
the test results. The group achieved 63,69% on average, the worst and the best score of
individual students being 33% and 91%. The results showed as well that the students
had struggled with listening (77,5%) the least in comparison to vocabulary (58,16%)
and grammar (62%). This difference in the categories highlighted the nature of the
simulator pilots’ profession and students’ real proficiency because they usually only
listen to ATCOs and repeat commands without the need of plain language.

The teacher, moreover, believes the results pointed out the insufficient time for
the course, as the grammatical structures and vocabulary items could not be adequately
spaced in time and therefore practiced, which would have been certainly needed in this
group. The worst individual score in all categories was achieved by the same student
and demonstrated that student’s motivation and approach to the course. The student had
been constantly late, disturbed the course by speaking Czech and never tried to actively

70
understand anything stating he was a lost case and he did not need it. The best student of
the group, who reached the best scores, applied a similar approach; nevertheless, his
record was not affected because his English was good enough to be in a more advanced
group.

Group 2 Results

Score Category Score Type Points Percentage

achieved average 125 p 83,66%

best individual score 115 p 86,47%

Overall
worst individual 123 p 78,34%
score
achieved average 31,2 p 97,5%

best individual score 32 100%

Listening
worst individual 31 96,88%
score
achieved average 44,1 p 79,89%

best individual score 54 p 90%

Vocabulary
worst individual 41 p 68,8%
score
achieved average 49,8 p 79%

best individual score 56 p 86%

Grammar
worst individual 47 74%
score
Chart 6: Test results of group 2

Before discussing the results of the second group, it is noteworthy to mention

that one student in this group missed one full day and his overall score was, therefore,
calculated with adjusted numbers, so that he would not be disadvantaged. This
adjustment was then projected into the overall results and, hence, a student with less
points (115) could have a better overall individual score of 86,47% than a student with
more points (123) but overall 78,34%, because the percentage was calculated from the
individual achievable score.

In comparison to the previously mentioned numbers in Group 1, the results of

the second group were much better proving again the estimated proficiency with the

71
average of 83,66%. How much the proficiency of both groups differed showed the
worst overall individual score with 78,34% in Group 2 as it was almost even with the
average result of listening in Group 1 (77,5%). Furthermore, the lowest result in the
second group (68,8%) exceeded the overall average score (63,69%) in Group 1.

Interesting were also the smaller differences between the worst and the best
individual results which differed by 9% the most and by 0,62% the least because they
show the even language proficiency in the group in comparison to the first group.

Group 3 Results

Score Category Score Type Points Percentage

achieved average 135,2 p 86,15%

best individual score 152 p 96,8%

Overall
worst individual 122 p 77,7%
score
achieved average 29,83 p 93%

best individual score 32 p 100%

Listening
worst individual 26 p 81%
score
achieved average 52,41 p 87%

best individual score 60 p 100%

Vocabulary
worst individual 45 p 80%
score
achieved average 53 p 81,53%

best individual score 60 p 92,31%

Grammar
worst individual 49 p 75%
score
Chart 7: Test results of group 3

Even though Group 3 proved to be the most proficient with the overall average
of 86,15%, its results differ from the second group by only a few percent in some areas.
Moreover, the overall average in listening (93%) is lower than the average in Group 2
(97,5%). Both groups were, therefore, almost equal except for the best student in Group
3 who managed to achieve 100% in listening and vocabulary and 92, 31% in grammar.

72
 A big difference could be spotted, on the contrary, between the first and the last
group. The lowest individual records in Group 3 (75% and 77,7%) surpassed all the
average totals (e.g. 63,69%) except for one (77,5% in listening) in the first group.

Noteworthy are furthermore the lowest individual results, which were again
achieved by the same person. The results were quite distant from the best score showing
the unevenness in students’ level of English, which had also been apparent in the first
group. Despite this divergence the worst score did not deviate from the average score
that much which suggested the exceptionally advanced level of English of the best
student.

Overall Results

Score Category Score Type Points Percentage

achieved average 120 p 77, 83%

best individual score 152 p 96,8%

Overall
worst individual 52 p 33%
score
achieved average 28,61 p 89,33%

best individual score 32 p 100%

Listening
worst individual 18 p 56,25%
score
achieved average 43,8 p 75%

best individual score 60 p 100%

Vocabulary
worst individual 19,5 p 32,5%
score
achieved average 47,73 p 74,18%

best individual score 60 p 92,31%

Grammar
worst individual 6p 9%
score
Chart 8: Overall test results

Having analysed and compared the results within the individual groups, it is now
time to scrutinize the overall average results across all the groups. The overall average
(77,83%) was almost even with the average in grammar (74,18%) and vocabulary
(75%) in comparison to the average percentage in listening (89,33%). Apparent in the
chart are the great differences among students which should be worked on and balanced.

73
To have a student who was able to reach only 9% in grammar beside a student with
92,31% arouses a question how it is possible there are such differences and whether the
tests simulator pilots have to pass every three years are really on the level B2. Even
though the test was the same for all the students regardless of their proficiency, the
expected and reported level of English had been B2 and, therefore, the differences
should not reach that extent.

To conclude the test results analysis, the average total of 77,83% can be
considered as a satisfactory score, especially when the short period of time is taken into
account along with the students’ low motivation and struggles described in the teaching
experience. The teacher had originally expected lower numbers because the students,
especially in the first and the last group, had not taken any notes other than completing
the exercises they had been provided with. It was, hence, the teacher’s task to practice
new vocabulary items and grammatical structures so that the students would remember
them without any home study. According to the test results it seems the teacher
succeeded; yet, the question whether the students will remember what they learnt
remains.

7.1.4 Interview Results

The test results have exposed how much the students had learnt knowledge-wise
during the course. The oral part of the testing aimed at assessing students’ language
proficiency on the grounds of the ICAO Rating Scale. As the test results pointed out
some interesting information about the proficiency across the groups, a similar approach
was applied for discussing the results of the oral interview. At the end, the overall
average score was calculated and evaluated with respect to the course aim.

Group 1 - Oral Results

ICAO categories
Score
Type
Vocabulary Structure Pronunciation Fluency Comprehension Interaction

average 4 3,8 4 4 4 4,2

best
individual
5 5 5 5 5 5

worst
individual
3 3 3 3 3 4
Chart 9: Group 1 Oral Results

74
 The first group reached the necessary operational level 4 in all but one area of
the ICAO Rating scale. This high average was, nevertheless, mainly caused by one
student who achieved the extended level 5 in all areas and so the average level of the
group may be questioned. The pre-operational level 3 was not obtained by the same
student but was spread in between three students one of them being the student with the
lowest test score.

The overall average (3,8) in the structure matched the lower grammatical score
in the test results (62%). Vocabulary, contrarily, did not cause the students that many
difficulties in comparison to the written part (58%) as only one of the students reached
level 3 and the rest levels 4 and 5. This difference showed, according to the teacher, the
students had not studied the new words at home and had, therefore, obtained a smaller
number of points because they were asked to produce the specific words. Since the
students could talk about more general topics related to aviation during the spoken part
of the testing their vocabulary range sufficed and they were able to reach higher level.

The most common and recurring observations the teacher noted down during the
interviews were mixing of grammatical tenses, omitting the 3rd person singular –s,
producing only parts of grammatical structures (such as continuous aspect without an
auxiliary verb) but also using a lot of fillers, slow pace of speech and the inability to
paraphrase and inserting Czech words.

Group 2 - Oral Results

ICAO categories
Score
Type
Vocabulary Structure Pronunciation Fluency Comprehension Interaction

average 4,8 4,6 4,4 4,6 4,6 4,4

best
individual
5 5 5 5 5 5
worst
individual
4 4 4 4 4 4
Chart 10: Group 2 Oral Results

The second group proved also during the interviews that they were more
proficient than the first group. All students reached either the operational level 4 or the
extended level 5, which is actually the highest level achievable for non-native

75
speakers11. Interesting were the results in vocabulary (4,8) and structure (4,6) for they
reflected the almost even results of the written test with vocabulary reaching 79,89%
and grammar 79%.

Similarly to the previous group no student was assessed with level 4 in all areas
but everyone achieved at least once the level 5. No one managed to accomplish level 5
entirely, mostly because of their pronunciation, which was influenced by students’ first
language and sometimes interfered with understanding. Noteworthy is also the result in
interaction being the lowest average number along with pronunciation because it
mirrors the nature of the students in the second group. It has been discussed multiple
times during the teaching reflections that the second group was the shyest and it took
them the longest to overcome their fears of speaking in front of the teacher and one
another. This fact and the experience emerged during the one-on-one interviews while
the students were answering the teacher’s questions. They did not go into much detail in
their answers and sometimes did not manage the conversational exchange effectively by
not finishing sentences or not checking whether the teacher understood.

Other comments the teacher observed were more complex sentence structures in
comparison to the first group, fewer breaks and fillers, and a larger range of used
vocabulary items.

Group 3 - Oral Results

ICAO categories
Score
Type
Vocabulary Structure Pronunciation Fluency Comprehension Interaction

average 4,8 4,5 5 4,8 4,8 4,8

best
individual
5 5 5 5 5 5
worst
individual
4 4 5 5 4 4
Chart 11: Group 3 Oral Results

The average counts of the third group reflected again the results of the written
test, as vocabulary (4,8) surpassed structure (4,5), even though the differences were not
as such noticeable as in the case of the written test (87% and 81,53%). This might have
been caused by the certain freedom of expressing the students had during discussing the

11
A native-like English proficiency is required for the expert level 6.

76
picture and other work-related topics, for the assessed area of structure was not only
concerned with the appropriate grammatical structures but with sentence complexity as
well.

The estimated proficiency and talkativeness of the group was apparent in the
results. As the students had had no problems with discussions during the course and had
not been afraid to ask the teacher, the numbers (4,8) in those areas were not only the
highest scores within the group but also in the whole course. The different
communicativeness could be also spotted through the individual groups. On one side,
there was the first group, though very active and energetic, which achieved the smallest
average score in interaction because their level of English sometimes did not suffice to
maintain the speaker/listener relationship effectively and prevented them from
appropriate responses. The second group, on the other side, was more effective and
fluent but was not as quick and efficient as the third group.

As far as the teacher’s comments notes were concerned, the majority of students
(5) used at some point idiomatic expressions and used a wide range of vocabulary items
from different lexical domains. Furthermore students’ pronunciation very rarely
interfered with meaning despite being sometimes influenced by Czech, especially in the
case of rhotic /r/. All students were able to improvise with only sporadic use of fillers
but appropriate use of connectors and discourse markers.

Overall Oral Results

ICAO categories
Score
Type
Vocabulary Structure Pronunciation Fluency Comprehension Interaction

average 4,5 4,3 4,5 4,5 4,5 4,5

best
individual
5 5 5 5 5 5
worst
individual
3 3 3 3 3 3
Chart 12: Overall Oral Results

With the individual group results analysed, it is now possible to consider the
overall average results. The students exceeded the necessary level 4 in all areas of the
ICAO Rating Scale and, thus, fulfilled the skill-oriented part of the global course aim.
The results, however, have also indicated there were students who did not achieve the

77
operational level 4 in some areas and proved the individual student’s proficiency differs
greatly.

Conspicuous were the even average results (4,5) in all areas except from
structure (4,3). Even though the difference was almost negligible, one possible
explanation is that it reflected the nature of the simulator pilot’s profession, as they
normally do not need elaborate grammatical structures because the aviation phraseology
with prescribed imperatives suffices. A second interpretation is the overall average
score supported the average results of the written test (in which vocabulary surpassed
grammar by 1%) and, thus, reflected and confirmed the students’ average proficiency.

7.1.5 Summary
The aim of the written test and oral interview was to ascertain if, and to what
extent, the overall aim of the course was fulfilled. The written test put more focus on
accuracy with its lexical domains and grammatical structures, whereas the oral part of
the interview assessed fluency and the overall language proficiency of the individual
students.

The written part proved the teacher’s original assumption about different levels
of English across the groups. While the first group reached 63,69% of the total score on
average, the second and third group achieved by 20% more. Moreover, the lowest
individual score in the last two groups surpassed the average score of the first group. As
far as the individual parts of the written test were concerned, the students from all
groups did best in listening followed by similar numbers in grammar and vocabulary.
As no percentage limit had been set prior to the test for assessing whether the aim of the
course was reached, the overall average of 77,83% was considered as a sufficient score
for stating the aim was fulfilled, yet still giving opportunity for improvement.

The results of the oral part supported the written test – major differences
between students were spotted, for they varied by two levels of the ICAO Rating Scale.
A positive outcome was though, that no student was assessed by the pre-operational
level 3 in all ICAO Rating Scale areas but that each student reached in at least four
areas the operational level 4. The overall average score surpassing the required level 4
in all areas confirmed fulfilling the course aim as well, meaning the global aim of the
course was generally accomplished despite the differing individual students’ scores.

78
2.7 Evaluation of the Course Content
The test and oral results have shown all groups achieved to some extent the
desired overall course aim and, therefore, proved the course to be successful. As these
results only considered the efficiency of the course but not the carrier content a second
evaluation needed to be carried out in order to gain a complete prospective on the
course content.

A form of a feedback questionnaire was, thus, created, for it was the most
economical means of acquiring the necessary information. The feedback was concerned
with several areas about the course – students’ general feelings about the week, their
opinions on the activities and other content applied during the week, how much they
have improved and whether their expectations they had prior to the course changed after
the week. The results were, this time, considered collectively and not compared (except
for a few exceptions) because it was assumed its evaluation would not depend on the
group the students had been in (to see the results in one chart go to Appendix 8).

Since only 8 students (47%) completed the students’ needs analysis, the first part
of the feedback specified students’ reasons for not completing it. The results proved the
original assumption that students were on holiday (23,53%) and that they were not
interested (17,66%). Two students (11,76%) also claimed they had forgotten and, thus,
had not sent the completed form back. As two students refused to complete the feedback
completely stating they were tired and did not want to do it, their answers were added
into the category of not being interested because they had not completed the students’
needs analysis either.

The second part of the feedback dealt with students’ general feelings about the
course and their evaluation of the course content. The overall average answer was 3,55
meaning in between “It was fine” and “I liked it.” There was one student (6,67%) who
“did not like [the course] very much,” four students thought “it was fine” (26,67%) and
10 students (66,67%) “liked [the course].”

To evaluate the carrier content the students were provided with statements they
had to rate on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

79
 Statement Average rating
The lessons were logically ordered. 4,17
I had enough opportunities to talk. 4,57
The grammar was presented
4,1
understandably.
Activities were relevant to the topics. 4,12
The teacher knew what she was doing. 4,5
I would rather have a professional
1,52
pilot/ATCO teaching me.
The teacher was well prepared. 4,65
I respected Magda in her teacher’s role. 3,98
The teacher respected me as a student. 4,42
Chart 13: Results of students’ opinions on the carrier content

The rating indicated the students had been overall satisfied with the means of
delivering the real content. They had found the lessons logical with relevant activities
supporting the topics. The lessons had been, based on the students’ rating,
communicative, well prepared and the teacher had seemed to know where she wanted
the lessons to be heading. The students also felt they had been respected by the teacher.

Notable is the rating related to the amount of respect the students had for the
teacher. Even though they agreed they had respected the teacher in her role, the results
of the first group suggested otherwise as the average rating came up only to 2,75
meaning between “I do not agree” and “I somewhat agree [that I respected the teacher
in her role].” In the rest of the groups the average rating was 4,6. These results might be,
hence, a possible solution why some of the activities and lessons did not work in the
first group and why the students sometimes behaved the way they did. The question is
though whether they did not respect the teacher because she was a woman or whether
their disrespect would be the same for any teacher. The first group stated in its feedback
they would not rather have a professional ATCO or a pilot teaching them which would
suggest the second case.

The last question related to the organization of the carrier content was the
evaluation of the specific days. The students were to order the days from their most
favourite (1) to their least favourite (4). Unfortunately, some students did not read the
instructions carefully and marked only some days or evaluated all days with the same

80
number. The results are therefore incomplete and do not give a clear picture of the
popularity of the individual days.

All four days were rated between 2 and 3, which means they were moderately
favoured. The most popular was Day 1 – Problems linked to passenger’s behaviour
(2,43), followed by Day 3 – Aircraft breakdowns (2,61). Day 4 – Weather and VFR in
difficulty was almost even with Day 2 – Health related problems with the results being
2,95 and 2,96. As the students just ordered the days without providing further
comments, it was possible to create a mere hypotheses and to compare the results with
the teaching experience.

As far as Days 1 and 3 are concerned, the teaching experience and following
reflections suggested there had been no crucial issues during the teaching other than the
need of scaffolding and grading the material because of the different levels across the
groups. It was mentioned the students had enjoyed the use of authentic videos and the
teacher’s flexibility during the first day as well as the use of a real aircraft during Day 3.
The rest of the days (Day 2 and 4) proved, on the other side, that not only the teacher
had sensed some issues but also the students had considered these days not very
positively. The reflections of the second day referred about the difficulties with
activities not suiting the learning styles of the students due to the lack of information
from the students’ needs analysis and about students’ misbehaviour. The last day was
evaluated as a crucial day in comparison to the others because most of the students had
been tired, unwilling to cooperate and there had been some problems with grammar
explanation and practice as well. Based on the rating, the students had similar feelings
and the day was evaluated as the least popular.

The evaluation of the individual days was followed by a simple question dealing
with the suitability of the methods used for learning. 86,67% of the students found the
activities convenient for their learning styles, one student (6,67%) was not sure but did
not provide any further comments on what he had missed, and one student (6,67%)
considered the activities too demanding, which in fact did not say anything about the
suitability of the activities to that student’s needs. The results of the students’ needs
analysis proved, hence, as a valuable source of information despite the lack of answers.

81
 The next part of the feedback strived to estimate students’ improvement in the
ICAO Rating Scale areas. The students were asked to write “yes” or “no” to each area
based on whether they thought they had improved in that area or not.

90.00% 80.00%
80.00% 73.33%
70.00% 60%
60.00% 53.33% 53% 53.33%
46.67% 47% 46.67%
50.00% 40%
40.00% 26.67%
30.00% 20.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%

No Yes

Chart 14: Students’ rating of their improvement in given areas

Their answers showed there had been an improvement in some areas, though not
great. Pronunciation and fluency were rated as the areas with the smallest improvement
– only 20% (pronunciation) and 40% (fluency) of the students thought they had
improved. Vocabulary and structures were, contrarily, positively perceived as 73,33%
and 53,33% students found they had progressed in them. The last two areas, interaction
and comprehension, were rated mediocrely since 53% of the students said they had not
advanced.

These results can be interpreted from several points of view. The first one is that
the numbers correspond with the progress and activities of the course which would
indicate the course was only grammar and vocabulary oriented without sufficient
opportunities to practice speaking and listening. This interpretation is, however,
probably incorrect, for the students agreed in the previous part (Chart 13) of the
feedback they had had sufficient opportunities to talk and also the lesson plans suggest
otherwise. The second possibility is the students did not know how to assess their
improvement because they completed the feedback right after they had finished writing
the test and so they did not know the results yet. This interpretation is, nevertheless,
only an assumption as there is not data which would support or disprove it.

82
 The last interpretation combines the results with the teacher’s own experience
and seems, thus, the most sensible. It is undeniable that the course itself was very short
and with the amount of information it should contain did not give many opportunities
for storing new information into the long-term memory. The time sufficed for reviewing
what the students had already known and for reminding them there are certain structures
and rules which might be useful for their profession. A great improvement is, therefore,
arguable. Similarly, the sub-skills (comprehension, fluency and interaction) related to
speaking were practiced in different tasks but as the teacher had not carried out a
placement test prior to the course beginning, a real progress in those areas is difficult to
assess. The results, therefore, probably reflect not only students’ perception of their
improvement but also the teaching situation and students’ motivation and approach to
the course. On one side, there is the second group in which 100% of the students agreed
they had improved in interaction despite their initial shyness and struggles with
speaking. That group had never debated with the teacher, asked for more exercises and
made efforts to revise the presented language items. The first group, on the other side,
tried to convince the teacher to watch videos instead of learning, disparaged some of the
activities and ultimately claimed no one had made a progress in that area even though
the activities employed were mostly the same and only grammar was adjusted for their
level of English. Students’ commitment to the course must have thus played a role in the
results as well because such differences would not be otherwise possible.

Despite the above mentioned ratings 66,67% of the students acknowledged in

the following question they might use some content covered in the course in their
occupation. The mostly stated areas were vocabulary related to weather and aircrafts
breakdowns, talking to instructors and a little bit of every area. Even though the students
might not have improved much in some of the areas, it seems they found the content of
the course suitable and useful for their occupation.

The last part of the feedback dealt with students’ expectations about the course
and how much they had been fulfilled. As not many students had completed the
students’ needs analysis, a similar question was included into the feedback to give a
complete picture of students’ feelings about the course. The students had on average
“not minded [the course]” expecting “[they] might learn something new.” Their opinion
changed after experiencing the course and they claimed, “they had revised some
phraseology and grammar”, which was exactly the aim of the course.

83
7.2.1 Summary
Any good evaluation of a course would be incomplete without a proper
assessment of the course content and students’ attitude towards the course of the week.
For this reason, the students’ feedback was performed the results of which added an
interesting perspective on the course progress and made the picture of the course
complete.

The course was overall affably received, as the vast majority stated they liked
the week. The students also agreed the course had been logically prepared, containing
communicative activities relevant to the discussed topics and grammar. With regards to
the teacher, the students indicated she had been knowledgeable in the aviation field and
they had generally respected her in her role even though was lower in one of the groups
presumably causing some friction during the teaching as mentioned in the chapter
before. The students felt respected during teaching and did not wish to have an aviation
professional teaching them instead of the their teacher.

A clear correspondence between the teacher’s experience (as mentioned in

chapter 6) and student’ perception of the individual days was demonstrated in the next
section of the feedback. The days with the least amount of issues to solve and changes
were rated as the most favourite, on contrary to those days during which the teacher had
to improvise and readjust the days after unsatisfactory course of the day. Despite the
need of some changes in the lesson plans, the most students rated the selected activities
as suitable for the learning styles.

As far as the improvement in the ICAO Rating Scale areas was concerned, the
students saw the biggest progress in structure and vocabulary. The improvement in
fluency, comprehension and interaction was perceived only partially and in
pronunciation only little advancement was recorded. These results were most probably
given due to the limited time which was designated for the course, unsuitable activities
the purpose of which the students did not clearly see and students’ motivation as the
results of this section differed greatly across the individual groups in the areas.

Even though the students claimed they had mostly progressed in only some
areas, they saw a positive contribution of the course to their profession, for the majority
of them said they would use some content covered by the course in the future during
their profession. Lastly, the feedback pointed out that students’ expectations about the

84
course had positively evolved and that students were no more indifferent to it as they
had been prior to the course but that they viewed it as time during which they could
revise the aviation related vocabulary and grammar.

85
 Conclusion

The aim of this thesis was to develop a syllabus of a refresher aviation course for
simulator pilots based on the ESP methodology, to employ it in a class and to evaluate
the whole process. Supported by the above described teaching experiences and the
results of the written and oral testing as well as students’ feedback, a few observations
and suggestions can be drawn.

It has been mentioned in chapter 2 that the main separation of ESP and general
English lies in the direct link between a needs analysis and syllabus development in the
field of ESP and in the course content being related to a particular target situation. This
statement proved utterly correct, for without a proper needs analysis it would not have
been possible to develop a relevant syllabus with suitable materials and activities. The
success and correct scrutiny of the needs analysis was supported by the results of
students’ feedback which showed the activities suited students’ learning styles and that
the content included in the course was found useful for students’ occupation. The
importance of the needs analysis demonstrated itself also in its lack since not many
students completed the students’ needs analysis and their expectations and opinions on
teaching could not be taken into consideration during the lesson planning. Due to the
insufficiency of this information, the teacher had prepared several inconvenient
activities, which needed to be adjusted in order to work in that particular group.

Another observation is bound to the necessity of students’ motivation. As ESP

desires to prepare materials directly linked to the target situation and students’ needs, it
is important the students see their need for the language course. If this, however, is not
the case the teacher might try to prepare the best course content but is ultimately
predestined to fail because the students will not see any sense in their efforts. The main
problem of the course described in this thesis was its purpose. As it was only a filling
for the lack of work during summer, the students knew there would not be any
consequence for them failing the course and so it was only on the teacher whether she
would be able to draw them into the topics. Even though she partially managed to do
that it would be better in the future if the course served as a preparation for the English
proficiency exam simulator pilots have to undergo every three years. That way it would
still serve as a refresher aviation course but the students would have a reason to pay
attention and to cooperate.

86
 The third worth-mentioning information regards the course duration. Since the
course was planned for a mere week it did not provide the teacher and the students with
much space for improvement. Even though the students claimed they had progressed in
grammar and vocabulary it can be doubted how much they remembered after a few
weeks. To make a newly learned vocabulary item permanent in the long term memory a
students has to undergo certain mental operations, such as space them across time, find
their cognitive and affective depth or learn them at their own pace (Thornbury, How to
Teach Vocabulary 24-25). Such procedures are, however, hardly possible to do in the
course of four or five days with other information about grammatical structures and
aviation content being taught or reviewed at the same time. It is true the aim of the
course was to mainly review the aviation related domains and grammatical structures
and that some students did not have to learn many new things; nevertheless, as the level
of the students differed, there were certainly cases who would need more time even to
reach the necessary level 4 in all areas of the ICAO Rating Scale.

The final observation is connected to the above-mentioned differences of the

students’ proficiency. All simulator pilots are required to have at least the level B2 of
the CEFR; yet, some students did not have this proficiency, based on the teacher’s
experience. Since the teacher relied on that information she had to adjust the tasks for
every group and even though the level in one group was quite equal, there were cases
(e.g. in group 1) in which the students were misplaced and should have been in a
different group. Because of the unified lesson plans, certain activities were not very
suitable for some groups and the teacher, upon seeing that, needed to improvise and
adjust the plan on the go. This shows partially her inexperience and inability to foresee
the possible issues but also the inconvenience of having unified lesson plans without
knowing the exact proficiency of the students. A sensible solution would be to do a
placement test first, determining students’ level of English and sorting them into the
correct group. A common lesson plan template would be then developed which would
include a proportion of activities (such as listening or reading) similar to all groups as
well as different tasks designed specifically to improve the weaknesses in that particular
group. These activities would be, however, selected prior to the course and not adjusted
for other groups based on the experience with some students. This approach would
hopefully also motivate the students because they would see they are doing tasks
directly relevant for their level of English and hence faster improve.

87
 As has been suggested in the introduction, developing a course in the field of
ESP is a very elaborate process in which many factors play an important role and so
there is always space for improvement. The aim of this thesis was to develop the course
and to evaluate it based on a teaching experience. From the results of both parts of the
evaluation we might conclude that the aim was fulfilled and the students did review
aviation related lexical domains and structures stemming from the needs analysis. The
course development, nevertheless, also pointed out some facts that would be worth
further analysis and discussion so that the course would be even more bound to the
target situation and students’ needs.

88
Sources

“About ICAO.” ICAO. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 October 2015.

<http://www.icao.int/secretariat/TechnicalCooperation/Pages/history.aspx>.

Allesandrini, K . L., Langstaff, J. J., & Wittrock, M. C. “Visual-Verbal and Analytic-

Holistic Strategies, Abilities, and Styles.” Journal of Educational Research 77.3 (1984):
151-157. Web. 2 April 2016. <http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~coesyl-p/principle9-article4.pdf>.

Basturkmen, Helen. Developing Courses in English for Specific Purposes. Hampshire:

Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Print.

---. Ideas and Options in English for Specific Purposes. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 2006. PDF file.

Bowles, Hugo. “Analyzing Languages for Specific Purposes Discourse”. The Modern
Language Journal 96 (2012): 43–58. Web. 10 January 2016.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/41478790?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>.

Brown, H. Douglas. Teaching by Principles. 2nd ed. New York: Pearson/Longman,

2000. PDF file.

Dubin, Fraida and Elite Olshtain. Course Design: Developing Programs and Materials
for Language Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Print.

ELPACtest. “ELPAC En Route Scenario.” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 5

April 2013. Web. 18 March 2016.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccaz67M8Vp0>.

EUROCONTROL. Information Brochure. 2nd Edition. Luxembourg: ELPAC, 2015.

Eurocontrol. Web. 18 March 2016.
<https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/files/ELPAC-brochure-
2015.pdf>

“History.” ICAO. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 October 2015.

<http://www.icao.int/secretariat/TechnicalCooperation/Pages/history.aspx>.

Hutchinson, Tom and Alan Waters. English for Specific Purposes: A learning-centred
approach. Glasgow: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Print.

89
Hyland, Ken. English for Academic Purposes. London: Routledge, 2006. PDF file.

ICAO. Annex 10 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. 6th ed. Vol. 2. N.p.:
ICAO, 2001. Free downloads. Web. 4 Apr. 2013. < http://freepdfdb.com/pdf/annex-10-
volume-ii-18786346.html>.

---. Cir 323 – Guidelines for Aviation English Training Programmes. N.p.: ICAO,
2009. ICAO. Web. 15 June 2015.
<http://www.icao.int/Meetings/lpr13/Documents/323_en.pdf>.

---. Doc 9835 – Manual on the Implementation of ICAO Language Proficiency

Requirements. 2nd ed. N.p.: ICAO, 2010. Teleduc2. Web. 1 May 2013.
<http://teleduc2.icea.gov.br/EPLIS_wp/docs/Doc9835.pdf>.

---. “Status of English Language Standard for Use in Civil Aviation.” ICAO. ICAO, 25
April 2003. Web. 15 October 2015.
<http://www.icao.int/SAM/Documents/2003/RAAC8/RAAC8IP18.pdf>.

“ICAO Rating Scale.” Mayflower College. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 June 2015.
<http://www.maycoll.co.uk/pdfs/>.

“ICAO Recognized Tests.” International Civil Aviation Organization. N.p., n.d. Web.
29 October 2015. <https://www4.icao.int/aelts/Home/RecognizedTests>.

Institute of Air Navigation Services. English Language Proficiency for Aeronautical

Communication. N.p.: EUROCONTROL, May 2007. Print.

Kebabjian, Richard. “Accident Database.” PlaneCrashInfo. Kebabjian, n.d. Web. 4

January 2016. <http://www.planecrashinfo.com/database.htm>.

Knight, Kevin. “English for Specific Purposes.” TESOL International Association. N.p.,
2 April 2010. Web. 4 January 2016. <https://www.tesol.org/docs/default-
source/interest-sections/english-for-specific-purposes-an-overview-for-practitioners-
and-clients-(academic-amp-corporate).pdf?sfvrsn=0>.

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. 2nd ed.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. PDF file.

90
“List of States that have provided information.” ICAO. ICAO, 3 Jan. 2013. Web. 15
March 2013. <http://legacy.icao.int/anb/fls/lp/lpcompliance1.cfm>.

Materna, Jan. “Pseudopiloti – směrnice.” Message to the author. 7 December 2015. E-

mail.

Mori, Daniel. “Belly Landing in Scottdale – Will You Tell My Wife I Love Her?”
Online Video Clip. YouTube. YouTube, 9 November 2013. Web. 12 April 2016.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKpHrmHrwnU>.

“Moving from modular to linear qualifications.” Cambridge International

Examinations. Cambridge International Examinations, September 2005. Web. 1 March
2016. <http://www.cie.org.uk/images/149738-moving-from-modular-to-linear-
qualifications.pdf>.

Nunan, David. Syllabus Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Print.

Pichl, David. Provozní příručka DPLR/SLŠ – Operational Manual DPLR/SLŠ. Praha:

Řízení letového provozu České republiky, 2014. PDF file.

Scrivener, Jim. Learning Teaching. 2nd ed. Oxford: Macmillan Publishers Limited,
2005. PDF file.

Thornbury, Scott. How to Teach Grammar. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 1999.
PDF file.
Thornbury, Scott. How to Teach Vocabulary. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited,
2002. PDF File.

91
Lesson Planning Sources

ACIO. “Flying Blind.” Online video clip. YouTube. YouTube, 9 January 2014. Web. 1
July 2015. < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFucMoWpHZ4>.

Admin. “Symptoms of a Panic Attack.” Anxiety Treatment. Anxiety Magic, 2011. Web.
29 June 2015. <http://www.anxietymagic.com/>.

“AirAsia QZ8501.” Does Bad Weather Cause Plane Crashes?” BBC. BBC, 30
December 2014. Web. 8 July 2015. < http://www.bbc.com/news/world-30631968>.

Beckwith, Seonaid. “Past Simple or Present Perfect – Exercise 1.” n.p., n.d. Web. 6
July. 2015. < http://www.perfect-english-grammar.com/past-simple-present-perfect-
1.html>.

---. “Present Perfect Simple Tense – All Forms Exercise 2.” n.p., n.d. Web. 6 July 2015.
< http://www.perfect-english-grammar.com/present-perfect-exercise-5.html>.

“Body Parts to Label.” Hopelink. n.p., n.d. Web. 26 June 2015. <
http://www.eastsideliteracy.org/tutorsupport/documents/HO_UnBody.pdf>.

“Classic Heart Attack Symptoms.” Flickr. n.p., n.d. Web. 29 June 2015.
<http://static.flickr.com/45/151599103_4b029d366b.jpg>.

Cunningham, Sarah et al. Cutting Edge: Advanced. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited,
2005. PDF File.

“Directions to MetWash.” Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority. n.p., n.d. Web. 1

July 2015. <http://www.metwashairports.com/image/iad_locator_map.jpg>.

Ellis, Sue, and Terence Gerighty. English for Aviation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2008. PDF File.

Emery, Henry, and Andy Roberts. Aviation English. Oxford: Macmillan Publishers
Limited, 2008. Print.

---. Check Your Aviation English. Oxford: Macmillan Publishers Limited, 2010. Print.

“First Aid for Seizure.” Sandfalldown. n.p., n.d. Web. 29 June 2015.
<http://sandfalldown.com/image/5513ad62e9ca9.jpg>.

92
FlightChops. “Flying VFR into VMC.” Online video Clip. YouTube. YouTube, 18
January 2014. Web. 8 July 2015. <
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B56DoPDd6BM>.

“Flu Symptoms.” Flu Facts. n.p., n.d. Web. 29 June 2015.

<http://www.flufacts.com/images/kid-symptoms.jpg>.

“Foodborne Illness.” Skinsight. Logical Images, 2009. Web. 30 June 2015.

<http://www.skinsight.com/images/dx/webFirstAid/firstAidFoodborneIllnessFoodPoiso
ning_60263_lg.jpg>.

Harding, Keith. English for Specific Purposes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Print.

Harmison, Henry. “Can You Spot the Suspicious Person?” Online video clip. YouTube.
YouTube, 27 October 2009. Web. 1 July 2015. <
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS3b8kSib1w>.

Harris, Michael. Opportunities: Upper Intermediate Language Powerbook. Harlow:

Pearson Education Limited, 2002. PDF File.

Hewings, Martin. Advanced Grammar in Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2005. PDF File.

“IELTS – Academic Reading Sample: Air Rage.” IELTS buddy. n.p., n.d. Web. 30 June
2015. < http://www.ieltsbuddy.com/ielts-reading-sample.html>.

“In Flight problems.” The Travel Doctor. n.p, n.d. Web. 29 June 2015. <
http://www.traveldoctor.co.uk/info.htm>.

Jenamani, Rajendra K., and Ashok Kumar. “Bad Weather and Aircraft Accidents –
Global vis-á-vis Indian Scenario.” Current Science. 104.3 (2013): 316-325. Web. 1 July
2015. < http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/104/03/0316.pdf>.

Klippel, Friederike. Keep Talking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. PDF
file.

“Kristianstad Airport.” Seaplane. n.p., 8 December 2003. Web. 1 July 2015.

<http://www.seaplane-project.net/img/map-kristianstad.jpg>.

93
Murphy, Raymond. English Grammar in Use. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004. PDF File.

---. Essential Grammar in Use. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
PDF File.

Nyman, Margaret. “People-Watching.” Photograph. Getting Through This. Nyman, 13

December 2011. Web. 20 June 2015. <
http://www.gettingthroughthis.com/7421/people-watching/>.

Penny, Ur. Grammar Practice Activities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1988. PDF File.

Poesová, Kristýna. “Accentual Function of Intonation.” Phonology II. Department of

English Language and Literature, Prague. 2011/2012. Lecture.

---. “Word Stress.” Phonology II. Department of English Language and Literature,
Prague. 2011/2012. Lecture.

Roberts, Rachael et al. New Total English Intermediate. Harlow: Pearson Education
Limited, 2011. PDF File.

Shawcross, Philip. Flightpath. Cambridge University Press, 2011. PDF File.

“Signs of Choking.” Family Health Online. n.p., n.d. Web. 29 June 2015.
<http://www.familyhealthonline.ca/fho/firstaid/_images/FA_choke_im5.jpg>.

“Symptoms of Asthma.” University of Minnesota. n.p., n.d. Web. 29 June 2015.

<http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5100/asthma/symptoms.gif>.

“Taipei Airport.” Skulinkou Air Station Taiwan. Nan Hua Publishing Co., 1970. Web. 1
July 2015. <http://shulinkou.tripod.com/TaipeimapAirport.jpg>.

“Tempelhof Airport.” Nyceberlin. NyceWorld, n.d. Web. 1 July 2015.

<http://www.nyceberlin.com/berlin-hotels-images/hotels-in-berlin-pictures/tempelhof-
airport/map.gif>.

VIN Vid. “Marshal: Flight Suspect Tried to Open Cockpit Door.” Online video clip.
YouTube. YouTube, 10 May 2011. Web. 1 July 2015. <
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm80pHtI-RY>.

94
Appendices

Appendix 1
ICAO Rating Scale

Vocabulary Structure Pronunciation Fluency Comprehension Interactions

Relevant grammatical structures and sentence patterns Assumes a dialect and/or accent intelligible to the
Level are determined by language functions appropriate to the aeronautical community.
task.

Vocabulary range and accuracy are sufficient
to communicate effectively on a wide variety
Expert 6 of familiar and unfamiliar topics. Vocabulary
is idiomatic, nuanced, and sensitive to
register.
Pronunciation, stress, rhythm, and intonation,
Both basic and complex grammatical
though possibly influenced by the first
structures and sentence patterns are
language or regional variation, almost never
consistently well controlled.
interfere with ease of understanding.
Able to speak at length with a natural,
Comprehension is consistently accurate in
effortless flow. Varies speech flow for Interacts with ease in nearly all situations. Is
nearly all contexts and includes
stylistic effect, e.g. to emphasize a point. sensitive to verbal and non-verbal cues, and
comprehension of linguistic and cultural
Uses appropriate discourse markers and responds to them appropriately.
subtleties.
connectors spontaneously.

Comprehension is accurate on common,

Vocabulary range and accuracy are sufficient Basic grammatical structures and sentence
to communicate effectively on common,
Extended 5 concrete, and work related topics.
Paraphrases consistently and successfully.
Vocabulary is sometimes idiomatic.
concrete, and work related topics and mostly
Pronunciation, stress, rhythm, and intonation, Able to speak at length with relative ease on
patterns are consistently well controlled. accurate when the speaker is confronted with Responses are immediate, appropriate, and
though influenced by the first language or familiar topics, but may not vary speech flow
Complex structures are attempted but with a linguistic or situational complication or an informative. Manages the speaker/listener
regional variation, rarely interfere with ease as a stylistic device. Can make use of
errors which sometimes interfere with unexpected turn of events. Is able to relationship effectively.
of understanding. appropriate discourse markers or connectors.
meaning. comprehend a range of speech varieties
(dialect and/or accent) or registers.

Comprehension is mostly accurate on

Produces stretches of language at an
common, concrete, and work related topics
Vocabulary range and accuracy are usually Basic grammatical structures and sentence appropriate tempo. There may be occasional Responses are usually immediate, appropriate,
when the accent or variety used is sufficientl y
sufficient to communicate effectively on patterns are used creatively and are usually Pronunciation, stress, rhythm, and intonation loss of fluency on transition from rehearsed and informative. Initiates and maintains
intelligible for an international community of
common, concrete, and work related topics. well controlled. Errors may occur, are influenced by the first language or or formulaic speech to spontaneous exchanges even when dealing with an unexpecte d
Operational 4 users. When the speaker is confronted with a
Can often paraphrase successfully when particularly in unusual or unexpected regional variation but only sometimes interaction, but this does not prevent effective turn of events. Deals adequately with apparent
linguistic or situational complication or an
lacking vocabulary in unusual or unexpected circumstances, but rarely interfere with interfere with ease of understanding. communication. Can make limited use of misunderstandings by checking, confirming, or
unexpected turn of events, comprehension
circumstances. meaning. discourse markers or connectors. Fillers are clarifying.
may be slower or require clarification
not distracting.
strategies.

Vocabulary range and accuracy are often Responses are sometimes immediate,
sufficient to communicate on common, Basic grammatical structures and sentence Pronunciation, stress, rhythm, and intonation Comprehension is often accurate on common, appropriate, and informative. Can initiate and
Produces stretches of language, but phrasing
concrete, or work related topics but range is patterns associated with predictable situations are influenced by the first language or concrete, and work related topics when the maintain exchanges with reasonable ease on
Pre-Operational 3 and pausing are often inappropriate.
limited and the word choice often are not always well controlled. Errors regional variation and frequently interfere accent or variety used is sufficiently familiar topics and in predictable situations.
Hesitations or slowness in language
inappropriate. Is often unable to paraphrase frequently interfere with meaning. with ease of understanding. intelligible for an international community of Generally inadequate when dealing with an
successfully when lacking vocabulary. unexpected turn of events.

Can produce very short, isolated, memorized

Pronunciation, stress, rhythm, and intonation
Shows only limited control of a few simple utterances with frequent pausing and a Comprehension is limited to isolated,
Limited vocabulary range consisting only of are heavily influenced by the first language o r Response time is slow, and often inappropriate.
Elementary 2 memorized grammatical structures and distracting use of fillers to search for memorized phrases when they are carefully
isolated words and memorized phrases. regional variation and usually interfere with Interaction is limited to simple routine exchanges
sentence patterns. expressions and to articulate less familiar and slowly articulated.
ease of understanding.
words.

Performs at a level below the Elementary Performs at a level below the Elementary Performs at a level below the Elementary
Pre-Elementary 1 Performs at a level below Performs at a level below Performs at a level below the Elementary level.
level. level. level.

ICAO has developed the following “Holistic Descriptors”

Proficient speakers shall:

a. communicate effectively in voice-only (telephone/radiotelephone) and in face-to-face situations;

b. communicate on common, concrete and work-related topics with accuracy and clarity;
c. use appropriate communicative strategies to exchange messages and to recognize and resolve misunderstandings (e.g. to check, confirm, or clarify information) in a general or work-related context;
d. handle successfully and with relative ease the linguistic challenges presented by a complication or unexpected turn of event s that occurs within the context of a routine work situation or communicative task with which they are otherwise familiar; and
e. use a dialect or accent which is intelligible to the aeronautical community.

ICAO Language Proficiency Descriptors

95
Appendix 2
Students’ Needs Analysis – questionnaire

Dear student,

this short questionnaire will help me to find out more about your needs in Aviation
English. I would like you to answer all the questions about your feelings, expectations
and previous experience with similar courses. The questionnaire is anonymous; so you
can (and should) freely express your attitude!

I promise to try my best to use your answers for preparing the lessons that will help you
to improve your English skills.

Thank you for taking your time to fill it in and see you soon!

Magda

How confident are you in English in these areas on the scale from 1 (I have no
problems) – 5 (I struggle).

- pronunciation ___
- structures (grammatical structures) ____
- vocabulary (phraseology and other related vocabulary to aviation) ___
- fluency (expressing yourself) ___
- comprehension (understanding what others are saying) ___
- interaction (having conversation with others) ___
Select 4 areas of the bellow mentioned events that cause you English-wise the
biggest problems when you have to improvise while you perform your job.

- Approach/Departure (animal hazards; traffic position; missed approach)

- Lack of fuel (locations; endurance/fuel remaining)
- Health problems (symptoms; medical background of passengers; aircraft
interior)
- Problems linked to passenger’s behaviour (weapons, physical description;
injuries)
- Weather conductions (storms; turbulences; natural disasters)
- Aerodrome environment (surrounding areas; roads and railways)
- Aircraft breakdowns (systems; loss of radio contact; fuel dumping)
- VFR flight in difficulty (manoeuvres for identification; forced landing; position)
How much did you like your previous aviation English course on the scale from 1 –
5?

1 – I hated it. 3 – It was fine.

2 – I did not like it very much. 4 – I liked it.

5 – I loved it.

96
Because... (Try to be as specific as possible)
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

What are your expectations of this upcoming course?

1 – It will be a waste of time because I know everything already.

2 – I don’t really care; I just want to survive the week.

3 – I do not mind, I might learn something new.

4 – I will revise some phraseology and grammar.

5 – It will help me to improve my English skills.

Rank your motivation for this course on the scale from 1 (Low motivation) – 5
(High motivation): ________

Pick 4 methods, which help you the best with learning:

- numbers and graphs (logic)

- pictures (visual)
- reading (linguistic)
- listening (musical)
- games and role plays (kinaesthetic)
- working with others (interpersonal)
- working alone (intrapersonal)
Pick always one word from the pair, which you prefer in learning:

- detailed X broad picture

- order X chaos
- rules X experience
- processing X interpreting information (teacher tells you rules and you use it X
you are given examples to interpret and create rules yourself)
- word by word reading X comprehension of the whole
- logical/specific X abstract concepts
Space for your additional suggestions, comments and other remarks:

_________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your participation!

97
Appendix 3
Students’ Needs Analysis Results

Question Results
1. How confident are you in English in these Pronunciation Structures Vocabulary Fluency Comprehension Interaction
areas on the scale from 1 (I have no
problems) – 5 (I struggle)?  1,88  2,5  2,19  2,3  1,8  2,3
2. Select 4 areas that cause you English-wise Approach/ Lack of Health Problems Weather Aerodrome Aircraft VFR
the biggest problems when you have to Departure fuel problems related to conditions environment breakdowns flight in
improvise while you perform your job. passenger’s difficulty
behaviour
25% 10,71%
7,14% 7,14% 21,43% 10,71% 7,14% 10,71%
3. How much did you like your previous 1 – I hated it 2 – I did not 3 – It was fine 4 – I liked it 5 – I loved it No answer
aviation English course on the scale from 1 – like it much
5? - 37,5% 37,5% - - 25%
4. What are your expectations of this 1 – It will be a 2 – I don’t really 3 – I do not mind, 4 – I will revise 5 – It will help me
upcoming course? waste of time care, I just want to I might learn some phraseology to improve my
survive something and grammar English skills

12,5% 12,5% 37,5% 25% 12,5%

5. Rank your motivation for this course on
the scale from 1 (low motivation) – 5 (high  2,56
motivation):
6.Pick 4 methods, which help you the best logic visual linguistic musical kinaesthetic interpersonal intrapersonal
with learning:
17,24% 17,24% 17,24% 20,69% - 3,45% 3,45%
7. Pick always one word from the pair analytical holistic
(analytical and holistic), which you prefer:
53,65% 46,34%

98
Appendix 4
Original Lesson Plan of Day 1 – Problems Linked to Passenger’s Behaviour

Aim of the day: By the end of the day students will have revised/learned vocabulary related to the domain “Problems linked to passenger’s
behaviour and unlawful interference”, how to report information concerned with present situation, how to express possibility and probability and
practice word stress by individual words. All the component skills of the ICAO Rating Scale will have been practiced as well.

Lesson 1: 9:00-10:15
Time Activity Materials Instructions Interaction Objectives
5’ Introduction of the - - what the Ss can T <-> Ss introduce the week’s
week expect, attendance, test schedule
at the end
10’ getting to know the board - guess what these Ss <-> T creating rapport
teacher words and numbers between Ss and T,
stand for in the life of T establishing the T – Ss
-> ask questions relationship
5’ “Can you spot the youtube video, - look at the video – can Ss -> T introduction to the topic
suspicious person?” projector you spot the person?
Have you ever met
anyone behaving
strangely at the airport?
10’ listening Aviation English p.98 - listen and write down Ss -> T practice listening for
the mentioned body specific information,
language, listen again learning vocabulary
and answer questions related to the domain
5’ you are the security - - imagine you are the lead – in for present
security – how would Ss -> T simple X continuous
you describe what you
can see through the
security camera ?
10’ grammar revision - Murphy grammar Which tense would you Individual work, then grammar practice –

99
 present simple vs. interm. p. 6 use? Ss <-> T talking about present
continuous - complete the exercise situation

10’ who is suspicious? Airport crowd picture, - pick one person, S <-> Ss, T grammar practice -
projector describe him, what he is talking about present
doing and why he is situation
suspicious, the rest
guesses where the
person is seated. Then
think about his/her life
and provide more
information
20' expressing Aviation English p. 99/1 - think of how you can T <-> Ss lead in for grammar
modality/possibility - + 1 (speaking), express possibility -> practice – expressing
revision projector where would you place possibility and modality
in on the scale?
- do exercise nr. 1 Ss -> T grammar practice –
- do exercise nr. 1 individual, then S -> Ss expressing possibility
(speaking) and tell the and modality (written
others and spoken)
- vocabulary practice
related to aviation
domain

100
Lesson 2: 10:30-11:45
Time Activity Materials Instructions Interaction Objectives
10’ discussion – air rage - - How would you Ss <-> T introduction to the topic
define air rage? What
are the factors
influencing it? What
can be the
consequences?
25’ reading Air Rage article, T/F - do you think these Ss -> T practicing vocabulary
statements statements are T/F? related to the topic of
- read your text, after individual air rage, linking content
you are finished, retell S -> Ss of the article with PP’s
your piece to your job
colleagues and listen to
them. Decide if the
statements are T/F
based on their speaking
10’ ranking Air Rage article - rank the behaviours individual linking content of the
described in the article S <->Ss article with PP’s job,
from the worst to the follow-up to reading
least problematic and
defend your choice.
Which of them would
you use in your
occupation of PP?
15’ speaking - discussion Aviation English p. 97 discuss these questions plenum practicing fluency,
comprehension and
interaction,
vocabulary practice
10’ pronunciation practice sheet - read the sentences T -> Ss pronunciation practice –
- how can you tell what word stress
a noun is and what a Ss -> T
verb is? (+ explanation)

101
Lesson 3: 12:45 – 14:00
Time Activity Materials Instructions Interaction Objectives
10’ discussion - - what measurements S <-> Ss, T introduction to the topic
are there to prevent
passengers from getting
into the cockpit?
5’ vocabulary presentation board - do you know these T -> Ss pre-teaching vocabulary
words? Can you explain Ss ->T
them/use them in a
sentence?
20’ listening video Air Marshal, - watch the video, what Ss -> T listening for gist
question sheet happened? listening for detail
- watch again and Ss <-> T content learning
decide if these
statements are T/F
15’ role play papers with roles - pick one paper and follow up activity,
think of how the person practicing fluency and
would describe the interaction
situation you have just
watched. The T will be
reporter and ask you
questions. You can add
as much additional
information as you
want.
15’ revision board, pieces of papers - what do you S <->Ss revision of the day –
with words remember from today? grammar and new
What was something vocabulary
that surprised you? You
will get a sentence/word

102
 on a paper and you have
to translate it or decide
if the sentence is T/F.
Others will listen and
correct your mistakes

Original Lesson Plan of Day 2 – Health Problems

Aim of the day: By the end of the day students will have revised/learned vocabulary related to the domain “Health Problems”, how to report
information related to immediate/recent past events, how to express cause and effect, how to make suggestions and practice echo questions. All
the component skills of the ICAO Rating Scale will have been practiced as well.

Lesson 1: 9:00-10:15

Time Activity Material and aids Instruction Interaction Objectives

5’ guessing game first aid kit hidden in a -you are allowed to Ss <-> Ss lead-in to the topic and
bag touch the bag, but do Ss<-> T lesson
not open it. What do
you think is inside?
10’ vocabulary matching first aid kit and its -look at the content of Ss<->Ss vocabulary
content written on the first aid kit and revision/learning (first
small papers (one match it with the aid kit); scaffolding for
lexical item per paper) words on the papers.” next activity
10’ body parts picture of a man with -you have 5 minutes to Individual work, then vocabulary
presentation arrows to individual write down as many Ss->T revision/learning
body parts, interactive body parts as you (body parts); scaffolding
white board, copy for know. You may for next activity
each student compare your answers
with you neighbour +
T checks Ss’ answers
through pointing at the

103
 displayed picture and
writes new words
directly into the
picture
15’ description of injuries first aid kit with “Think of possible Ss <-> T using revised/new
words, body parts injuries a passenger vocabulary items in
sheet may suffer during a context, practicing
flight and how to treat speaking skiSss (course
them. For description, objective)
use the revised/newly
learned vocabulary.“ T
helps and monitors.
10’ grammar presentation white board -what means do you Ss<->T learning cause and effect
use for expressing
cause and effect?”
T writes sentences
students provide her
with on the board +
with their help create
rules for its use
10’ grammar practice paper -Take a piece of paper individual practicing the use of
and write 3 ‘causes’ Ss <-> T cause and effect.
and 3 effects’ related
to health on individual
papers. Then read laud
the papers you got and
think of either a cause
or effect that will go
with the sentence you
got.” T collects Ss’
pieces of paper and
distributes them to
different people
15’ speaking practice Aviation English -Read the task, think individual, SS<->Ss practicing speaking
p.49/1,2 about your opinion and about health related

104
 solution, then present problems
to the rest of the group

Lesson 2: 10:30-11:45

Time Activity Materials Instructions Interaction Objectives

5’ listening introduction - -what do you know Ss -> T lead in for listening
about the system of
MedLab? How does it
work?
10’ listening cd player, Aviation -listen and answer the individual; Ss->T comprehension practice
English p.52/2+3 questions individual; Ss->T (listening for detail)
5’ grammar introduction cd player -listen again and write lead in for grammar
down the most
appearing grammar
structure
10’ grammar presentation Aviation English -look at the rewritten Ss<->T presentation of present
p.119, interactive dialogue – what is the perfect (inductive
board reappearing tense? method)
Which words is it
surrounded by? Why?
10’ grammar exercise Perfect-English- - complete the exercise individual, Ss->T grammar practice
Grammar exercise 1 (written)
10’ grammar speaking Penny Ur – Grammar -look at those particles
exercise Practice Activities and think of what has grammar practice
p.240 just happened before (speaking)
the speaker said that,
then say your idea
10’ distinguishing between Perfect-English- -complete the individual; Ss->T practicing the difference
past simple and Grammar exercise exercises between past simple and
present perfect 2/Murphy p.29 present perfect
15’ symptoms pictures with -look at your picture Ss<->Ss speaking practice about
symptoms of different with symptoms, health related problems,

105
 health problems describe them to the practice of vocabulary,
others and the rest has present
to guess, which simple/continuous/perfe
disease you suffer ct
from

Lesson 3: 12:45 – 14:00

Time Activity Materials Instructions Interaction Objectives

20’ making suggestions, The Travel Doctor -read your part of the Ss <->T making suggestions –
reading article article, what kinds of review
structures are there for
making suggestions?
- read your article practice of how to make
again, talk about the Ss<->Ss suggestions, content
in-flight problems and learning
someone else will give
you suggestions of
how to prevent that
20’ Desperate decision Klippel – -you have been in a Ss<->Ss fluency practice, making
Conversational plane accident, read suggestions
Activities p.177 the explanation of the
situation and decide
what to do
10’ Echo questions New Total English p.9 - T presents what echo Ss<->T practice of
Qs are, students then pronunciation – echo
complete the exercise questions

20’ What is your illness? - invent your own Ss<->Ss fluency practice, review
illness, describe the of symptoms, giving
symptoms and the suggestions, present
others will a treatment simple/continue/perfect

106
Original Lesson Plan of Day 3 – Aircraft Breakdowns

Aim of the day: By the end of the day students will have revised/learned vocabulary related to the domain “Aircraft breakdowns”, how to report
information concerning the past, how to express cause and effect, how to make suggestions and practice word stress in sentences. All the
component skills of the ICAO Rating Scale will have been practiced as well.

Lesson 1: 9:00-10:15

Time Activity Materials Instructions Interaction Objectives

15’ aircraft parts real aircraft model, -look at the aircraft and Ss <-> Ss, T lead-in to the topic,
post-it notes with post the post-it note to review of aircraft parts
individual aircraft parts the right aircraft part
-then explain what the
function of the part is
15’ aircraft systems Flightpath - complete the exercises Ss -> T review of aircraft
p.106/2a,C,3a and then correct with systems, content
the rest learning
-what happens with the
plane during such
malfunctions?
15’ Emergencies and Flightpath p. -put the Emergency Ss <-> Ss content learning, review
possible consequences 109/”Emergency” guideline for ATCOs Ss -> T of expressing
picture cut into pieces; into the correct order, possibility and
p.109/9d what are some things probability, review of
ATCO students words related to
sometimes forget to do? emergencies
How can you establish
it as a simulator pilot?
-complete the exercise individual, then Ss -> T
15’ Mad Discussions Flightpath p. 109 -everyone picks one S <-> S practice of fluency,
(Klippel –Keep talking emergency from Ss <-> Ss review of possibility
p. 35) Flightpath and thinks and emergency related
about what makes it a vocabulary

107
 worse emergency than
the emergencies of the
rest
-then contest for pairs –
each has one minute to
explain his worst
scenario, at the end the
group votes for the
winners
10’ Word stress in a English for Aviation -listen and underline the Ss -> T practice of word stress
sentence p.24/8, 25/9, Cd stressed words Ss <-> T in a sentence
-why are they stressed?
Can you derive any
rules?
-complete exercise 9,
listen and check

Lesson 2: 10:30-11:45

Time Activity Materials Instructions Interaction Objectives

15’ aircraft instruments Aviation English p.28-what are these Ss <-> T review of aircraft
instruments? What is instruments, practice of
their function and what fluency, content
can they cause when learning
not working properly?
15’ video without sound 3:50-8:12 of May Day -watch the video-what Ss<->Ss, T lead-in for listening and
s01e05 do you think happened grammar
there? Can you guess
the malfunction? What
do you think the pilots
said?
15’ video with sound 3:50-8:12 of May Day -watch the video again- Ss <-> T listening for gist,
s01e05 what really happened?

108
 Were you right with
your assumption?
15’ grammar presentation rewritten part of the -look at the dialogue – Ss <-> T presentation and
dialogue between the is it direct X indirect practice of grammar
pilots from the video speech? Do you know
the rules for the use of
indirect speech?
-(after rule presentation
by the T) now shift all
these sentences into
indirect speech
15’ grammar practice 3:50-8:12 of May Day -watch the video, write individual, Ss -> T grammar practice,
s01e05 down 10 sentences in listening for detail
direct speech and shift
them into indirect
speech

109
Lesson 3: 12:45 – 14:00

Time Activity Materials Instructions Interaction Objectives

60-75’ Designing a flying paper -design your own flying individual review of the
machine (Harding – machine – draw it or Ss <-> Ss vocabulary items for the
English for Specific find it on the internet Ss <-> T day, practice fluency,
Purposes p. 93-95) and readjust it for your interaction, grammar
own purposes from previous days
-present what it is used (possibility, giving
for (military, civil advice)
aviation), what are it’s
functions, strong point
and weaknesses
-our colleagues will
then think of possible
malfunctions, which
you will have to explain
what they cause and
how you can solve
them/what they can
ultimately cause

110
Original Lesson Plan of Day 4 – Weather Conditions and VFR Flight in Difficulties

Aim of the day: By the end of the day students will have revised/learned vocabulary related to the domain “Weather/MET problems and VFR in
difficulty”, how to report information concerning the future and practice intonation. All the component skills of the ICAO Rating Scale will have
been practiced as well.

Lesson 1: 9:00-10:15

Time Activity Materials Instructions Interaction Objectives

10’ weather forecast video video projector -watch this video – Ss->T lead in for the topic,
what kind of weather warm up for vocabulary
conditions does it
mention? What about
words such as “fliers”
and others? What are
these?
10’ weather vocabulary students’ sheets -try to build words from Ss -> T review of vocabulary
the letters and then
divide them into groups
based on their nature
10’ grammar presentation white board -remember which Ss -> T learning/reviewing of
structures they used in how to talk about the
the video when talking future (inductive)
about the weather – can
you say why? What is
the difference between
these sentences? Can
you form rules?
15’ grammar practice Murphy Intermediate p. -complete these individual, Ss<->Ss, T practice of expressing
47, 39 exercises the future (written and
-what are your plans for spoken)
the weekend? What are

111
 your predictions
concerning your life in
the next few years?
15’ reading article Air Asia -read the introduction to Ss -> T
the article and try to content learning,
guess its content, then vocabulary learning,
read the rest and fluency practice,
complete it with words introduction for graph
-which of the reasons presenting
can you use in your
profession? Which has
surprised you?
20’ graph presentation one graph for each -derive as much as you Ss <->Ss
student can from your graph,
then present when your
number is called out
and tell the rest of the
class what you derived
-listen to the rest – what
did you learn? How
much is weather
responsible for aircraft
accidents?

112
Lesson 2: 10:30-11:45

Time Activity Materials Instructions Interaction Objectives

10’ discussion - -what kind of Ss<->Ss,T lead in for the topic,
rules/guidelines are fluency practice
there for VFR in
difficulty? What are the
most common problems
people deal with?
5’ vocabulary presentation white board -what do these words Ss<->T pre-teaching of
mean? vocabulary for the next
activity
20’ video watching projector, video, -watch the video and individual listening for gist and
question sheet answer these questions Ss<->T detail, content learning
10’ discussion - -those who fly, what is Ss<->Ss,T fluency practice,
your experience? vocabulary practice,
talking about the past
10’ google maps link to google maps, -look at the map-what Ss<->T vocabulary
projector can you see/how would presentation/review
you describe the
scenery?
10’ Help, I am lost! maps for each pair -one of you is lost- S<->S fluency practice,
describe your chosen vocabulary practice,
position as much as you giving suggestions,
can - your partner has to
find you on the map and
navigate back to an
airfield
10’ tonic stress photocopy -how do you know what S->T pronunciation practice -
kind of information is intonation

113
 important in a sentence?
How can you help the
listener to find out?
-based on the rules the
T has provided you
with, try to read the
sentences

Lesson 3: 12:45 – 14:00

Time Activity Materials Instructions Interaction Objectives

75’ Charades game Aktivity board, pre- -the game has the same Ss<->Ss,T reviewing the content of
made tasks and rules as Charades, but the whole week
questions different tasks – draw,
explain, translate/find
the mistake, your task is
to get as far as you can

114
Appendix 5
Final Test

Aviation English for simulator pilots – final test

(summer 2015)

Date:____________________ Final score:_______________

Name:___________________

VOCABULARY

1. Match the words with their correct definitions: 8/

fumes rush of wind

sleet wind blowing across one’s direction of travel

drizzle rain, snow or hail that falls to or condenses on ground

glare amount of gas that smells strongly

precipitation small balls of frozen rain falling in showers

gust light rain

crosswind strong and dazzling light

hail rain containing some ice

2. Name the selected body parts: 8/

____________________
____________________

____________________

____________________

____________________

____________________

____________________

____________________

3. Describe the words below: 16/

pallor:________________________________________________________

115
bandage: ______________________________________________________

plaster:________________________________________________________

salve: :________________________________________________________

seizure:________________________________________________________

nausea: ________________________________________________________

to choke: _______________________________________________________

to be lousy: _____________________________________________________

4. Complete the text with correct words according to their beginning letter: 12/

Tuesday flight was quite unfortunate for CSA 846. Right after departure pilots had problems
with retracting the l…………. g………… and thought they would have to divert back.
However, after a few minutes it started working again. As soon as they reached the cruising
level, the plane system reported a r…………. failure, which meant they could not properly
change the yaw. Strange on the situation was, that the indication was i…………………. and so
the pilots were not sure if the failure was only occasional or constant. While the pilots were
trying to get the plane under control, a flight attendant struggled with something else –
c………………. toilet, because one of the passengers suffered from diarrhoea.

When the pilots gained control over the plane again, they wanted to make an emergency
descent, but the flap lever j……………… Although the pilots managed to land, they could not
stop soon enough and at the end of the runway crushed into a field. Fortunately, no one was hurt
and there was only a big hole in the f…………………. of the plane.

5. Use the words in a sentence, so that their meaning would be clear: 16/

berserk:____________________________________________________________

power line: __________________________________________________________

measures: ___________________________________________________________

congestion: __________________________________________________________

to scald: _____________________________________________________________

be agitated: __________________________________________________________

to leak: _____________________________________________________________

air rage: _____________________________________________________________

Vocabulary Total: 60/

GRAMMAR

6. Connect the sentences with the help of conjunctions in brackets: 10/

A passenger was badly hurt. A bag fell on his head. (for)

116
_____________________________________________________________________

He had a lot of experience. He managed to land with only one engine. (owing to)

_____________________________________________________________________

We have a broken windshield. We request divert back to Prague. (due to)

_____________________________________________________________________

The pilot did not hear the ATC. He had a radio communication failure. (because)

_____________________________________________________________________

They experienced turbulence. They requested descend. (because of)

_____________________________________________________________________

7. Transform these sentences into reported speech (nepřímá řeč): 10/

“None of the pilots were trained for such emergency.”

_____________________________________________________________________

“The stick shaker has just activated!”

_____________________________________________________________________

“Lima tower reassures the pilots are at 10 000 feet.”

_____________________________________________________________________

“We are experiencing moderate turbulence.”

_____________________________________________________________________

“I will help you at the checkout.”

_____________________________________________________________________

8. Underline the correct answer: 5/

Luckily, the police can’t/must arrest anyone they want.

I am terrified of flying and before every flight I have a panic attack that there might/can’t be a
dangerous person on board.

Not every suspicious person must/could be a terrorist.

With his suspicious behaviour, he can’t/could be investigated.

If people behave strangely on plane, they are probably/can’t be just tired.

117
9. Find the mistakes in the use of future and correct them. There might not be a mistake in
every sentence. 10/

A: “What are you doing?”

B: “I am going to serve drinks to the passengers.”

A: “I think I am going to check if the pilots need anything.”

B: Ok, the passenger in 5B is waving at me so I will talk to him while you are away.”

A: ”We will fly to Amsterdam next week. We have got the tickets and now we just have to pack
our things.”

A: “Be MIKOV 170 or below.”

B: “We will do our best to be MIKOV 170 or below.”

A: “I have already decided that I will talk to him tomorrow. I want to be the new instructor.”

B: “I guess he is going to be furious.”

10. Put the verbs in brackets into the correct tense: 30/

A: “How many times _____________________ (you fly) this year?”

B: “I _______________ (stop) counting it a few months ago. I _______________ (travel) so

often, that I _______________________ (not remember) it any more.

A: “And what _______________ (be) the most interesting country you

_________________________ (visit) so far?”

B: “Last month I _______________ (fly) to Australia and I really ________________ (enjoy)

it! The sunsets _____________ (be) beautiful and the nature! Marvellous!”

A: “I _____________ (say) that I _____________ (envy) you a bit. I ____________________

(not go) anywhere this year, because I ____________________ (do) the summer school at the
moment.”

B: “How ______________________ (it be)? ____________________ (you like) it?

Grammar Total: 65/

118
LISTENING

4/

12/

16/
Listening Total: 32/

119
Appendix 6
Example Sheet of Oral Interview

A) Picture description

1. Look at this picture12 and describe what you can see.

2. Why do you think the people are being arrested? What are some other reasons
people can be arrested for when flying?

B) Plain English

1. How long have you been a simulator pilot for? What are the advantages and
disadvantages of this profession?
2. With regards to the picture above, how do you find the current security at
European airports? In which areas does it need to improve and which areas do
you find sufficient?

12 Picture taken from

http://www.aacm.gov.mo/uploads/news/unlawful%20seizure%20of%20aircraft%20exercise%20photo3.jpg

120
Appendix 7
Feedback Questionnaire

Feedback

Dear student,

this short questionnaire will help me to see the course we have just finished from your
perspective and will also help me to become a better teacher. The questionnaire is anonymous;
so you can freely express your attitude. Do not worry that you will hurt my feelings; I will truly
appreciate you honest answers!

Thank you for taking your time to fill it in!

Magda

Did you fill in the student’s need analysis at the beginning of the course?

- yes
- no, because _______________________________________________________
How do you generally feel about the course? (Pick one answer.)

1 – I hated it. 3 – It was fine.

2 – I did not like it very much. 4 – I liked it.

5 – I loved it.

Mark the statements on the scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

The lessons were logically

ordered.

I had enough opportunities to talk.

The grammar was presented

understandably.

I found the selected activities

relevant to the topic.

The teacher knew what she was

teaching and talking about.

I would rather have a professional

pilot/ATC teaching me.

The teacher was well prepared for

every lesson.

I respected Magda in her role as a

teacher.

The teacher respected as a

student.

Additional comments:

121
Order the days from your most favourite to your least favourite from 1- 4:

Problems with passengers, Health problems, Aircraft breakdowns, Weather + VFR

Did the methods used for learning suit your personal preferences? (e.g. you learn the best
when you read and we did not do enough reading)

- Yes
- No, I wish we did more of ___________________________________________
Do you feel that you have improved in these areas? (Write “Y” for yes, N for “no”.) How
have you improved?

- pronunciation
- structures (grammatical structures)
- vocabulary (phraseology and other related vocabulary to aviation)
- fluency (expressing yourself)
- comprehension (understanding what others are saying)
- interaction (having conversation with others)
Do you think you will use some of the things covered in the course for your job?

- No.
- Yes, I will probably use______________________________________________
What were your expectations of the course? Has your opinion changed during the course?

My expectation were:

1 – It would be a waste of time because I knew everything already.

2 – I didn’t really care; I just wanted to survive the week.

3 – I did not mind, I might learn something new.

4 – I would revise some phraseology and grammar.

5 – It would help me to improve my English skills.

My opinion has changed to (write only the number): _____

Space for your additional suggestions, comments and other remarks:

Thank you for your participation!

122
Appendix 8
Feedback Results

Questions Results
1. Did you fill in the students‘ needs yes no, because… holiday 23,53%
analysis at the beginning of the course? disinterest 17,66%
47% 53% forgot 11,76%
2. How do you generally feel about the 1- I hated it 2 – I did not like it much 3 – It was fine 4 – I liked it 5 – I loved it
course?
- 6,67% 26,67% 66,67% -
3. Mark the statement on the scale from The lessons were logically ordered.  4,17
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly I had enough opportunities to talk.  4,57
agree). The grammar was presented understandably.  4,1
Activities were relevant to the topics.  4,12
The teacher knew what she was doing.  4,5
I would rather have a professional pilot/ATCO teaching  1,52
me. teacher was well prepared.
The  4,65
I respected Magda in her teacher’s role.  3,98
The teacher respected me as a student.  4,42
4. Order the days from your most Day 1 – Problems linked to passenger’s behaviour  2,43
favourite to your least favourite from 1 Day 2 – Health related problems  2,96
– 4: Day 3 – Aircraft breakdowns  2,61
Day 4 – Weather and VFR in difficulty  2,95
6. Did the methods used for learning Yes No Not sure
suit your personal preferences?
86,67% 6,67% 6,67%

123
5. Do you feel you have improved in Pronunciation Structures Vocabulary Fluency Comprehension Interaction
those areas? (Y-yes; N-no) Y: 20% Y: 53,33% Y: 73,33% Y: 40% Y: 47% Y: 46,67%

N: 80% N: 46,67% N: 26,67% N: 60% N: 53% N: 53,33%

6. Do you think you will use some of Yes vocabulary 60% No
the things covered in the course for talking to instructors 10%
66,67% a little bit of each area 33,33%
your job?
30%
7.What were your expectations of the 1 – It will be a 2 – I don’t really 3 – I do not mind, I 4 – I will revise 5 – It will help me
course? waste of time care, I just want to might learn some phraseology to improve my
survive something and grammar English skills

7,14% 14,29% 50% 21,43% 7,14%

How has your opinion changed? - 8,33% 16,67% 25% 50%

124
Evidenční list

Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Pedagogická fakulta

M. D. Rettigové 4, 116 39 Praha 1

Prohlášení žadatele o nahlédnutí do listinné podoby závěrečné práce před

její obhajobou

Závěrečná práce

Druh práce

Název práce

Autor práce

Jsem si vědom/a, že závěrečná práce je autorským dílem a že informace získané

nahlédnutím do zveřejněné závěrečné práce nemohou být použity k výdělečným
účelům, ani nemohou být vydávány za studijní, vědeckou nebo jinou tvůrčí činnost jiné
osoby než autora.

Byl/a jsem seznámen/a se skutečností, že si mohu pořizovat výpisy, opisy nebo

rozmnoženiny závěrečné práce, jsem však povinen/povinna s nimi nakládat jako s
autorským dílem a zachovávat pravidla uvedená v předchozím odstavci tohoto
prohlášení.

Jsem si vědom/a, že pořizovat výpisy, opisy nebo rozmnoženiny dané práce lze
pouze na své náklady a že úhrada nákladů za kopírování, resp. tisk jedné strany formátu
A4 černobíle byla stanovena na 5 Kč.

V Praze dne …............…………………

Jméno a příjmení žadatele

Adresa trvalého bydliště

__________________________________

podpis žadatele
 Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Pedagogická fakulta

M. D. Rettigové 4, 116 39 Praha 1

Prohlášení žadatele o nahlédnutí do listinné podoby závěrečné práce

Evidenční list

Jsem si vědom/a, že závěrečná práce je autorským dílem a že informace získané

nahlédnutím do zveřejněné závěrečné práce nemohou být použity k výdělečným
účelům, ani nemohou být vydávány za studijní, vědeckou nebo jinou tvůrčí činnost jiné
osoby než autora.

Byl/a jsem seznámen/a se skutečností, že si mohu pořizovat výpisy, opisy nebo

rozmnoženiny závěrečné práce, jsem však povinen/povinna s nimi nakládat jako s
autorským dílem a zachovávat pravidla uvedená v předchozím odstavci tohoto
prohlášení.

P Da Jméno a Podpi
oř.č. tum Příjmení Adresa trvalého bydliště s
1
.
2
.
3
.
4
.
5
.
6
.
7
.
8
.
9
.
1
0.