Mod 1 Discussion: Classroom Implications of Linguistic Theory

There are several reasons why refraining from correcting linguistic mistakes is important. First off, when considering the student's grade level and where they are at in language acquisition, it wouldn't do any good as the error could likely be something that the learner isn't ready to correct per the natural order hypothesis discussed in the text. Direct correction also emphasizes "learning" the language versus "acquiring" it, since it prioritizes performance of language rather than the function and shared understanding of meaning. "Weeds I pull" communicates the same thing as "I will pull weeds," and correcting that in the moment does nothing but take away from the moment (weeds could have been pulled in the time it takes to correct such a minor thing). If it isn't to bold to say, I'd say taking the time to directly correct such mistakes takes away from the "flow" state of conversation that is the ultimate goal of mastery. The text also directly states that such errors "will sort themselves out," presuming the learner continues to be given agency for their learning. 

One alternative I like to use is paraphrasing as a means of demonstrating understanding. Specifically, myself paraphrasing. Whenever I can, I try to repeat back what students are saying to me both for clarity ("okay, you are confused about x,y,z") and to try and make students feel heard ("right, so [thing happening] frustrates you because [reasons]" (to be clear, not in a call center way where its scripted and comes off as patronizing, not to say representatives mean it that way). This can intersect with language acquisition in many ways I could probably ramble on about (I apologize for already being so rambly). If a student said to me "Weeds I pull," I could reply "Awesome! Thank you for helping pull weeds." I demonstrate that pull goes before weeds in syntax, but the main thing is they are being thanked and, if they are ready, they can chew on the presented syntax of their own accord. They aren't being chastised, it's a low-stakes interaction, and they can take agency, which I believe is what the text wants to use to differentiate acquisition from a sheer act of "learning."