A Need Analysis (NA) is crucial for defining relevant language tasks and proficiency requirements, ensuring language programs meet the demands of specific work environments (Malicka et al., 2019). Insider expertise is often the most valuable input (Wozniak, 2010), yet NA s are frequently overlooked in curriculum development (Long, 2005). Typically, NA s involve a collaborative process. For example, Lett (2005) worked with army personnel and foreign language experts in the US Army to assess task frequency, difficulty, and proficiency needs, which informed language policy revisions. Gilabert (2023) adds that training needs, based on task importance and priority, should also guide task selection.

While interviews and questionnaires are common in NA s (Lambert, 2010; Wozniak, 2010; Sari & Sari, 2020), others highlight the value of discourse analysis (Downey Bartlett, 2005; Long, 2005), though access to real-world scenarios can be restricted by confidentiality (Long, 2005). Despite varying methods, the goal of NA s remains to identify tasks that align with learners’ real-world needs (Long, 2005).

A language task is defined as an activity necessitating the target language to obtain an objective (van den Branden, 2010). The objective is for learners to advance in second language acquisition by participating in tasks mirroring authentic discourse. Tasks should link to real-world activities, emphasize communicative meaning, feature an information gap, and result in language as a tool for achieving outcomes (East, 2021). One feature of using tasks is that learners are stimulated to rely on their own (non-linguistic) resources to reach a communicative goal (Ellis & Shintani, 2013). This research focused on identifying target tasks, also called real-world tasks. These tasks are genuine examples of what learners could encounter outside the language classroom (Bygate, 2015). Each step within a target task works toward accomplishing the target task and is not dependent on or part of another task, as example (1) illustrates:

Target sub-tasks, see example (2), are identical but dependent on another target task (Gilabert, 2005).

The examples above illustrate the need for specialized language skills in field-specific communication. Task achievement should take precedence over language competency assessment, as experienced workers can often leverage their expertise to compensate for limited language proficiency and effectively complete tasks within their professional domain (Long, 2005). Besides task outcomes, the underlying proficiency construct for task completion is crucial in identifying the specific language features essential for achieving task goals. Defining this construct and its facets allows for articulating varying levels of student performance, which can be linked to grades and aid in task assessment (East, 2021).

Armies may use different scales for assessing language proficiency. NATO standardization agreement 6001 (STANAG 6001) contains a language scale with descriptors for different occupations within their military structure. Language levels can be categorized as beginner (Levels 0 and 1), intermediate (Levels 2 and 3), and advanced (Levels 4 and 5) (NATO Standardization Office, 2016). These categories roughly correspond to CEFR’s A, B, and C levels.

Besides STANAG 6001, European armies mainly use CEFR. Their can-do definitions are instrumental in a more nuanced assessment of progress than an exclusive focus on test scores (Council of Europe, 2020). The additional use of CEFR levels by certain nations enhances the employability of retiring military personnel, since a conversion from STANAG is not feasible.

The Needs Analysis involved sixty-four NCO s through interviews and a questionnaire. For the context analysis, one officer and two NCO s from army command participated. Language proficiency requirements were determined by subject matter experts and stakeholders, including a Royal Military School representative, the qualification officer, two senior instructors, the senior English teacher, the education manager, and the language qualification expert.

Possible concerns regarding validity and reliability pertain to NA data being largely retrospective. Since missions differ in size and objectives, individual recollections varied. To factor this in, participants were selected via a random stratified sample (Lett, 2005). When this was impossible, a cluster sample from sub-groups was used (Long, 2005). Subject matter experts and stakeholders were selected via purposive sampling (Nieveen, 2010). By triangulating participants and data collection, the internal validity of the findings was enhanced (Nieveen, 2010). Due to their inexperience in the workplace, military students were not selected to participate (Long, 2005).

With regards to the NA, language types, contexts of use, and language requirements were determined by analyzing job descriptions, manuals, and language proficiency documents, using a content analysis approach (de Lange et al., 2016). The results of this analysis were then quantified through descriptive statistics, which helped prioritize tasks based on frequency, difficulty, and criticality, ultimately guiding the refinement of the task list.

Unstructured interviews with three NCO s helped identify language tasks and participants for the structured interviews, with follow-up questions focusing on task frequency, difficulty, and training necessity (Long, 2005). Participants were interviewed at their workplace, though one interview was conducted online due to availability, and two participants were interviewed simultaneously to accommodate time constraints. All interviews were transcribed verbatim for qualitative analysis (de Lange et al., 2016). To enhance interpretative validity, member checks – where participants review and verify the accuracy of the researchers’ interpretations – were conducted a week later (Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2014). Reliability was optimized through pilot coding with an independent coder, followed by benchmark sessions that achieved 90 % intercoder agreement. Post-coding, peer debriefing, and member checking followed.

The language tasks identified in the first round of interviews were further examined for task type, frequency, difficulty, language proficiency needed, and context of language use during structured interviews with six NCO s. Additional tasks identified during these interviews were added to the questionnaire.

Three structured interviews with one officer and two NCO s from army command were conducted for the context analysis. Transcripts were analyzed using focused coding on themes relevant to the research objectives, such as English proficiency requirements, current use, curriculum needs, and the future role of English in the army. To ensure reliability, the coding was piloted with an independent coder, achieving 85 % intercoder agreement.

A questionnaire with 26 identified tasks from the interviews was distributed to NCO s via an anonymous link (see Appendix) to corroborate language needs across a representative sample. This improved the reliability and validity of the earlier NA results (Long, 2005). Fifty-seven participants (98.2 % male; 85.9 % vocational education; 14.1 % pre-academic education; years of military experience, M=13, SD=6.79) completed the questionnaire, which was administered in Dutch to mitigate low response rates (Jasso-Aguilar, 2005). Using a 5-point Likert Scale, participants rated tasks, such as receiving and transmitting operational radio messages, covering frequency, difficulty, importance, training needs, and technical language use.

Final questions asked for comments and whether responses were based on deployments, military exercises, or work placements. Participants could also submit additional information. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics on task frequency, difficulty, criticality, training needs, and military English usage. A weighted scoring approach prioritized tasks based on these factors, ranking them sequentially by their overall impact on mission success and training requirements.

Two meetings were held with military and language proficiency experts. The first meeting discussed questionnaire results and identified four tasks that were deemed relevant for the curriculum. In the second meeting, tasks were rated on CEFR levels by the language proficiency experts.

This study was approved by the senior communication advisor of the Royal Netherlands Army and the Chief of Staff of the Defence Language Centre. Although no formal ethics committee review was conducted, the approval process included a review to ensure adherence to ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and confidentiality was maintained throughout the study.

With regard to language requirements for NCO s, a discrepancy was found between the qualification profile and STANAG 6001. Task types and contexts in STANAG 6001 are generic, whereas the qualification profile lists specific task types and contexts. The language proficiency standards are similar, though the qualification profile explicitly demands conversational proficiency.

The interviews and questionnaire responses identified 26 key language tasks that NCO s commonly face, emphasizing the importance of listening, speaking, and conversational skills during military operations. These tasks were encountered most frequently during deployments and multinational exercises. Participants highlighted the criticality of effective communication in international settings, particularly in tasks requiring English for radio communications, informal interactions, and issuing operational orders.

Table 1 summarizes the top five tasks based on frequency, criticality, and difficulty as reported by participants, with ratings based on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree). The task “Receive, translate, and send radio traffic” ranked highest in criticality, with participants emphasizing the challenges posed by unfamiliar accents and technical terminology. Other tasks, such as “Listening to the issue of an order” and “Informal contact with colleagues,” were rated as common but less difficult compared to radio communications.

Participants reported that radio communication in English, particularly during high-stress situations, was the most challenging task. Tasks requiring informal contact with colleagues were noted as less difficult but still essential for maintaining operational cohesion within multinational teams. The need for military-specific vocabulary was also emphasized, particularly for tasks involving reading (M = 3.93, SD = 0.57), listening to (M = 3.94, SD = 0.75), or translating an order (M = 4.03, SD = 0.60).

Participants reported several challenges when using English during deployments, military exercises, and daily work-related activities, especially in international environments. The primary difficulties included understanding unfamiliar accents, navigating limited English proficiency among international colleagues, and managing technical military jargon. These challenges were particularly noted during radio communications and when issuing operational orders, where clarity and precision were critical.

Table 2 outlines the situations on which respondents based their answers. The percentages represent the frequency of responses (f), as participants could select multiple options. The majority of responses reflected experiences from military exercises (36 %) and deployments (26 %).

Participants also noted that the lack of proficiency of international colleagues often complicated task execution, particularly in coalition operations where communication in English was necessary for mission success. Difficulties in understanding accents and low language proficiency among partners led to misunderstandings and inefficiencies, especially in operational settings that required swift and accurate communication.

Despite these challenges, participants emphasized that speaking exercises during military training were beneficial, though specialized military vocabulary was identified as an area needing improvement. Participants expressed the need for more realistic, task-based language training, particularly focused on the types of communication required during international missions.

Participants consistently reported a need for enhanced English language training, specifically in areas related to military operations and international collaboration. While basic English proficiency was considered sufficient for many tasks, participants emphasized the need for additional training in speaking and writing skills, as well as the incorporation of military-specific vocabulary. This was particularly noted for tasks involving radio communications and issuing orders.

Table 3 summarizes the top five tasks where participants indicated a need for further language training, based on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree).

Participants emphasized that the most significant training needs arose in reading and listening to orders (briefings). Reading an order or terrain description had the highest training need (M = 3.11, SD = 1.13), followed by listening to operational orders (M = 2.81, SD = 1.18) and verbally translating orders (M = 2.81, SD = 1.15).

Participants also noted that military exercises and missions exposed gaps in training, particularly when NCO s had to communicate in English under pressure. Suggestions for improvement included mission-oriented language preparation that simulates real-world scenarios, with a focus on both formal and informal communications.

During two meetings with military and language experts, key language tasks for curriculum redesign were identified. All tasks with three or more votes from the experts were prioritized. Language proficiency levels for these tasks were assessed using the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), as shown in Table 4.

Teachers and military subject matter experts assessed the tasks at A2 and B1 levels, depending on the complexity of the task and the communication required. Speaking tasks such as issuing orders were rated at A2, while listening and reading tasks were rated at B1 due to the need for higher comprehension skills.

These ratings informed the development of the redesigned curriculum, with a strong emphasis on military-specific terminology. The adoption of the CEFR scale was preferred over STANAG 6001 for two reasons: first, to ensure that soldiers’ language qualifications could be transferable to civilian career prospects, and second, because testing all military personnel at STANAG levels would require significant resources and time.

Policymakers discussed whether passing English should be a formal requirement for graduation, but no consensus was reached due to concerns about workforce shortages in the military possibly being exacerbated.

The findings from this study contribute to a growing understanding of the importance of a Needs Analysis (NA) in specialized work environments like the military. By identifying the specific language tasks and proficiency levels required, this study provides a critical resource for informing curriculum design, though that was not the primary focus. The task-based approach employed here aligns with the recommendations of Lett (2005) and Long (2005), emphasizing the value of identifying authentic, operationally relevant tasks.

These insights not only support the development of military training programs but may also serve as a foundation for future research in other specialized fields. The task-based approach used in this study, with its focus on real-world tasks and operational demands, could provide a useful framework for NA s in sectors such as aviation, healthcare, or emergency services, where clear, accurate communication is equally critical. By adapting this method to different professional contexts, researchers can better understand the language needs associated with high-stakes communication.

This research also underscores the necessity of continually updating NA s to reflect evolving operational demands, as military contexts shift and the nature of communication changes. By incorporating both military and language experts, this study ensured that the analysis aligned with the real-world needs of NCO s, offering a model for future NA s in similar fields. Although this research focused on infantry NCO s, its findings lay the groundwork for broader investigations into the language needs of other military specializations.