It is a tendency among teachers to correct students' mistakes directly.
For example, when a student says, My father goed to the office, the teacher blames the student.
Since it is a sign of learning and the student has learnt to use the morpheme ed but he did not know that go is an irregular verb. The teacher might say, "You are correct. Your father went to the office."
I think it is motherese, which is the talk between a mother and her child when it is acquiring its mother tongue in an informal and caring way.
My question is:
Is indirect negative evidence better than direct negative evidence?
Direct negative evidence means saying that something is wrong directly to the child by the teacher.
In my question, My father goed to the office the teacher did not say that the student was wrong directly but corrected indirectly by uttering the correct word went.
Even in native English speaking countries the child utters goed instead of went it was acquiring the language. So it is natural for nonnative speakers to make the same mistake. It happens with regard to irregular verbs even in native English speaking countries.
What usually happens in the class is teacher says to the student that goed is wrong. It should be corrected as went. And even says you are coining new words and so on.
Some linguists say that direct negative evidence does not help in the correction of grammatical mistakes by the learners.
In motherse the mother does not correct the child.
For example if the child says "It is a crow" instead of a cuckoo, the mother says cuckoo but does not say that it is not a crow but it is a cuckoo.
Linguists say that if the instruction is like motherse and indirect, negative evidence language acquisition takes place naturally.
I think it is possible and preferrable to use indirect negative in the language class room.
I attach here a link to make things clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_evidence_in_language_acquisition