A Comparison of Native-English Speakers and Non-Native English Speakers" (2013)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Dissertations and Theses 3-2013 Analyzing Communication Performance: A Comparison of Native- English Speakers and Non-Native English Speakers Tami Marie Gibbs Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University - Daytona Beach Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/edt Part of the Aviation Commons, and the Communication Commons Scholarly Commons Citation Gibbs, Tami Marie, "Analyzing Communication Performance: A Comparison of Native-English Speakers and Non-Native English Speakers" (2013). Dissertations and Theses. 71. https://commons.erau.edu/edt/71 This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ANALYZING COMMUNICATION PERFORMANCE: A COMPARISON OF NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS AND NON-NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS by Tami Marie Gibbs A Thesis Submitted to the College of Aviation Department of Applied Aviation Sciences in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Aeronautics Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Daytona Beach, Florida March 2013 Acknowledgements I want to first thank God for the gentle pushes he gave me to pursue a degree in the Master of Science program at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU). I began my thesis in Dr. Smith’s Research Methods and Statistics course, and I am so thankful that she was available to guide me through to the end. It is with true adoration that I thank Dr. Smith for being my mentor; you have strengthened both my academic skills and confidence. I want to thank my sister Sherri for her gift of a lifetime of love and laughter. Sherri knows me better than anyone does, and her advice for me to return to school was brilliant. I thank my Dad for cheering me on in both my accomplishments and struggles. My brother Rick has always had a unique positive perspective on life; I cherish his advice and analytical skills. I am grateful for my family and their inexhaustible supplies of love and support. Last, I would like to thank the dream team. These are all the people who ensured the puzzle pieces came together for my thesis. I would like to thank: - Clyde Rinkinen. You are a dedicated educator, and I am thankful to have your expertise for my thesis. - Dr. Guy Smith for always having an open door, taking time to listen, and for helping me find solutions to challenges I faced. - Dr. Coyne for inspiring me to commit to doing my thesis. You gave me a push in the right direction and were always available to help. - Dean Brady and the College of Aviation for generously funding my research. iii - Ken Byrnes for approving my equipment and assisting me in advertising for participants. - Derek Herchko for testing my recording equipment. - Good friends I have come to know while at ERAU. Thank you for taking this journey by my side. Your friendship was very important in the process of my academic and personal growth. iv Abstract Researcher: Tami Marie Gibbs Title: Analyzing Communication Performance: A Comparison of Native-English Speakers and Non-Native English Speakers Institution: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Degree: Master of Science in Aeronautics Year: 2013 The purpose of this thesis was to research how well native and non-native English speakers proficiently communicated using learned Air Traffic Control (ATC) phraseology, and how well they communicated using plain phraseology. The participants in this study were Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU) flight students at the Daytona Beach campus. This study used a sample of students from English-speaking countries and a sample of students from non-English speaking countries. A quantified study of the types of communication errors was conducted by listening to a pre-defined amount of voice communications between the Daytona Beach International Airport tower facility and ERAU flight student participants. In addition to analyzing the types of communication errors, this study determined if the participants met minimum English Language Proficiency (ELP) standards. There was no significant difference in communication errors between the two groups. Both groups met minimum English Language Proficiency (ELP) standards. v Table of Contents Page Thesis Review Committee .................................................................................................. ii Acknowledgements............................................................................................................ iii Abstract................................................................................................................................v List of Tables .......................................................................................................................x List of Figures.................................................................................................................. xiii Chapter I Introduction..................................................................................................1 Background of the Problem .............................................................1 Significance of the Study.................................................................2 Statement of the Problem.................................................................3 Purpose Statement............................................................................5 Hypotheses.......................................................................................5 Delimitations....................................................................................7 Limitations .......................................................................................7 Assumptions.....................................................................................8 Definition of Terms..........................................................................9 List of Acronyms ...........................................................................12 II Review of the Relevant Literature .............................................................14 Interpreting Communication..........................................................14 Global Language............................................................................18 International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)........................22 vi ICAO Standards.............................................................................26 Communication Rating Scale ........................................................29 Phraseology Regulation .................................................................33 Order JO 7110.65 and the Aeronautical Information Manual ...............................................................................33 Read Back ..........................................................................34 Phraseology....................................................................................34 ATC Phraseology...............................................................35 ICAO’s ATC Phraseology .................................................37 ICAO Versus FAA Phraseology........................................37 Plain Language...................................................................38 Native Versus Non-Native English Speaker......................40 ERAU Aeronautical Science (AS) Flight Students .......................41 ERAU Language Institute..............................................................43 Summary........................................................................................47 III Methodology..............................................................................................49 Introduction....................................................................................49 Research Approach ........................................................................50 Pretest.................................................................................50 Design and Procedures...................................................................50 Apparatus and Materials ................................................................55 Population/Sample.........................................................................56 Sources of the Data ........................................................................57 Data Collection Device..................................................................57 vii Questionnaire .....................................................................57 Radiotelephony Recording.................................................58 Instrument Reliability ........................................................58 Instrument Validity ............................................................58 Treatment of the Data ....................................................................58 Descriptive Statistics..........................................................60 Reliability Testing..............................................................60 Hypotheses Testing............................................................60 Qualitative Data .............................................................................62 IV Results........................................................................................................63 Descriptive Statistics......................................................................63 Reliability Testing..........................................................................71