1

BILC 2011

BILC 2011

2

Welcome

• Organization• Assessing Higher Levels

3

BILC (AB to JFT)

4

Work Groups

Business Cycle

ConferenceWork Groups

&Steering Committee

DirectionGuidance

ProposedProgram

of Work

ReportingDirectionGuidance

ProfessionalSeminar

& Work Groups

5

Assessing Writing

6

Ministerial Examination

• Comprehension and Insight

• Oganization of Response

• Expression

• http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/sections/publications/publications/Ens_Sup/Affaires_universitaires_collegiales/Ens_collegial/Pour_une_revision_des_EU-abrege.pdf

7

Sample Criteria

• Key concepts– Task– Organization of argument at essay level and

paragraph level– Tone and register– Mechanics and conventions

8

STANAG 6001

• Key concepts– Task– Strategy– Style– Register– Mechanics

9

STANAG 6001 ed 4

• Level 2 – Functional

• 21. Can write simple personal and routine workplace correspondence and related documents, such as memoranda, brief reports, and private letters, on everyday topics. Can state facts; give instructions; describe people, places, and things; can narrate current, past, and future activities in complete, but simple paragraphs. Can combine and link sentences into connected prose; paragraphs contrast with and connect to other paragraphs in reports and correspondence. Ideas may be roughly organised according to major points or straightforward sequencing of events. However, relationship of ideas may not always be clear, and transitions may be awkward. Prose can be understood by a native not used to reading material written by non-natives. Simple, high frequency grammatical structures are typically controlled, while more complex structures are used inaccurately or avoided. Vocabulary use is appropriate for high frequency topics, with some circumlocutions. Errors in grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation may sometimes distort meaning. However, the individual writes in a way that is generally appropriate for the occasion, although command of the written language is not always firm.

10

STANAG 6001 ed 4• Level 3 – Professional • 22. Can write effective formal and informal correspondence and documents on

practical, social, and professional topics. Can write about special fields of competence with considerable ease. Can use the written language for essay-length argumentation, analysis, hypothesis, and extensive explanation, narration, and description. Can convey abstract concepts when writing about complex topics (which may include economics, culture, science, and technology) as well as his/her professional field. Although techniques used to organise extended texts may seem somewhat foreign to native readers, the correct meaning is conveyed. The relationship and development of ideas are clear, and major points are coherently ordered to fit the purpose of the text. Transitions are usually successful. Control of structure, vocabulary, spelling, and punctuation is adequate to convey the message accurately. Errors are occasional, do not interfere with comprehension, and rarely disturb the native reader. While writing style may be non-native, it is appropriate for the occasion. When it is necessary for a document to meet full native expectations, some editing will be required.

11

STANAG 6001 ed 4• Level 4 – Expert • 23. Can write the language precisely and accurately for all professional purposes

including the representation of an official policy or point of view. Can prepare highly effective written communication in a variety of prose styles, even in unfamiliar general or professional-specialist areas. Demonstrates strong competence in formulating private letters, job-related texts, reports, position papers, and the final draft of a variety of other papers. Shows the ability to use the written language to persuade others and to elaborate on abstract concepts. Topics may come from such areas as economics, culture, science, and technology as well as from the writer’s own professional field. Organises extended texts well, conveys meaning effectively, and uses stylistically appropriate prose. Shows a firm grasp of various levels of style and can express nuances and shades of meaning.

• Level 5 – Highly-articulate native • 24. Writing proficiency is functionally equivalent to that of a well-educated native

writer. Uses the organisational principles and stylistic devices that reflect the cultural norms of natives when writing formal and informal correspondence, official documents, articles for publication, and material related to a professional specialty. Writing is clear and informative.

12

Plus Levels• LEVEL 2+ (FUNCTIONAL +) • Can write relatively coherent personal and informal correspondence and

documents on practical, social, and everyday professional topics. Can organize and elaborate on ideas in special fields of competence in a way that is often, but not consistently, effective and acceptable to the native reader. Can write acceptably and provide considerable detail when narrating, describing, stating facts, comparing and contrasting, and instructing. Writes less effectively when supporting opinion, clarifying points, and answering objections. May be able to write about abstract concepts, but use of abstract linguistic formulations is inconsistent. Shows some ability to arrange a series of paragraphs into essay-length documents. However, there will be limitations. For example, organization and development of ideas may not be consistently clear, and transitions may occasionally be awkward. Also, imprecise vocabulary as well as flawed use of more complex structures, cohesive features, or punctuation will sometimes interfere with efforts to sustain essay-length argumentation. Nevertheless, prose can readily be understood by a native not used to reading material written by non-natives.

13

Plus levels• LEVEL 3+ (PROFESSIONAL +) • Can write all types of formal and informal correspondence, documents, and papers

on practical, social, and professional topics effectively. Readily uses the written language to produce professional essay-length documents, such as justifications of decisions or defenses of policy as well as extended argumentation and analysis. Can usually elaborate on highly abstract concepts, using abstract linguistic formulations, when writing about complex topics (which may include economics, culture, science, and technology, as well as his/her professional field). Can sometimes perform highly sophisticated language tasks, such as writing to represent an official point of view. Shows some ability to tailor his/her written language to communicate with a variety of readers. Often demonstrates the writing skills needed to persuade others, but may show some inconsistencies. Usually organizes extended texts well, conveys meaning effectively, and produces writing that is stylistically appropriate for the audience and topic. Can often express nuances, subtleties, and humor, and make correct culturally-related references. However, there are some limitations in performance of these more sophisticated skills. Organizational techniques and methods of developing arguments may lack syntactical and rhetorical variety. Nevertheless, such limitations do not disturb native readers or interfere with intelligibility.

14

• LEVEL 4+ (EXPERT +) • Usually writes the language precisely and accurately for all

professional purposes. Writing proficiency is generally equivalent to that of a well-educated native writer. Almost always uses the organizational principles and stylistic devices that reflect the cultural norms of natives when writing formal and informal correspondence, official documents, articles for publication, and material related to a professional specialty. Writing is almost always clear and informative. However, there may be an occasional non-native lapse of vocabulary, usage, or cultural reference.

15

16

Rhetorical Strategies

• Narration• Argumentation• Persuasion• Exposition• Description

• Proportion/symmetry• Subordination/coordination

17

Rhetorical Techniques

• Unity– Theme– Voice

• Coherencelogical and verbal bridges

18

Rhetorical devices

allusion analysisanecdotebalancecharacterclassificationcomparisoncontrastdescriptiondictionexampleimageryirony

metaphor narrationoverstatement (hyperbole)plotpoint of viewsatiresettingsimileslangsymbolismtoneunderstatement

19

Transitions

• Opposition

• Addition

• Cause/effect

• Concession

• Exemplification

• Temporal

• Spatial

20

Sample Text

From an article in the Canadian Military Journal by an assistant professor at the Royal Military College of Canada.

http://www.journal.dnd.ca/

21

By 1759, Montcalm commanded a mixed force, bringing together elements from the colonial militia, metropolitan regulars, the independent Franche companies, and Amerindians from many tribes. With such a diversity of culture and interests in its ranks, perhaps a personable commander, one more culturally attuned to the requirement for inspirational frontier leadership, rather than to harsh European discipline, might have been a better commander for such a disparate force. Le Marquis had service in two previous wars, wherein he had witnessed the principal military developments of the 18th Century. Commencing his service at the age of 12, he had been raised in the close-ordered battles of the Old World. In the New World, 35 years later, he would see that an “(a)ggressive, mobile, combative strategy replaced the slow strategy of siege.” As a warrior in the dynastic wars of the 18th Century, Montcalm’s unshakeable belief was that “(t)he army reflected the state. It was divided internally into classes without common spirit, into officers whose incentive was honour, class-consciousness, glory or ambition, and soldiers enlisted for long terms who fought as a business for a living, who were thought incapable of higher sentiments, and whose strongest attachment was usually a kind of naïve pride in their regiments.” Le Marquis’s understanding and conduct of generalship were results of his origins, upbringing and experience. And he was a faithful reflection of them. Montcalm’s strategic decisions, in so much as Vaudreuil permitted them, reflected the finest qualities and most common faults of 18th Century French nobility, who constituted the senior leadership of Louis XV’s army.

22

By 1759, Montcalm commanded a mixed force, bringing together elements from the colonial militia, metropolitan regulars, the independent Franche companies, and Amerindians from many tribes. With such a diversity of culture and interests in its ranks, perhaps a personable commander, one more culturally attuned to the requirement for inspirational frontier leadership, rather than to harsh European discipline, might have been a better commander for such a disparate force. Le Marquis had service in two previous wars, wherein he had witnessed the principal military developments of the 18th Century. Commencing his service at the age of 12, he had been raised in the close-ordered battles of the Old World. In the New World, 35 years later, he would see that an “(a)ggressive, mobile, combative strategy replaced the slow strategy of siege.” As a warrior in the dynastic wars of the 18th Century, Montcalm’s unshakeable belief was that “(t)he army reflected the state. It was divided internally into classes without common spirit, into officers whose incentive was honour, class-consciousness, glory or ambition, and soldiers enlisted for long terms who fought as a business for a living, who were thought incapable of higher sentiments, and whose strongest attachment was usually a kind of naïve pride in their regiments.” Le Marquis’s understanding and conduct of generalship were results of his origins, upbringing and experience. And he was a faithful reflection of them. Montcalm’s strategic decisions, in so much as Vaudreuil permitted them, reflected the finest qualities and most common faults of 18th Century French nobility, who constituted the senior leadership of Louis XV’s army.

23

By 1759, Montcalm commanded a mixed force, bringing together elements from the colonial militia, metropolitan regulars, the independent Franche companies, and Amerindians from many tribes. With such a diversity of culture and interests in its ranks, perhaps a personable commander, one more culturally attuned to the requirement for inspirational frontier leadership, rather than to harsh European discipline, might have been a better commander for such a disparate force. Le Marquis had service in two previous wars, wherein he had witnessed the principal military developments of the 18th Century. Commencing his service at the age of 12, he had been raised in the close-ordered battles of the Old World. In the New World, 35 years later, he would see that an “(a)ggressive, mobile, combative strategy replaced the slow strategy of siege.” As a warrior in the dynastic wars of the 18th Century, Montcalm’s unshakeable belief was that “(t)he army reflected the state. It was divided internally into classes without common spirit, into officers whose incentive was honour, class-consciousness, glory or ambition, and soldiers enlisted for long terms who fought as a business for a living, who were thought incapable of higher sentiments, and whose strongest attachment was usually a kind of naïve pride in their regiments.” Le Marquis’s understanding and conduct of generalship were results of his origins, upbringing and experience. And he was a faithful reflection of them. Montcalm’s strategic decisions, in so much as Vaudreuil permitted them, reflected the finest qualities and most common faults of 18th Century French nobility, who constituted the senior leadership of Louis XV’s army.

24

By 1759, Montcalm commanded a mixed force, bringing together elements from the colonial militia, metropolitan regulars, the independent Franche companies, and Amerindians from many tribes. With such a diversity of culture and interests in its ranks, perhaps a personable commander, one more culturally attuned to the requirement for inspirational frontier leadership, rather than to harsh European discipline, might have been a better commander for such a disparate force. Le Marquis had service in two previous wars, wherein he had witnessed the principal military developments of the 18th Century. Commencing his service at the age of 12, he had been raised in the close-ordered battles of the Old World. In the New World, 35 years later, he would see that an “(a)ggressive, mobile, combative strategy replaced the slow strategy of siege.” As a warrior in the dynastic wars of the 18th Century, Montcalm’s unshakeable belief was that “(t)he army reflected the state. It was divided internally into classes without common spirit, into officers whose incentive was honour, class-consciousness, glory or ambition, and soldiers enlisted for long terms who fought as a business for a living, who were thought incapable of higher sentiments, and whose strongest attachment was usually a kind of naïve pride in their regiments.” Le Marquis’s understanding and conduct of generalship were results of his origins, upbringing and experience. And he was a faithful reflection of them. Montcalm’s strategic decisions, in so much as Vaudreuil permitted them, reflected the finest qualities and most common faults of 18th Century French nobility, who constituted the senior leadership of Louis XV’s army.

25

By 1759, Montcalm commanded a mixed force, bringing together elements from the colonial militia, metropolitan regulars, the independent Franche companies, and Amerindians from many tribes. With such a diversity of culture and interests in its ranks, perhaps a personable commander, one more culturally attuned to the requirement for inspirational frontier leadership, rather than to harsh European discipline, might have been a better commander for such a disparate force. Le Marquis had service in two previous wars, wherein he had witnessed the principal military developments of the 18th Century. Commencing his service at the age of 12, he had been raised in the close-ordered battles of the Old World. In the New World, 35 years later, he would see that an “(a)ggressive, mobile, combative strategy replaced the slow strategy of siege.” As a warrior in the dynastic wars of the 18th Century, Montcalm’s unshakeable belief was that “(t)he army reflected the state. It was divided internally into classes without common spirit, into officers whose incentive was honour, class-consciousness, glory or ambition, and soldiers enlisted for long terms who fought as a business for a living, who were thought incapable of higher sentiments, and whose strongest attachment was usually a kind of naïve pride in their regiments.” Le Marquis’s understanding and conduct of generalship were results of his origins, upbringing and experience. And he was a faithful reflection of them. Montcalm’s strategic decisions, in so much as Vaudreuil permitted them, reflected the finest qualities and most common faults of 18th Century French nobility, who constituted the senior leadership of Louis XV’s army.

26

By 1759, Montcalm commanded a mixed force, bringing together elements from the colonial militia, metropolitan regulars, the independent Franche companies, and Amerindians from many tribes. With such a diversity of culture and interests in its ranks, perhaps a personable commander, one more culturally attuned to the requirement for inspirational frontier leadership, rather than to harsh European discipline, might have been a better commander for such a disparate force. Le Marquis had service in two previous wars, wherein he had witnessed the principal military developments of the 18th Century. Commencing his service at the age of 12, he had been raised in the close-ordered battles of the Old World. In the New World, 35 years later, he would see that an “(a)ggressive, mobile, combative strategy replaced the slow strategy of siege.” As a warrior in the dynastic wars of the 18th Century, Montcalm’s unshakeable belief was that “(t)he army reflected the state. It was divided internally into classes without common spirit, into officers whose incentive was honour, class-consciousness, glory or ambition, and soldiers enlisted for long terms who fought as a business for a living, who were thought incapable of higher sentiments, and whose strongest attachment was usually a kind of naïve pride in their regiments.” Le Marquis’s understanding and conduct of generalship were results of his origins, upbringing and experience. And he was a faithful reflection of them. Montcalm’s strategic decisions, in so much as Vaudreuil permitted them, reflected the finest qualities and most common faults of 18th Century French nobility, who constituted the senior leadership of Louis XV’s army.

27

En 1759, Montcalm est à la tête d’une force éclectique, composée de milices coloniales, d’effectifs des forces métropolitaines régulières, de compagnies franches indépendantes et d’Amérindiens de diverses tribus. Il se peut que, compte tenu de cette diversité de cultures et d’intérêts, ces troupes disparates auraient été mieux dirigées par un commandant de tempérament agréable, qui aurait été plus sensible aux impératifs du leadership colonial communicatif qu’à la rigoureuse discipline européenne. Le marquis avait déjà participé à deux guerres, qui l’avaient familiarisé avec les grands progrès militaires du XVIIIe siècle. Entré en service à l’âge de 12 ans, il a grandi en s’imprégnant de cette discipline qui caractérisait les combats du Vieux Monde. Dans le Nouveau Monde, 35 ans plus tard, il observe qu’« une stratégie agressive, mobile et combative a remplacé la lente méthode du siège ». Combattant dans les guerres dynastiques du XVIIIe siècle, Montcalm croit fermement que « l’armée est le reflet de l’État. Elle est subdivisée en classes et n’a pas de valeurs communes : les officiers sont mus par l’honneur, la conscience de classe, la gloire ou l’ambition; quant aux soldats, ils sont engagés pour de longues périodes et se battent pour gagner leur vie; on les juge incapables de nobles sentiments, et leur sens d’appartenance prend généralement la forme d’une fierté naïve à l’égard de leur régiment ». La pensée du marquis et sa façon d’assumer sa charge de général sont façonnées par ses origines, son éducation et son expérience; Montcalm en est le reflet fidèle. Ses décisions stratégiques, dans la mesure où Vaudreuil lui permet d’en prendre, mettent en lumière les grandes qualités et les principaux défauts de la noblesse française du XVIIIe siècle, qui représentait la haute direction de l’armée de Louis XV.

28

Quiz

“Language is the most complex of human activities. Assessing language is even more complex.”

29

Direction

• Listen• Debate• Share• EnjoyAcjiu