In The Name of Allah,
The Gracious,
The Merciful
Islamic Azad University
Mazandaran Science and Research Branch
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
The Degree of M.A in TEFL

Title:
Teachers’ Perceptions About The Effects Of Recast And Metalinguistic
Feedback On Pronunciation Of Elementary Learners

Thesis Advisor:
Dr. Shaban Barimani Varandi
Consulting Advisor:
Dr. Babak Mahdavi
By:
Soheila Pourarian

Winter 2014

We hereby recommend this thesis by Soheila Pourarian, entitled “Teachers’ Perceptions About The Effects Of Recast And Metalinguistic Feedback On Pronunciation Of Elementary Learners” be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for degree of master of art in teaching English as a foreign language.

Committee on oral examination:

Dr. Shaban Barimani Varandi (Thesis Advisor)

Dr. Babak Mahdavi (Consulting Advisor)

Dr. Shaban Barimani Varandi (Head of the Department)

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to many people who have helped me both directly and indirectly. First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my Supervisor, Dr. Shaban Barimani, who kindly provided me with a great deal of valuable feedback on nearly every aspect of this thesis. His enthusiasm, guidance and support helped me in all the time of research and writing of this thesis.
I would like to thank my Advisor, Dr. Babak Mahdavi, for his encouragement and insightful comments.
I am grateful to the two directors who permitted me to conduct this research at their institutes. I would also like to thank all of the teachers who participated in the survey and allowed me to visit their classes.
Finally, I extend my love and gratitude to my husband, Mr. Mohammad Derakhshanpour, and my family for their support, encouragement, and understanding.

Dedication:

To Dr. Shaban Barimani

My kind parents and husband

Who always cross their fingers

whenever I swim in the sea of troubles.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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