THE YARDSTICK FOR MARITIME ENGLISH
STCW ASSESSMENT PURPOSES
Clive W. COLE
1
, Peter TRENKNER 2
1
World Maritime University
Box 500 201 24 Malmö Sweden
Fax : 0046 40 128442
Tel : 0046 40 356347
[email protected]
2
Wismar University
Dept. of Maritime Studies R.-Wagner-Str. 31
18119 Warnemünde
Germany
Fax : 0049 381 498 5802
Tel : 0049 381 498 5856
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
Assessing student performance accurately and meaningfully has always been one of the great predicaments of
education. A result expressed as a number of marks out of a maximum total, or as a percentage, is simple to read
but often lacks any true meaning when read by an outsider with little or no knowledge of the subject and/or the
difficulties involved in achieving the result, and when read by the student if there is no additional feedback. This
has become no less important when the IMO STCW 78 Convention as amended in 1995 is under review and
global assessment goals are being required.
Reliably assessing competence is no easy task, especially on an international level, but the process can be
facilitated by establishing credible “Yardsticks” against which student performance can be measured while at the
same time providing goals for the tasks and requirements of the seaboard ranks. Thus a practicable and
internationally accepted descriptive scale that clearly identifies the Maritime English communication
performance required for the STCW Operational and Management Levels would be more than an academic
exercise – it being meaningful for students, MET institutions, officers and not least for end-users (i.e. shipping
company management) who have frequently asked for the creation of such a device.
This paper argues for the adoption of minimum skills levels for the shipboard ranks and promotes an
internationally accepted proficiency scale that clearly describes levels of competence. The Yardstick presented in
this paper is an attempt to provide a single standard instrument that gives benchmarks for training, testing and
assisting candidates to attain the required STCW Operational and Management Levels and ensure that the entire
maritime industry is operating from the same page. In this respect the authors suggest that it establishes an
appropriate link between the legal requirements of the maritime authorities or administrations reflected in the
STCW Convention on the one hand and the consequences regarding Maritime English instruction at MET
institutions taking into account the needs of the end-users in the shipping industry on the other.
Key words: Communication, Maritime English, Competence, Yardstick, STCW.
163
1. INTRODUCTION
There was a time, until quite recently, when any paper involving Maritime English would begin with a definition
of the term and a justification of its importance within the maritime industry, and consequently Maritime
Education and Training. This is no longer the case, or at least it should not be. Today, more than ever before, we
are all practiced communicators. Indeed communication, supported by an array of technical devices, is at the very
heart of our modern existence allowing us to instantly access almost anywhere in the world. It may be a question
of chickens and eggs but certainly communication and globalisation go hand in hand, as do the resulting increases
in trade and the need for shipping to satisfy the demands. That competent (English) language skills not only
facilitate but enhance our communication needs is surely indisputable.
Communication and the usefulness, often necessity, of a unifying working language is central to all of us working
within the maritime industry, whether shore-based or at sea, whether employer or employee, whether new recruit
or ancient mariner. As the Secretary-General of the IMO states, today more than ninety percent of global trade is
carried by sea and this “has fostered an interdependency and inter-connectivity between peoples who would
previously have considered themselves completely unconnected” (Mitropoulos 2005). Therefore, communicative
competence is a prerequisite not only to facilitate international trade but also to ensure that it functions in a safe,
secure and environmentally friendly manner. That there was a need for a working language, and that this would
largely be English, was recognised by the initiatives of the IMO to develop the Standard Marine Navigational
Vocabulary (SMNV), adopted in 1977 and amended in 1985, the Standard Marine Communication Phrases (IMO
SMCP) adopted in November 2001 as resolution A.918 (22) and numerous references in various conventions,
including those listed in Annex 1 of this article. However, while IMO has clearly made considerable efforts to
strengthen provisions concerning Maritime English requirements, this does not necessarily mean that the
graduates of maritime academies are consistently well prepared and that the levels of competence attained during
training match the (minimum) levels envisaged, but not precisely determined, by the international regulations
where the STCW 1978 Convention as amended in 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the STCW Convention) is the
leading light. The current article thus argues for the adoption of minimum skills levels for the shipboard ranks as
described in a new Maritime English proficiency rating scale, the Yardstick, below.
2.
BACKGROUND
According to Bloxham and Boyd (2007) “Student marking is inherently frail” and many “assessment procedures
would struggle to stand up to legal challenges.” Indeed, assessing student performance accurately and
meaningfully has always been one of the great predicaments of education and training. A result expressed as a
number of marks out of a maximum total, or as a percentage, is simple to read but often lacks any true meaning
when read by an outsider with little or no knowledge of the subject and/or the difficulties involved in achieving
the result, and when read by the student if there is no additional feedback. This has become no less important
when the STCW Convention is under review and global assessment goals are being required.
The creation of a practicable and handy Yardstick was first addressed within the Maritime English context at the
German Association of Maritime English (GAME) Summer Seminar held in Gdynia, Poland in 1994 in a paper
entitled “Bring on the bands” (Cole, 1994a). Here the author proposed supplementing assessment scores (marks
and percentages) with banded descriptors that would be “accurate, easily understood and meaningful to both the
individual student and to faculty members at large” and challenged the participants to draft appropriate
Yardsticks for maritime purposes.
This was taken up in the same year at the GAME Autumn Seminar held in Hamburg, Germany, where in a
session entitled “Language performance assessment of (future) ship’s officers and ratings” working groups were
asked to consider two Yardstick proposals prepared by Palti and Katarzynska. As a result of the discussions Cole
(1994b) compiled a “Yardstick of English language competence for ship’s officers”. This document, while often
referred to in the literature, received no further attention, most likely due to the fact that in the mid to late nineties
the development and application of the IMO’s Standard Maritime Communication Phrases dominated the
activities at Maritime English workshops and conferences.
Nonetheless, what has become evident, as voiced at the time, is that a practicable and internationally accepted
assessment measuring tool, namely a Yardstick that determines the Maritime English communication
performance as set out in the STCW Convention Operational and Management Levels and in the SOLAS
Convention, 2004, has great potential – it being meaningful for students, MET institutions, officers and not least
164
for the end-users. In particular the personnel departments of the shipping companies which recruit their shipboard
crews on a worldwide scale, frequently voice the need for a practicable instrument against which they could
determine the Maritime English proficiency of an applicant for a deck or engineer officer position and assess
whether s/he is suitably qualified to meet the communicative requirements of the position envisaged or whether a
recurrent testing of an actively sailing officer is necessary – such an instrument may prevent shipping companies
from making costly or even safety-endangering wrong choices.
This issue will gain even more importance since current technological and legal developments will allow reliable
data to be accessed; for example, oral communications among the bridge team. Up until now such data, when
available, has been largely drawn from anecdotal reports, observation reports and interviews which have differed
widely (Trenkner, Nielsen, 1998). Nowadays, however, passenger ships and vessels of 3000 GT or more
constructed on or after July 01, 2002 must carry Voyage Data Recorders (VDR), comparable to the "black boxes"
in aviation which record VHF communications relating to ship operations and oral communications on the bridge
that are then stored (SOLAS 1974 as revised, Chapter V). In this way the possibility for collecting reliable data
has significantly improved and communication deficiencies may be revealed thus opening the door for interested
parties to take appropriate action. It is worth noting that this has not been met with the utmost appreciation or
unrestricted acceptance among active ships officers (Clements 1996). It is these parties who have voiced that they
would appreciate having access to an instrument, viz. a yardstick, against which recorded communications could
be measured and checked according to the relevant requirements or prescribed Maritime English competence.
This matter was addressed during research for the IAMU PROFS Project, (Cole, Pritchard, Trenkner, 2007)
leading the authors to recommend in their report that “issues concerning assessment … should be the topic of
further research; in this respect standards should be established”. As a result, the 1994 Yardstick table has now
been revisited and considerably revised by adding depth and more accurate content to the descriptions and
identifying the minimum band levels expected of the various officer ranks. The table is presented below for
consideration and hopefully for international recognition which the authors believe, would be best achieved by
ensuring that it is included among the list of STCW Convention issues to be reviewed by the IMO STW SubCommittee due to be finalised during 2008; or in any other appropriate directive IMO document as, for instance,
an annex to the IMO SMCP.
3.
THE YARDSTICK
The Yardstick, as presented in the table below, is an attempt to provide a standard that could be applied
internationally. It was inspired by the “English Speaking Union Framework – performance scales for English
language examinations” (1991) which proposed the Yardstick ladder as a tool for describing language
performance in terms of quantity and quality where:

quantity means the scale has a number of levels, or bands, corresponding to the rungs on a ladder, so that
a learner's performance can be measured at a certain level on the scale, and

quality refers to the accompanying descriptions which are intended to outline briefly and clearly the main
features of the language performance to be expected at each of the levels.
When developing this Yardstick the authors deliberately did not include the identification of Maritime English
communication requirements of the different shipboard rating ranks, i.e. the STCW Convention Support Levels,
but restricted themselves to the personnel covered by the STCW Convention Operational and Management
Levels educated and trained at higher MET institutions. The shipping industry, however, may wish to have a
Yardstick available for shipboard rating ranks, too. In this case an appendix would need to be developed, together
with the industry, as the Maritime English requirements set out in the STCW Convention (Part A, Chapter II,
Table A-II/4 and A-III/4) regarding ratings are comparatively vague and need to be considered in the STCW
Convention review. Furthermore, requirements concerning general English language proficiency have not been
included explicitly as in the authors' understanding a certain command of general English is a basic prerequisite
in this respect (c.f. IMO SMCP 2002).
165
YARDSTICK OF MARITIME ENGLISH COMPETENCE FOR SHIPS OFFICERS
Band Definition
9
Expert User
(Senior Navigation
Officers/ Senior
Engineer
Officers/Masters)
8
Very Good User
(Senior Navigation
Officers/ Senior
Engineer
Officers/Masters)
7
Good User
(Junior Navigation
Officers/ Junior
Engineer Officers)
Minimum required
for certification as
Chief Officer
6
Competent User
(Junior Navigation
Officers/ Junior
Engineer Officers)
Minimum required
for certification as
Descriptor
Has a full command of Maritime English as to safe navigation,
technical ship operation, emergency management, cargo handling
and administration; meets fully all the Maritime English
requirements as laid down in the STCW Convention. Communicates
fluently on radio complying with the Radio Regulations, is fully
conversant with the IMO-SMCP and uses them flexibly when the
addressee gives reason to apply them. Expert in the use of
glossaries/dictionaries, and seldom needs aids when reading IMO
and other documents or handling professional correspondence.
Unhindered when leading meetings, even controversial ones, with
other officers, crew, authorities, services and outsiders. Able to
develop personal skills to include the instructions of others in the use
of the English language on board.
A command of Maritime English approaching that of the expert user
in safe navigation, technical ship operation, emergency management,
cargo handling and some administrative tasks; meets fully the
Maritime English requirements as laid down in the STCW
Convention. Copes well even with demanding and complex language
situations, whether in oral or printed/written form, with only rare
uncertainties and minor lapses in accuracy, fluency, appropriateness
and discourse which do not affect communication. Communicates
fluently on radio complying with the Radio Regulations. Fully
conversant with the IMO-SMCP. Gives clear and sufficient orders in
all situations connected with job and rank. Able to develop personal
skills to include the instruction of others in the use of the English
language on board up to band 6.
Uses Maritime English effectively but may need to take special care
in complex and difficult situations; meets the Maritime English
requirements as laid down in the STCW Convention. Communicates
well enough on radio complying with the Radio Regulations. A few
lapses in accuracy, fluency, appropriateness and discourse and in
conveying or comprehending the content of a message, but
communication is effective, consistent and unmistakable. Conversant
with the IMO-SMCP. Can give clear and succinct orders to ratings.
Understands written and spoken instructions in how to use, maintain
and repair equipment. Any lack in Maritime English skills does not
hinder safe ship operations. Able to draft the messages, reports and
letters required for ship business occasionally using dictionaries,
glossaries and/or correspondence guidelines.
Uses Maritime English with confidence in moderately difficult
situations; meets basically the Maritime English requirements as laid
down in the STCW Convention. Noticeable lapses in accuracy,
fluency, appropriateness and discourse that may lead to difficulties in
complex situations. Communication is effective on most occasions.
Can communicate on radio under the supervision of senior officers
applying selected standard phrases and occasionally using manuals in
order to comply with the Radio Regulations. Speaks, reads and writes
166
YARDSTICK OF MARITIME ENGLISH COMPETENCE FOR SHIPS OFFICERS
Band Definition
5
Descriptor
OOW/EOW
Maritime English sufficiently well for ship operations. Is familiar
with the IMO-SMCP. Competent use of language in giving and
executing orders. Able to respond competently in emergencies. Able
to comprehend nautical/engineering publications. Able to write up
logbook without causing misunderstandings.
Effective User
Uses the language independently and effectively in all familiar and
moderately difficult situations. Can read and pronounce the IMOSMCP applicable to the working sphere. Frequent lapses in accuracy,
fluency, appropriateness and discourse, but usually succeeds in
communicating. Basically abilities as at band 6 but permitted to act
only under constant supervision. Effective use of Maritime English in
giving and carrying out orders.
(Assistant
Navigation
Officers/Assistant
Engineer Officers)
4
Modest User
Uses basic range of Maritime English, sufficient for familiar and
non-pressure situations. Many lapses in accuracy, fluency,
appropriateness and discourse that restrict continual communication
so that frequent efforts and guidance are needed to ensure that the
communicative intention is achieved. Renders the minimum level
required to follow specialist instruction in Maritime English using
the IMO-SMCP. Able to ask and answer basic questions referring to
the vessel, its cargo, equipment and machinery. Can pass on
distress/urgency and safety messages and ask for assistance in cases
of emergency using the relevant IMO-SMCP.
3
Limited User
Can communicate using sentences and questions. Problems in
accuracy, fluency, appropriateness and discourse so that
communication frequently breaks down or is difficult to maintain.
Understands and executes orders from the IMO-SMCP for basic
shipboard needs such as general emergency drills, person over board,
and standard wheel/engine orders. Can speak about basic duties on
board.
2
Intermittent User
Uses a very limited range of Maritime English. Adequate for basic
needs and simple situations. Able to verbalize and understand such
items as names and ranks, ship’s name and certain specifications of
the vessel and/or its machinery. Can look up basic phrases from the
IMO-SMCP but uses them inflexibly. Can ask for help and assist
officers directing passengers in different situations, particularly in
cases of drills or emergencies.
1
Non User
Uses a few words or phrases such as common greetings. Capacity
limited to elementary listening and reading skills. Recognizes notices
and signs within the working sphere but has difficulty in interpreting
the information into action. At the lowest level, recognizes which
language is being used. Should not be admitted as Navigation Officer
Cadet/Engineer Officer Cadet without prior pre-sea Maritime English
training.
167
It should be noted that the highest levels, 8 and 9, do not require officers to demonstrate native or native-like
proficiency, but they do, nonetheless, determine the minimum safe operational levels of English language
proficiency required by these ranks. Regarding the lowest levels 1 to 4, these could be deleted so that only those
levels describing the minimum proficiency standards for officers remain. However, the authors have provided
these levels primarily as a guide to MET staff and students so that institutional entry levels can be determined and
individual progress can subsequently be monitored.
3.1. Testing
An adopted Yardstick logically needs to be accompanied by corresponding testing tools. Such tools may exist
already, or need to be created to determine the communication performance of an examinee according to the
descriptors corresponding to the different bands of the Yardstick. In both cases this will warrant significant
international input and cooperation that could be undertaken by a body like the IMLA-IMEC, favourably in
cooperation with IAMU. However, it is not the intention of this article to present ideas concerning assessment
methods, nor comment on the various language proficiency tests currently in use within MET. Nonetheless, what
is apparent to the authors from their research and experience is that the assessment methods currently employed
worldwide are almost as numerous as there are institutions. This, together with the notable lack of lists of
learning outcomes is not particularly supportive in satisfying the ambition of the IMO to ensure that ships are safe
and secure and the oceans on which they ply are clean. Thus, there is a pressing need to harmonise the learning
outcomes of Maritime English courses along with the results of tests and other forms of assessment. In this
respect the Yardstick above provides the standard which curriculum designers, teachers, students and career
professionals are able to work towards.
3.2. The Yardstick and the STCW Convention
As mentioned above, criticism may be heard concerning the lack of a detailed break-down of the relevant STCW
Convention requirements in respect of the Maritime English competence to be expected from deck and engineer
officers; essentially this suggests that the standards mentioned are not sufficiently detailed and precise enough to
be applied either at sea or in the classroom. Generally, it may be said that this kind of criticism often results from
a superficial study of the Convention. Those who are familiar with the lyrics and policy of drafting the STCW
Convention know that the corresponding requirements are deliberately worded in a generalized manner to give
each national administration the scope to apply them according to the specific conditions prevailing in their MET
systems and to implement them creatively. Furthermore, the current version was the lowest common denominator
practically attainable during many years of in-depth considerations at IMO as the conditions and pretexts in MET
and pre-MET areas of IMO member states vary considerably and could hardly be placed under one umbrella.
With regard to Maritime English, the requirements laid down in the Convention are somewhat more detailed than
probably observed at first glance: the STCW Convention actually sets out minimum standards regarding the
knowledge and competence for deck and engineer officers in the field of Maritime English expressis verbis only
in Tables A-II/1 and A-III/1(English Language), and in Table A-IV/2 pertaining to GMDSS radio operators; this
has to be regarded as progress compared to the STCW Convention of 1978. However, there are more than a
hundred rules, regulations, provisions, etc., in the STCW Convention the enforcement of which tacitly requires a
sound command of Maritime English otherwise the corresponding requirements will not be met.
To illustrate this, the following examples from Column 4 (Competence) of the corresponding tables in the STCW
Convention are drawn upon.
TABLE A-II/1
168
Competence
Knowledge, Understanding, Proficiency
Maintain a safe navigational watch.
 Thorough knowledge of the principles to be observed
in keeping a navigational watch.
 Thorough knowledge of effective bridge teamwork
procedures.
Respond to emergencies.
 Precautions for the protection and safety of passengers
in emergency situations.
 Initial action to be taken following a collision or
grounding.
 Appreciation of the procedures to be followed for
rescuing persons from the sea, assisting a ship in
distress, responding to emergencies which arise in
ports.
Prevent, control and fight fires on
board.
 Evacuation emergency shutdown and isolation
procedures are appropriate and implemented promptly.
 Making reports and informing personnel on board are
relevant to the nature of the emergency.
Monitor the loading, stowage, securing,
care during the voyage and the
unloading of cargoes.
 Ability to establish and maintain effective
communication during loading and unloading.
Operate life-saving appliances.
 Ability to organize abandon ship drills.
TABLE A-III/2
Competence
Knowledge, Understanding, Proficiency
Plan and schedule operations.
 Use internal communication systems.
Organize safe maintenance and repair
procedures.
 Organizing and carrying out safe maintenance and
repair procedures.
Maintain safety and security of the
vessel, crew and passengers.
 Organizing of fire and abandon ship drills.
Develop emergency and damage
control plans and handle emergency
situations.
 Actions to be taken to protect and safeguard all
persons on board.
It is obvious, that the realization of these requirements from a far longer list (see Annex I) is not manageable by
the personnel concerned, i.e. the deck and engineer officers on shipboard, without an adequate command of
Maritime English. Taking into account that almost 90% of the world's merchant vessels presently sail with multi-
169
lingual or "mixed" crews, the following proposal may be justified with respect to the impact Maritime English
proficiency has on the STCW Convention:
Whenever a provision in the Convention requires language communication for its realization within an
international context, the medium for the interchange of corresponding intelligence among the personnel
concerned should be Maritime English in specified forms; for safety related verbal ship-to-ship, ship-toshore and on board communications the IMO Standard Marine Communication Phrases (SMCP) should
be applied wherever practicable.
This intent, introduced at an appropriate place within the STCW Convention, for instance in Code Part A,
Chapter I, Standards regarding general provisions, Section A, would dispose of the arguments regarding the
allegedly imprecisely drafted Maritime English requirements in the Convention and would make any further
reference to Maritime English superfluous. This would also be in line with the recommendation submitted by the
EU Member States and the European Commission, IMO STW 39/7/11, Regulation I/14a – Communication on
board (November 2007) relating to the forthcoming revision of the STCW95 which reads:
Effective communication
Each administration shall hold companies responsible for ensuring that there are at all times on
board all ships adequate means in place for effective oral communication and communication
between the ship and the shore based authorities in accordance with chapter V, regulation 14,
paragraphs 3 and 4 of the SOLAS Convention, relating to safety and security, between all members
of a ship's crew, especially with regard to the correct and timely reception and understanding of
messages and instructions.
So far there are two internationally accepted legal foundations or dimensions upon which Maritime English
instruction and research is established. First, the STCW Convention provides the essential contents of Maritime
English instruction for navigational and marine engineering students, i.e. for future deck and engineering officers.
Second, the SMCP, which being entirely in compliance with the Convention (Trenkner 2002) provides the
language and the speech acts to be used in verbal safety-related communications.
A third dimension involving the communication competence expected to be rendered by students and officers, is
not referred to in the STCW Convention and is inherent only to a certain extent in the SMCP. However, the
Yardstick as proposed in this article, attempts to define this communication competence for the different groups
of shipboard officer ranks at the STCW Convention Operational and Management Levels. It has been developed
in a practicable manner and is thus a manageable instrument for both MET institutions and managers in shipping
companies as well as crewing agents who need to determine the exact levels of Maritime English communication
competence among their students and officers, and where necessary suggest any remedial action that needs to be
taken.
4.
RELATED ATTEMPTS TO PROVIDE PROFICIENCY RATING SCALES
In completing this article the authors have reviewed other attempts to provide proficiency rating scales for
specific communication purposes of which the following, in the opinion of the authors, are relevant in the context
of this article.
4.1. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
The International Civil Aviation Organization, which like IMO is also a specialised agency of the UN System
dealing with international transportation, has integrated a language proficiency rating scale into its Procedures for
Air Navigation Services (Montreal 2006), consisting of six competence levels: Pre-elementary, Elementary, Preoperational, Operational, Extended and Expert, and six language categories: Pronunciation, Structure,
Vocabulary, Fluency, Comprehension and Interactions. An accompanying explanation of the Rating Scale gives
additional information and provides descriptors for each category and competence level. ICAO has also
developed a language proficiency test that “will be used to discover the true English language capabilities of
pilots and air traffic controllers in the work environment” (ICAO 2007a). Here, the Operational Level (Level 4)
has been identified as the minimum required proficiency level for radiotelephony communication. The intention
was for this inclusion to become effective as of 05 March 2008, however, at this juncture 75% of ICAO’s
member states remained non-compliant. As a result, a new deadline, March 2011, has been established, at which
170
time pilots wishing to fly internationally must have met the requirements of at least the level 4 Operational Level
demonstrated by taking the ICAO proficiency test; a test that has to be re-taken every third year.
Further, regarding the formal evaluation of language competence for benchmarking purposes ICAO states:
The establishment of the training programme required to bring existing staff to the appropriate level
would require an accurate assessment of the level of language proficiency of existing staff. (ICAO
2007b).
In the opinion of the authors, these aspects should also be considered by the STCW Convention reviewers,
although for pragmatic reasons the conclusions the aviator regulators have arrived at may not necessarily be the
same.
4.2. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages is a guideline used to describe the achievements
of learners of foreign languages across Europe with the intention of providing a basis for the mutual recognition
of language qualifications. In November 2001, a European Union Council Resolution recommended this Council
of Europe instrument in setting up systems of validation of language competences.
Essentially the CEFR document comprehensively describes the competencies necessary for communication, the
related knowledge and skills, and the situations and domains of communication. Learners are divided into three
broad divisions which are further sub-divided into six levels:
A
Basic User
A1 Breakthrough
B
A2 Waystage
Independent User
B1 Threshold
C
B2 Vantage
Proficient User
C1 Effective Operational User
C2 Mastery
Accompanying each reference level are descriptors detailing the required competencies in the four language skills
of listening, speaking, reading and writing. To ensure that the levels are uniformly interpreted by all language
professionals, a Language Policy Division develops illustrative material; DVDs showing oral performances, online examples of written performance, and CD-ROMs containing items and tasks for testing reading and listening
comprehension skills.
The authors note the impressive achievements of the large body of international experts who produced the CEFR
and the on-going complementary projects of the Language Policy Division. Certainly the scientific research and
wide consultation undertaken, resulting in an extensive resource of information, is of great value and worth
calling upon when the matter of a Maritime English Yardstick for language proficiency rating purposes is further
discussed.
4.3. Two Additional Scales
Like the CEFR both the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Proficiency
Guidelines and the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) also provide a means of rating the proficiency of
foreign language speakers. The systems are similar in that they identify stages of proficiency, i.e. what
individuals can and cannot do, rather than assessing achievements based on specific classroom instruction.
Specifically, for each of the four language skills of Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing, the ACTFL
Guidelines distinguish four or five levels: Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, Superior (Distinguished), where each
level is further sub-divided into Low, Mid and High, whereas the CLB consists of 12 benchmarks sub-divided
into 3 parts: Basic, Intermediate, Advanced Proficiency; each benchmark then being described in terms of “can
do” statements or “performance descriptors".
It is worth noting that all of these systems focus on the successful completion of communicative tasks, rather than
on linguistic accuracy and are thus suitable for teachers employing the Communicative Language Teaching
methods recommended in IMO Model Course 3.17, Maritime English.
171
5. CONCLUSION
Even without legal obligations it is self-evident that all those involved in ship operations should have the
necessary language skills to successfully manage the communicative needs associated with specific duties and
rank during any operational event. Since, in practice this is clearly not always the case, the legal tool of the IMO,
the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping 1978 as amended in
1995, emphasises directly and indirectly the importance of acquiring appropriate language proficiency and the
need to assess an individual’s (English) language skills, primarily in listening and speaking, for operational
purposes. Consequently, MET institutions inevitably test their students who then present the resulting scores and
grades to potential employers. However, a result expressed as a number of marks out of a maximum total lacks
any true meaning, especially on the international level, when read by an outsider who has little or no idea of the
intended learning outcomes of the course of instruction. An internationally accepted proficiency scale that clearly
describes levels of competence would therefore aid employers in assessing whether a potential employee is up to
the task in hand or not. The Yardstick presented in this article is an attempt to provide a single standard
instrument that gives benchmarks for training, testing and assisting candidates to attain the required operation
levels and ensure that the entire maritime industry is operating from the same page. Thus this Yardstick could be
regarded as an appropriate link between the legal requirements of the maritime authorities or administrations
reflected in the STCW Convention on the one hand and the consequences regarding Maritime English instruction
at MET institutions taking into account the needs of the end-users in the shipping industry on the other.
Finally, a decisive step towards ensuring that effective and reliable language communication takes place between
ships, from ship to shore and on board would be the inclusion of the proposal presented in section 5 of this article
in the revised STCW Convention, namely that Maritime English should be used in the international context to
guarantee the requirements and spirit of the Convention are implemented wherever language communication is
involved.
6. REFERENCES
Bloxham, S., Boyd, P. (2007). Developing effective assessment in higher education: a practical guide. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.
Clements, M. E. (1996). On Board Communication Problems Due to the Lack of a Common Language, Master of
Science dissertation (pp. 98-99). WMU, Malmö, Sweden.
Cole, C. (1994a). Bring on the bands – a student centred faculty friendly assessment. Echo 28/August. pp 4-12.
Warnemünde: German Association for Maritime English.
Cole, C. (Ed). (1994b). A Yardstick of English language competence for ship’s officers. Echo 29/December. p11.
Warnemünde: German Association for Maritime English.
Cole, C. W., Pritchard, B., & Trenkner, P. (2007). Maritime English instruction – ensuring instructors’
competence. IBÉRICA, Journal of the European Association of Languages for Specific Purposes (pp 123147). Spain: AELFE.
Cole, C. W., Trenkner, P. (2004). Whither Maritime English? – In retrospect and prospect. In Proceedings of the
International Maritime English Conference IMEC 16 (pp. 22-36). Manila: Maritime Academy of Asia and
the Pacific.
International Civil Aviation Organization. (2006). Procedures for Air Navigation Services, Rules of the Air and
Air Traffic Services, Annex Aeronautical Telecommunications, as revised. Montreal: ICAO
International Civil Aviation Organization. (2007a).
Retrieved January 06, 2008 from www.flightspeak.co.uk/gloss7htm
International Civil Aviation Organization. (2007b).
Retrieved January 06, 2008 from www.icao.int/en/trivia/peltrgFAQ.htm#24
International Maritime Organization. (1978). Standard Marine Navigational Vocabulary (SMNV). London: IMO.
International Maritime Organization. (2002). Standard Marine Communication Phrases (SMCP). London: IMO.
172
Mitropoulos, E. (2005). International Shipping – Carrier Of World Trade. A message from the Secretary-General
of the International Maritime Organization. Retrieved December 11, 2007 from www.IMO.org
Trenkner, P., Nielsen, D. (1998). A Method for the Acquisition of Statistical Data on Maritime Communication
Deficiencies. Project under the Germany/Hong Kong Joint Research Scheme 1997/98. Hong Kong:
Warnemuende.
Trenkner, P. (2002). The IMO-Standard Marine Communication Phrases and the Requirements of the STCW
Convention 1978/95. In Proceedings of the International ITUMF-JICA Seminar on Maritime English (pp.
37-57). Istanbul Technical University, Turkey.
Yorke, M. (2007). Grading Student Achievement in Higher Education: Signals and Shortcomings. UK:
Routledge.
173