characteristic of Metalinguistic Feedback.
Instead, the defining characteristic of Metalinguistic Feedback is its encoding of evaluations or commentary regarding the non-target-like nature of the learner’s utterance.
By encoding direct reference to the existence of an error or to the nature of the error, Metalinguistic Feedback supplies the language learner with negative evidence regarding the target form. Lyster and Ranta (1997) go on to divide Metalinguistic Feedback into three different subcategories:
1. Metalinguistic comments,

2. Metalinguistic information,

3. Metalinguistic questions

Metalinguistic comments, the most minimally informative of the three, simply indicate the occurrence of an error. Such Metalinguistic Feedback may include a general statement that an error has occurred (e.g. Can you find your error) or may directly pinpoint the error (e.g. Not X).
The next subcategory of Metalinguistic Feedback- Metalinguistic information – goes beyond simply indicating the occurrence or location of the error and “generally provides some Metalanguage that refers to the nature of the error” (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p. 47). Thus, Metalinguistic information can provide the learners with a range of hints concerning the possible reformulation of the non-target-like form. This can range from the most general information which labels the type of error made to information regarding a more target-like alternative, particularly when there are more than two potential options. The third subcategory of Metalinguistic Feedback identified by Lyster and Ranta (1997) – Metalinguistic questions- “point to the nature of the error but attempt to elicit the information from the student”. Unlike Metalinguistic information which uses Metalanguage to label the nature of the error, Metalinguistic questions call upon the learner to reconsider their assumptions regarding the target language form (e.g. did you use dative?).
2.3.3. Major Studies on Metalinguistic Feedback
One explanation for Metalinguistic Feedback leading to higher gains on some tests is that it might have provided learners with a rich, elaborate environment in which the richness of explanations and contextual cues might have led to more efficient learning and hence better storage of information. Indeed, what makes Metalinguistic Feedback even more efficient is that it might lead to more successful uptakes on the part of the learners. The idea is learners. The idea is favored by Loewen (2007) when he argues that successful uptake can be conceptualized as the incorporation of the linguistic information provided in the feedback into the learners’ current interlanguage. Successful uptake might, then, correlate highly with efficient storage and then retrieval of linguistic information on the leaner’s part. In line with the same argument, Babaei and Khalili (2010) make the case that efficient encoding and retrieval of linguistic information are highly correlated with contextual richness when elaboration on linguistic information can persist in individuals’ working memory, and consequently, lead to encoding of information in their long-term memory for long-term retrieval.
Still another justification is that the researchers contend that in Metalinguistic Feedback, there are two modalities of elaboration. On the one hand, the very type of feedback provides further explanations on linguistic form to be incorporated into leaner’s interlanguage; on the other hand, it provides learners with further example structures where the linguistic form could appear. Accordingly, there are two modes of elaboration: explanations on errors, and examples on common usage of the linguistic form. As of elicitation and Recast, only one modality exists: in elicitation, for instance, the CMF feedback can describe the verb’s action in phrases so as to help learners identify their errors and correct them; however, no further example structures are given. In Recast, only the correct form of the phrase or linguistic form is given with no explanations on learners’ errors or example structures providing more contexts of usage. Overall, it can be argued that elaboration modality might play a key role in the efficiency of CMF feedback in terms of their immediate and long-term effects on learning linguistic structures.
Some favors the use of Metalinguistic Feedback where a combination of examples and supplementary explanations could add to the elaboration of information presented. It is suggested, therefore, that this type of feedback be incorporated in the instruction of grammar so that further elaboration on the types of structures being introduced could enhance the visual saliency and hence more efficient noticing and encoding of information in memory.

2.4. Researches Related to Pronunciation

Pronunciation has traditionally been taught with a goal of “speaking like a native speaker,” but this is not practical. In fact, it is a recipe for discouragement both for teachers and for learners. This has been referred to as “the perfection trap” (Morley1992). A more practical approach is to aim for “listener-friendly pronunciation” (Kjellin 1998). This aim makes sense to a student who hopes to achieve something through conversations with native speakers, whether in the social or business sense. If the listener finds that it takes too much effort to understand, the speaker loses out. So mastering the basics of English communication is sensible. Refinements can come later if the student wants to put more effort and time into learning nuances of spoken English.
Unfortunately, the word pronunciation tends to make people think exclusively of sounds that get confused, which has traditionally led to dependence on minimal pair drills. Both because this is inherently an unengaging activity, and because the results tend to be discouraging, it takes enormous effort on the part of the teacher to keep a class enthusiastic. Also, teachers tend to think the subject is very technical, since it is often presented that way in teacher training courses. Some teachers try hard to teach pronunciation as if it was a course in phonetics, and this also tends to discourage both teachers and students. Some course books present impractical stress and intonation rules, further burdening the teacher. Actually, the core prosodic structure of spoken English is quite simple and requires little technical terminology. If teachers become aware of the importance of discourse intonation as a simple foundation system, pronunciation becomes much more rewarding for both teachers and learners.

Chapter 3

Methodology

3.1. Introduction
This chapter explores the pronunciation error correction utilized by a group of teachers on elementary learners. Data was gathered through a Likert-type survey questionnaire which was used to investigate the extent to which Iranian English teachers are aware of the concept of Recast and Metalinguistic Feedback and their attitudes toward using them in their teaching classes and methods. Questionnaires can be a useful tool to gather survey information from a large number of people.
This study aimed at discovering what and how Iranian English teachers know and think of Recast and Metalinguistic Feedback and their effects on pronunciation of learners at elementary level, as an issue that possesses great significance in their occupation. Studying and analyzing the kind, amount and effect of feedback that learners receive during the process of language learning contribute to an appropriate environment for language learning, especially in English Foreign Language contexts in which classrooms are the main sources for language learning and the teachers (in some cases) are the only source learners expect to communicate with, and therefore, teachers are bound to correspond to the learners’ expectations in terms of questioning and feedback (Farooq, 2007).
This chapter also includes instruments and relevant information, procedures, sample and population in collecting the data that is discussed in detailed as much as possible. An explanation of collecting and analyzing the data as well as statistical formulas is provided.
The results are important as they provide an awareness of the feedback practices employed by teachers and the noticeable effects on learner learning. The results offer teachers and the noticeable effects on student learning. The results offer implications and suggestions for pronunciation error corrections within an English Second Language setting, and are considered to be useful in methodological issues related to pronunciation error correction techniques.
3.2. Participants
Iranian English teachers comprised the participants of this study. These participants were 100 teachers which consisted of 80 female teachers and 20 male teachers. Thus the participants who took part were selected from adults with the same level of proficiency and all of them were teaching the elementary learners in seven branches of Javanan Bartar institutes, so that the sample resembled the population of all Iranian English teachers.
To secure the reliable homogeneity of the selected participants and to make sure participants level of proficiency and knowledge did not intervene, the researcher used a self-assessment for teachers.
3.3. Instrumentation
The instruments for the data collection of this study was a 30-item, 5-point likert questionnaire for testing teachers’ ideas of Recast and Metalinguistic in pronunciation. A researcher- developed test of Recast and Metalinguistic Feedback in pronunciation were used to assess the participants` awareness of the principles of Recast and Metalinguistic Feedback in pronunciation. Validity was also investigated to make sure that the results of this thesis are valid.
Questionnaires can be a useful tool to gather survey information from a large number of people. This questionnaire is opinion-based and is answered by choosing from a list of options. There are several advantages to using a questionnaire format. It’s cost-effective, easy to analyze, reduces bias and is less intrusive than other survey methods. A Likert-scale is the most widely used approach to scaling responses in survey research. When responding to Likert questionnaire items, respondents specify their level of agreement or disagreement on a symmetric agree-disagree scale for a series of statements. Thus, the range captures the intensity of their feelings for a given item. A scale can be created as the simple sum questionnaire responses over the full range of scale. In so doing, Likert scaling assumes that distances on each item are equal.
The participants were asked to answer the questionnaires and then they had to answer one self-assessment to make sure participants’ level of proficiency does not intervene. As the researcher made the questionnaire, it was piloted to secure its reliability. The data of the participants were analyzed and standardized through SPSS, the reliability was