This article suggests linguodidactic strategies and techniques for enhancing communicative ability in military English education. The framework combines well-known models of communicative competence, NATO language competency standards, and results from applied research on education that is focused on tasks, content, and culture. There are 10 different methods described and explained, including scenario-driven training, content-and-language integration, corpus-informed lexicon development, and technology-mediated simulations. A sample 10-week program shows how to put the ideas into practice, and there are assessment rubrics that match the NATO STANAG 6001 descriptions. Conceptual and mission-phase alignment diagrams show how the approaches are systematically designed. The results show that using a mix of task-based, content-focused, multicultural, and digital methods is the best way to improve communication skills in the military.  

Communicative competence, military English, STANAG 6001

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.

Bureau for International Language Coordination (BILC). (2022). NATO Benchmark Advisory Test (BAT) Guidelines. Brussels: NATO.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1

Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112–130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061

Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages

Cotos, E., Link, S., & Huffman, S. (2017). A principled approach to corpus-based materials development for writing. Language Learning & Technology, 21(3), 192–218.

Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC). (2024). Using target language in military classrooms: Evidence-based practices. Monterey, CA: DLIFLC Press.

Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: Sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00231.x

Godwin-Jones, R. (2020). Emerging technologies: Microlearning and mobile-assisted language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 24(2), 1–12.

House, J., & Rehbein, J. (2004). What is ‘intercultural competence’? In A. Mauranen & E. Ventola (Eds.), Language for Special Purposes (pp. 247–272). Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/1lp.5.17hou

Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Penguin.

Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833767

NATO Standardization Office. (2021). STANAG 6001: Language Proficiency Levels (Edition 5). Brussels: NATO.

Salaberri, S. (2019). ESP for the military: Designing task-based syllabi for operational needs. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 25(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.20420/rlfe.2019.252