This paper explores the underlying construct of both the English proficiency test for pilot and air traffic controller radiotelephony communication developed and administered in Korea and the ICAO language proficiency testing policy on which the test in Korea is based. It does so by canvassing the opinions of Korean airline pilots and air traffic controllers through 400 questionnaire and 22 interview sources. Results reveal a lack of fit between the policy construct and the reality through which the goals and objectives of the policy are accomplished and strong disapproval of the ICAO’s espoused construct and the associated Korean English test from language users in the target domain. This study confirms the importance of eliciting views from such stakeholders (i.e., domain experts) who are well-placed to determine what really matters for communicative success in the context of concern.
AldersonC. (2009). Air safety, language assessment policy, and policy implementation: The case of aviation English. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 168–187.
2.
AldersonC. (2010). A survey of aviation English tests. Language Testing, 27(1), 51–72.
3.
AldersonC. (2011). The politics of aviation English testing. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8, 386–403.
4.
AngellI. O.StraubB. (1999). Rain-dancing with pseudo-science. Cognition, Technology and Work, 1, 179–196.
5.
Aviation Policy Division. (2009a). The improvement measures for aviation English proficiency requirements in Korea. Korea: Ministry of Land, Transport, and Maritime Affairs.
6.
Aviation Policy Division. (2009b). Open hearing on improvement of aviation English proficiency test. Korea: Ministry of Land, Transport, and Maritime Affairs.
7.
BessetteJ. (2005). Government French language training programs: Statutory civil servants’ experiences. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Ottawa, Canada.
8.
BrownA. (1993). The role of test-taker feedback in the test development process: Test-takers’ reactions to a tape-mediated test of proficiency in spoken Japanese. Language Testing, 10(3), 277–301.
9.
BrownA. (1995). The effect of rater variables in the development of an occupation-specific language performance test. Language Testing, 12(1), 1–15.
10.
Burki-CohenJ. (1995). An analysis of tower ground controller–pilot voice communication.Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.
11.
CardosiK. (1993). An analysis of en route controller–pilot voice communication. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.
12.
DaviesA.BrownA.ElderC.HillK.LumleyT.McNamaraT. (1999). Dictionary of language testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
DekkerS. W. A. (2001). The disembodiment of data in the analysis of human factors accidents. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, 1(1), 39–57.
14.
DekkerS. W. A. (2003). Illusions of explanation: A critical essay on error classification. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 13(2), 95–106.
15.
DouglasD. (2000). Assessing language for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
DouglasD. (2005). Testing languages for specific purposes. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 857–868). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
DouglasD.MyersR. (2000). Assessing the communication skills of veterinary students: Whose criteria? In KunnanA. J. (Ed.), Fairness and validation in language assessment: Selected papers from the 19th Language Testing Research Colloquium, Orlando, Florida. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
ElderC. (1993). How do subject specialists construe classroom language proficiency?Language Testing, 10(3), 235–254.
19.
ElderC. (2007). OET-IELTS benchmarking study report. Australia: Language Testing Research Centre, University of Melbourne.
20.
ElderC.PhillJ.Woodword-KronR.McNamaraT.ManiasE.McCollG.WebbG. (2012). Health professionals’ views of communication: Implications for assessing performance on a health-specific English language test. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 409–419.
21.
FieldsR. E.WrightP. C.MartiP.PalmonariM. (1998). Air traffic control as a distributed cognitive system: A study of external representations. Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics: Roquencourt, France: European Association of Cognitive Ergonomics.
22.
HallidayM. A. K.McIntoshA.StrevensP. (1964). The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London: Longmans.
23.
HelmreichR. L. (1994). Anatomy of a system accident: The crash of Avianca Flight 052. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4(3), 265–284.
24.
HowardJ. W. (2008). Tower, am I cleared to land?: Problematic communication in aviation discourse. Human Communication Research, 34, 370–391.
25.
HutchinsE. (1995a). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
26.
HutchinsE. (1995b). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265–288.
27.
HutchinsE.KlausenT. (1996). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In EngeströmY.MiddletonD. (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
ICAO. (2001). Annex 10. Aeronautical telecommunications (vol. II: Communication procedures including those with PANS status). International Civil Aviation Organization.
29.
ICAO. (2004). Manual on the implementation of ICAO language proficiency requirements (1st ed.). International Civil Aviation Organization.
JacobyS. (1998). Science as performance: Socializing scientific discourse through the conference talk rehearsal. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
32.
JacobyS.McNamaraT. (1999). Locating competence. English for Specific Purposes, 18(3), 213–241.
33.
KimH. (2012). Exploring the construct of aviation communication: A critique of the ICAO language proficiency policy. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Melbourne.
34.
KimH. (2013). Exploring the construct of radiotelephony communication: A critique of the ICAO English testing policy from the perspective of Korean aviation experts. Papers in Language Testing and Assessment, 2(2), 103–110.
35.
KimH.ElderC. (2009). Understanding aviation English as a lingua franca: Perceptions of Korean aviation personnel. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(3), 23.1–23.17.
36.
KnochU. (2014). Using subject specialist to validate an ESP rating scale: The case of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) rating scale. English for Specific Purposes, 33, 77–86.
LumleyT. (1998). Perceptions of language-trained raters and occupational experts in a test of occupational English language proficiency. English for Specific Purposes, 17(4), 347–367.
39.
LumleyT.BrownA. (1996). Specific-purpose language performance tests: Task and interaction. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Series S, Number13, 105–136.
40.
MackayR.MountfordA. (1978). English for specific purposes: A case study approach. London: Longman.
41.
McNamaraT. (2008). The socio-political and power dimensions of tests. In ShohamyE.HornbergerN. H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., vol. 7: Language testing and assessment, pp. 415–427). New York: Springer Science and Business Media.
42.
McNamaraT. (2011). Managing learning: Authority and language assessment. Language Teaching, 44(4), 500–515.
43.
McNamaraT. (2012). English as a lingua franca: The challenge for language testing. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1(1), 199–202.
44.
McNamaraT.RoeverC. (2006). Language testing: The social dimension. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
45.
McNamaraT.RyanK. (2011). Fairness versus justice in language testing: The place of English literacy in the Australian citizenship test. Language Assessment Quarterly, 8(2), 161–178.
46.
ModerC. L.HalleckG. B. (2009). Planes, politics and oral proficiency: Testing international air traffic controllers. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(3), 25.1–25.16.
47.
MorrowD.LeeA.RodvoldM. (1993). Analysis of problems in routine controller-pilot communication. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(4), 285–302.
MurrayJ. C.RiaziA. M.CrossJ. L. (2012). Test candidates’ attitudes and their relationship to demographic and experiential variables: The case of overseas trained teachers in NSW, Australia. Language Testing, 29(4), 577–595.
50.
RobertsonF. A.JohnsonE. (1987). AIRSPEAK: Radiotelephony communication for pilots. Hemel Hempstead, Herts., UK: Prentice Hall International.
51.
ShohamyE. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. Harlow, Essex, UK: Pearson Education.
52.
ShohamyE. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London: Routledge.
53.
ShohamyE. (2009). Language policy as experiences. Language Problems and Language Planning, 33(2), 185–189.
54.
SimmonD. A. (1998). Boeing 757 CFIT accident at Cali, Colombia, becomes focus of lessons learned. Fight Safety Digest, May–June.
55.
TiewtrakulT.FletcherS. R. (2010). The challenge of regional accents for aviation English language proficiency standards: A study of difficulties in understanding in air traffic control-pilot communication. Ergonomics, 53(2), 229–239.
56.
VarantolaK. (1989). Natural languages vs. purpose-built languages: The human factors. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 90(2), 173–183.
