Originally Posted by GreyEagle
2-3 hours seems a long time for a CBT test of English. Was this a placement test, an achievement test or a proficiency test?
I agree. This is also a hot topic among linguists and operational experts as well. Seems the average is about 1 hour 45 minutes. This particular type of test is called "high stakes" therefore the language needs to be adequately tested. The standards require that a preparation course of sample test be offered so the candidate will have ample time and occasion to prepare.
This is a proficiency test. It can not be an achievement test as you say, probably sarcastically so, but in order for language people to have enough opportunity to elicit language it is necessary to put the candidate in certain situations to do so.
For example, a rough outline of a pilot's English proficiency test on the market is: a warm-up (who are you, what do you do etc. where plain language[PL] is 100% of the language required), followed by a flight briefing (plain language with technical vocabulary), normal flight communications (standard phraseology-R/T), abnormal situation (R/T +PL), urgency or emergency situation (PL+R/T), de-briefing (PL).
For ATC it would be a number of flights maybe one abnormal and one urgency/emergency and then a report to their superior. Whereupon it would be followed by a "conversation" afterwards (or before depending on the test structure) regarding the ATCs particular experience. A sample question is "what is a time sot and who imposes them" "what instances could make a A/C lose its time slot..." and so on.
You need time to do all of this. It can not be all CBT and fulfill the standard requirements set out by ICAO and subsequent authorities.
Also, this thread is about the South Korean testing scheme but other countries have already chosen their schemata. In these last two weeks in Singapore the Australian/Asian territories met for a symposium regarding these standards and ICAO biggies were present. Seems many countries are already deciding on what they'll do for their pilots and ATCOs.
My concern is for private pilots (PPL). Most every test I have seen is geared towards air transport pilots (ATPL). PPL are pilots too. It is costly to develop a test of this magnitude and timely. It takes time to validate a test. Who will test the Sunday flier? He will not be able to understand certain situations given on these tests.
IAOPA has tried to push for changing the standards to certain airspace but failed. Even still they have pledged to keep trying to moderate them.
Look here.
Some say this can be handled in the Simulator. I say yes only if the person who is assessing the language is himself/herself trained to do so and at a level of proficiency that is at an expert level. Then I still believe a short "conversation" in the debriefing is mandatory.
Comments?
Best,
PE