professors and researchers to gain a better understanding of Recast and Metalinguistic Feedback and to determine which type is more effective for learner pronunciation accuracy and retention according to the perceptions of teachers.
Second, as teachers are expected to seek the best methods and techniques to help learners to learn, one important issue to consider is the kind of feedback learners should receive to remove their pronunciation errors. Giving learners the appropriate kind of feedback improves their conditions of learning. However, learners’ proficiency in the language affects effectiveness. Few studies have explored how teacher factors affect learner perceptions of Recast and Metalinguistic Feedback.
Third, finding out the effects of Recast and Metalinguistic Feedback on learners` pronunciation among different teachers’ perceptions, is also useful for both teachers and learners. Teacher-learner rapports also mediate learners’ attention to and understanding of feedback. By knowing the result, learners can learn faster and teachers also can use strategies and aids in their teaching that enhance their teaching power.
Fourth, since this study presented a description about the teachers’ perceptions and evaluation of them, it can be helpful and effective for teachers in the outset and meanwhile service courses. Through this way the people who are teachers and the ones who are going to be teachers get to know the experienced teachers’ perceptions about Recast and Metalinguistic feedback and the effects of them on learners’ pronunciation. They can employ these feedbacks in their teachings methods.
Fifth, the usage of corrective feedback helps adults to improve children’s native language skills. It is likely that the role of Recast and Metalinguistic Feedback are most important the early stages of learning a language. Parents use Recast and Metalinguistic Feedback on children plenty when children are still learning their mother tongues. These techniques enable the child to learn the correct pronunciation and other materials in his/ her language. This study helped at discovering the teachers’ perceptions about how and when English teachers treat errors of the learners, as an issue that has considerable importance in their field of study and even in their occupation.
1.7. Limitations and Delimitation
This study was based on the assumption that the sample does actually represent the population, that is, the English teachers participating in this study do not represent all Iranian English teachers. The present study is limited in that the number of participants was small, so it is difficult to make a generalization.
The study didn’t take account of participants’ age and subjects were adults because it required adequacy in their perception and thus was equally concerned with their knowledge and opinion. However, issues such as the educational status of the participants, their years of experience, and the institution where they work, are of interest to this research.
This study didn’t take account of participants’ gender and subjects were from both genders.
This research scrutinized teachers’ awareness of, and their attributes toward the effects of Recast and Metalinguistic Feedback on Elementary learners’ pronunciation so it didn’t consider other educational levels, nor other language elements such as grammar, vocabulary, etc that are related to education in general.
Moreover, the study was not aimed to examine teachers’ application of this concept in their classes, and emphasized only what and how they think of the concept, as defined in their own field.
1.8. Purpose of the study
This study examined teachers’ and learners’ preferences for error correction and compared the differences between them, suggesting more effective ways of treating learners’ spoken errors in English Second Language settings. As indicated previously, Recast and Metalinguistic feedback have been investigated under a variety of contexts and thus have been defined in many different ways. According to research in the field of corrective feedback, Recast and Metalinguistic Feedback are facilitative of and beneficial to L2 learners’ interlanguage development. Many factors that may have an influence on the efficacy of Recast and Metalinguistic Feedback have been researched.
Inevitably most teachers have experienced the frustrations of correcting the same mistakes over and over instead of listening to a learner’s flawless English speaking. Teachers, however, need to be careful when providing corrective feedback because pronunciation error corrections have both positive and negative effects. The positive effects of pronunciation error correction can make language learning more effective since it helps L2 learners notice the gap between their utterances and the target forms. This can promote changes in their inerlanguage systems and lead them to the next linguistic developmental stage.
Moreover, when learners understand that making mistakes is a part of the learning process, and their teachers try to help them learn target forms, they are likely to take risks and build up confidence through practice.
On the other hand, the negative effects can hinder learners’ language development rather than facilitate learning since pronunciation error correction may create barriers between teachers and their learners and raise the learners’ level of anxiety. This can prevent learners from acquiring communicative ability by making them hesitant to speak and afraid to make mistakes.
One big question marked on the top of language the researchers’ heads is the way pronunciation error correction occurs through various corrective feedback techniques. Questions like how to treat errors, when to treat errors, which types of errors to be treated are the main questions directing this line of research. The present study was conducted to solve the dilemma about the affection of the correction on the learners and to make decision about the way pronunciation error correction occurs.
Nowadays, if one considers the program of many colleges and universities, the goal of improving learners’ pronunciation by using corrective feedback is within their educational goals statements. However, most of the universities and institutes do not use these techniques in practice. By conducting this study, the researcher not only emphasizes on how important Recast and Metalinguistic Feedback are, but also considers the relationship that exists between corrective feedback and level of learning. If this existence is proved, both teacher and learner can benefit in their teaching and learning and they can decrease the pronunciation mistakes by improving the ability of the usage of corrective feedback during the educational times.
Chapter 2

Review of Literature

2.1. Introduction
This chapter provides different existing research and definitions of the relevant concepts to ensure a good groundwork for the current study. Reviewing other researches relating to the variables being discussed in this study provides a perspective to see other relevant studies and supplies the justification for this study.
2.2. Researches Relate to Recast
2.2.1. Theoretical Background of Recast
The theoretical foundation of research on Recast rests on Long’s (1983, 1996) Interaction Hypothesis. Interaction research began in the 1980s. Initially, it was descriptive in nature. Long (1983) attempted to provide an explanatory framework for the descriptive data. His Initial version of interaction hypothesis purported that interaction promoted development by facilitating comprehension, which in turn fostered development. In the mid-1990s, researchers began to move toward demonstrating empirically that interaction was useful. For example, Gass and Varonis (1994) and Ellis, Tanaka and Yamazaki (1994) showed positive effects for interaction.
These developments prompted Long to reformulate the interaction hypothesis and stated that “negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments by the native speaker or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways” (Long, 1996: 451-452). This hypothesis activated a whole line of interaction in SLA, and researchers began to explore the effects of specific interactional features on L2 development, such as Recasts, prompts, models (Long, Inagaki, & Ortega, 1998) and syntactic priming (McDonugh & Mackey, 2008). It was from this that evolved the research into the study of Recast.
2.2.2. Problems Remaining

Due to the complex nature of Recast, there are still two crucial issues that need careful consideration, and possible solution to these issues provides a rationale for the present study. The definition of recast

Nicholas et al. (2001) and Ellis and Sheen (2006) in their reviews of Recast literature pointed out that Recast researchers have failed to solve their definitional differences. This is perhaps the most serious problem, because it makes it very difficult to compare the results obtained by different studies, given that, more often than not, these studies are not looking at the same thing. Table 1 illustrates this point.
Table 2.1. Definitions of Recast

Reference Definition

Lyster & Ranta (1997:66) Recasts involve the teacher’s reformulation of all or part of a learner’s utterance minus the error
Sheen (2006: 365) Recasts are defined as “the teacher’s reformulation of all or part of a student’s utterance that contains at least one error within the context of a communicative activity in the classroom,”
Long (2007: 77) A corrective recast may be defined as a reformulation of all or part of a learner’s Immediately preceding utterance in which one or more non-targetlike (lexical, grammatical, etc.) items are replaced by the corresponding target language form(s), and where, throughout the exchange, the focus of the interlocutors is on meaning not language as an object.

The definitions in Table 2.1 are subtly but significantly different. Long’s (2007) definition makes reference to the interlocutors’ orientation in interaction. Sheen’s (2006) definition refers to the context of interaction. In contrast, Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) definition mentions neither of these two aspects. Therefore, their definition would include Recasts that have a focus on form, while Long’s (2007) definition seeks to exclude such form-focused Recast. Moreover, the operational definitions differ even more greatly. For example, in Doughty and Varela’s (1998) study, Recasts were operationalized as follows: When a learner produced an error in past reference, the teacher repeated the learner’s incorrect utterance, putting emphasis on the incorrect form through rising intonation. Learners were then given a chance to self-correct or peer-correct the error. Recasts were provided only when