Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………..
IV
Dedication …………………………………………………………………………………..
V
Table Of Contents ……………………………………………………………………
VI
List Of Tables ………………………………………………………………….………
IX
List Of Figures ………………………………………………………………………..
XI
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………..
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
 
1.1. Introduction …………………………………………………………..………..
3
1.2. Statement Of The Problem ………………………………………………………
7
1.3. Research Questions ……………………………………………….………….
8
1.4. Research Hypotheses ……………………………………………..…………
8
1.5. Definition Of Important Terms ……………………………..……………….
9
1.6. Significance And Justification Of The Study……………………..………..
10
1.7. Limitations And Delimitation …………………………………………..…..
11
1.8. Purpose Of The Study……………………………………………….…………                                                                                    
12
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
 
2.1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………..…….
16
2.2. Researches Relate To Recast …………..…………………………………….
16
   2.2.1. Theoretical Background Of Recast ……………………………………  
16
   2.2.2. Problems Remaining ……………………………………………………..
17
     2.2.2.1. The Definition Of Recast ……………………………………………..
17
     2.2.2.2. Theoretical Value Of Recast ………………………………………..
22
     2.2.2.3. Practical Advantages Of Recast ………………………….…………
22
     2.2.2.4. Disadvantages Of Recasts ………………………………….………..
22
     2.2.2.5. Ambiguity Of Recast …………………………………………………
22
   2.2.3. Different Types Of Recasts …………………………………………..…..
23
   2.2.4. Claimed Implicitness Of Recast ………………………………………..
24
   2.2.5. Research Rationale ………………………………………………………
25
   2.2.6. Recast In Second And Foreign Language Acquisition Research …..
26
   2.2.7. Empirical Studies …………………………………………………………
30
     2.2.7.1. Descriptive Studies …………………………….….………………….
30
     2.2.7.2. Experimental Studies …………………………………………….….
31
2.3. Researches Related To Metalinguistic Feedback ………………..….…
33
   2.3.1. Categories Of Metalinguistic Feedback ……………………………….
33
     2.3.1.1. Syntactic Awareness ………………………..………………………..
34
     2.3.1.2. Pragmatic Awareness …………………………………….…………
37
   2.3.2. Definition Of Metalinguistic Feedback …………..…………………..
42
   2.3.3. Major Studies On Metalinguistic Feedback …………….…………
44
2.4. Researches Related To Pronunciation ……………………………………
46
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
 
3.1. Introduction ………………………………………………..………………….
48
3.2. Participants ……………………..……………………………………………..  
49
3.3. Instrumentation ………………………………………………………………
49
   3.3.1. Recast And Metalinguistic Feedback Questionnaire ………….…
50
3.4. Population And Sampling ……………………………………..……………
51
3.5. Design ……………………………………………………………………………
52
3.6. Procedure And Data Collection ……………………….……………………
52
3.7. Data Analysis …………………………………………………………………..
53
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
 
4.1.   Introduction ……………………………………………………………………
55
4.2. Restatement Of The Research Questions And Hypotheses ………..…
55
4.3. Result Of The Description ……………………………………………………
56
4.4. Descriptive Statistics Of Frequencies Procedures …………………..…
59
4.5. Test Of Normality According To The Questionnaire Scores …………..
66
4.6. Descriptive Statistics According To The Selected Options ……………..
68
4.7. Population Pyramids ………………………………………………………..
71
4.8. Pie Chart …………………………………………..……….……..……………
72
4.9. Bar Chart ………………………………………………………………………
75
4.10. Frequency Tables ……………………………………………………………………
76
4.11. Analysis Of The Data Related To The Research1st &2nd Hypotheses
91
4.12. Friedman Test …….………………………………………………..………..
92
4.13. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test …………………….………………………
93
4.14. Analysis Of The Data Related To The Research 3rd Hypothesis ……….
95
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION And 

RECOMMENDATION
 
5.1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………
97
5.2. Discussion And Conclusion …………………………………………………
97
5.3. Implication ………………………………………………………………….…
104
5.4. Recommendation ………………………………………………………..……
106
Appendices
 
Appendix A: Belief Questionnaire ………………………….…………………
109
Appendix B: Assessment …………………………………….……………….….
113
Appendix C: Pilot Data …………………………….………………..…………..
114
Appendix D: Pilot Statistics …………………….……….……………..………..
117
Appendix E: Questionnaire Data ………………………………………….……
118
Appendix F: Questionnaire Scores ……………………………………….……
127
References ……………………………………………………………………………..
128
Abstract In Farsi ……………………………………………………………………..
136
 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Definition Of Recast …………………………………………………….
17
Table 4.1: Reliability Statistics Of The Questionnaire ………………………………
56
Table 4.2. Rotated Component Matrix ………………..……………………………
57
Table 4.3: Reliability Statistics Of The First Ten Questionnaire ……………………
58
Table 4.4: Reliability Statistics Of The Second Ten Questionnaire …………………
59
Table 4.5: Reliability Statistics Of The Third Ten Questionnaire ………….……….
59
Table 4.6: Descriptive Statistics Of 3 Groups Of The Questions ……………………
60
Table 4.7: Tests Of Normality According To The Scores ……………………………
66
Table 4.8: Statistics Of Questions 1-10……………………………..……………….
68
Table 4.9: Statistics Of Questions 11-20…………………………………………….
68
Table 4.10: Statistics Of Questions 21-30 …………………………..………………
68
Table 4.11: Q1 Frequency …………………………………………………………
76
Table 4.12: Q2 Frequency …………………………………………………………
77
Table 4.13: Q3 Frequency …………………………………………………………
77
Table 4.14: Q4 Frequency …………………………………………………………
78
Table 4.15: Q5 Frequency …………………………………………………………
78
Table 4.16: Q6 Frequency …………………………………………………………
79
Table 4.17: Q7 Frequency …………………………………………………………
79
Table 4.18: Q8 Frequency …………………………………………………………
80
Table 4.19: Q9 Frequency …………………………………………………………
80
Table 4.20: Q10 Frequency ………………………………………………………..
81
Table 4.21: Q11 Frequency ………………………………………………………..
81
Table 4.22: Q12 Frequency ………………………………………………………..
82
Table 4.23: Q13 Frequency ………………………………………………………..
82
Table 4.24: Q14 Frequency ………………………………………………………..
83
Table 4.25: Q15 Frequency ………………………………………………………..
83
Table 4.26: Q16 Frequency ………………………………………………………..
84
Table 4.27: Q17 Frequency ………………………………………………………..
84
Table 4.28: Q18 Frequency ………………………………………………………..
85
Table 4.29: Q19 Frequency ………………………………………………………..
85
Table 4.30: Q20 Frequency ………………………………………………………..
86
Table 4.31: Q21 Frequency ………………………………………………………..
86
Table 4.32: Q22 Frequency ………………………………………………………..
87
Table 4.33: Q23 Frequency ………………………………………………………..
87
Table 4.34: Q24 Frequency ………………………………………………………..
88
Table 4.35: Q25 Frequency ………………………………………………………..
88
Table 4.36: Q26 Frequency ………………………………………………………..
89
Table 4.37: Q27 Frequency …………………………………………………..……
89
Table 4.38: Q28 Frequency ………………………………………………………..
90
Table 4.39: Q29 Frequency ………………………………………………………..
90
Table 4.40: Q30 Frequency ………………………………………………………..
91
Table 4.41: Friedman Test………………………………………………………….
93
Table 4.42: Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test…………………………………………..
94

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1. Frequency Histogram Of Scores Q1-Q10 ………………………………..
63
Figure 4.2. Frequency Histogram Of Scores Q11-Q20…………………………….
64
Figure 4.3. Frequency Histogram Of Scores Q21-Q30…………………………..
65
Figure 4.4. Boxplot Of 3 Groups Of Questions ………………………………………
67
Figure 4.5. Frequency Mean Comparison Of Scores Q11-Q20 & Q21-Q30 ………
71
Figure 4.6. Mean Pie Chart Of Q1-Q10 ……………………………………………..
72
Figure 4.7. Mean Pie Chart Of Q11-Q20 ……………………………………………
73
Figure 4.8. Mean Pie Chart Of Q21-Q30 ……………………………………………
74
Figure 4.9. Mean Bar Chart Of Q11-Q20 & Q21-Q30 …………………………….
75
 

ABSTRACT

This study investigated teachers’ perceptions about the effects of Recast and Metalinguistic Feedback on Pronunciation of Elementary Learners. This study examined teachers’ preferences for pronunciation error correction and compared the differences between them, suggesting more effective ways of treating learners’ pronunciation errors in English Second Language settings. Recast and Metalinguistic Feedback are two important correction feedbacks which have great effects on language teaching and learning strategies. Therefore understanding learners` pronunciation mistakes and knowing teachers` perceptions have always been one of the highly controversial issues among language teaching experts. The purpose of this study was the preferences for pronunciation error correction among teachers. One hundred adult English Second Language teachers in seven branches of Javanan Bartar Institute participated in this survey. They were selected from adults with the same level of proficiency and all of them were teaching elementary learners. The results revealed that the teachers agreed that pronunciation error correction especially Recast is necessary for L2 improvement. In general there were more significant differences between the teachers regarding Recast than those teachers who considered Metalinguistic Feedback.

Key words: Recast, Metalinguistic Feedback, Pronunciation                                                                    

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1. Introduction

One of the main areas of research in second language is the significance of pronunciation error correction and its subsequent effects on language learning. Looking at the teacher and learner interaction allows us to examine the type of language communication that is practiced within the classrooms. Although studies have been conducted on teacher’s feedback, limited research is known about teacher’s verbal or immediate feedback in the classroom. This study provides an awareness of the feedback practices employed in the classroom interaction and learner learning.

In the context of teaching and learning languages, various definitions of the term feedback have been proposed. Most of these definitions indicate that feedback refers to informing learners about their work in progress. More specifically, this form of interaction shows learners their errors and guides them to correct their work (Ur, 1996; Lewis, 2002). An important point that needs consideration concerns the purpose of providing feedbacks. According to Boud (2002), “A good feedback is given without personal judgment or opinion, given based on the facts, always neutral and objective, constructive and focus on the      future” (p.7).

Thus, the use of appropriate and qualified type feedback can be viewed as a significant tool in enhancing learner learning. Mastropieri and Scruggs (1994) expounded that feedbacks should be outcome-focused and encouraging. However, Lenz, Ellis and Scanlon (1996) suggested that not only should feedback focus on what learners did incorrectly, but also on matters to improve future accomplishments. Attending to these forms of feedback would facilitate teachers in identifying learners’ needs and more likely to see positive outcome from learners.

Among the studies about error correction, recast has proved to be the most frequent error correction. Recast is one type of interactional feedback that has received much attention in second language acquisition .It involves the teacher’s reformulation of all or part of a learner’s utterance, minus the error and it often takes the form of confirmation checks. Spada and Frohlich (1995; cited in Lyster and Randa 1997) also referred to such reformulations as “paraphrase”. Recasts are generally implicit in that they are not introduced by phrases such as “You mean,” “Use this word,” and “You should say”. However, some Recasts are more salient than others in that they may focus on one word only, whereas others incorporate the grammatical or lexical modifications into a sustained piece of discourse. Recasts also include translations in response to a learner’s use of the first language (Lyster and Randa, 1997).

A Recast is a technique used in language teaching to correct learners’ errors in such a way that is not obstructed. To Recast an error, a teacher will repeat the error back to the learner in a corrected form. Recasts are used both by teachers in formal educational settings, and by adults to improve children’s native language skills. A frequently used technique is for the adult to imitate the child’s speech. In this form of Recast, the adult repeats the child’s incorrect phrases incorrect form. This enables the child to learn the correct pronunciation, grammar and sentence structure. Recasts can be used for teaching second languages. In this form the Recast is usually more than a simple repeating of the learner’s words. The teacher will correct the learners’ errors but also extend the learning by additional words or phrases (such as asking a question). Recasts are provided only when learners failed to provide the correct form. Once provided, the learners are required to repeat the teachers’ reformulation.

Recasts draw learner’s attention to mismatches between input and output and cause them to focus on form. The learner  modifies  his utterance by repeating the feedback. However, Recasts are much less likely to lead to immediate self-correction by the learners, relatively speaking, than are other feedback types. Recasts are well suited to communicative classroom discourse, because they tend not to interrupt the flow of communication, keep learners’   attention focused on meaning, and provide scaffolds that enable learners to participate in interaction that requires linguistic abilities exceeding