Abstract:

This study investigates the language assessment literacy (LAL) of military professionals in relation to standardized language testing aligned with NATO STANAG 6001 (Standardization Agreement 6001). While LAL has been extensively examined in civilian educational contexts, comparatively little attention has been paid to how military personnel understand, interpret, and engage with high-stakes language assessments that directly influence career progression and eligibility for international deployment. Given the significant role that STANAG 6001 test results play in the professional trajectories of Czech military personnel, language assessment literacy is of critical importance in this context.

The research examines three groups of military personnel:
(1) trainees enrolled in formal language courses;
(2) academic staff required to meet language standards without participating in structured language training; and
(3) operational soldiers expected to fulfil the same requirements independently.

A validated questionnaire was developed to assess participants’ awareness of test format and difficulty, access to preparatory resources, opportunities to engage with sample and mock tests, perceptions of test fairness, and attitudes toward the legitimacy and relevance of language requirements.

The findings reveal several key patterns. First, across all groups, a “transparency paradox” emerges: high familiarity with test format does not correspond to a clear understanding of evaluation criteria. Second, STANAG 6001 certification is rarely achieved on a first attempt; the repeat-test phenomenon is widespread, with 73.8% of trainees and 51.1% of Ministry of Defence employees reporting multiple attempts. Third, the data highlight a significant bottleneck in the preparatory phase: for participants outside formal instruction, access to mock examinations is markedly limited, with only 14.3% of academic staff reporting sufficient resources.

Furthermore, only 28.4% of trainees perceive a direct alignment between test content and their operational duties, raising questions about the perceived validity of the assessment. Finally, respondents identify institutional digital infrastructure as a barrier to transparency: although supplementary platforms (e.g., YouTube, Moodle) are valued, inefficiencies in the primary website architecture hinder effective access to essential information.

Keywords:

Language testing, assesment, validity, language assessment literacy.