Accelerative Learning:
Wonder method or
pseudo-scientifi c
gobbledygook?
By Uschi Felix Published by Melbourne, 2006Accelerative Learning: Wonder method or pseudo-scientific gobbledygook?
By Uschi Felix
ISBN: 1 876339 46 2
Cover Design, Typesetting and Layout: Gabrielle Markus Photography: Steph Tout
Published by CAE Press First Published 2006
©
Uschi Felix. With the exception of Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 copyright in this document is owned by Uschi Felix.No parts may be reproduced by any process except with the written permission of the copyright holders or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act.
For further information contact: CAE Publications Level 5, 253 Flinders Lane Melbourne VIC 3163 AUSTRALIA
The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of CAE.
Contents
Foreword
vIntroduction
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
Part I. Background
Chapter 2. The evolution of Accelerative Learning 13 from Lozanov to the present
Introduction 13
Suggestopedia 14
Adaptations of the Lozanov model 20
Superlearning 21 Suggestive Accelerative Learning and Teaching (SALT) 28 Psychopädie 31
Summary 35
Part II. Literature Review
Chapter 3. The effects of music, relaxation and 39 suggestion in the learning environment.
Introduction 39
Music 40 Relaxation 51
Suggestion 59
Chapter 4 A critical analysis of the claims made for 69 Accelerative Learning
Introduction 69
Lozanov’s research 70
Western research 80
Non-experimental studies, Experimental and quasi-experimental studies
General conclusions: research claims 105
Part III. Empirical Investigations
Chapter 5. A quasi-experimental investigation of the 109 effects of Accelerative Learning on behaviour,
self-concept, attitude and achievement in the natural secondary school language class.
Introduction 109
Method 110
Results 114
Discussion 129
Chapter 6. An experimental investigation of the 135 effects of Accelerative Learning on language
learning, language self-concept and attitude in the primary school.
Introduction 135 Method 137 Results 141 Discussion 148
Chapter 7. The effects of Accelerative Learning 153 on the functional use of language in a year 10
German class.
Introduction 153
Method 155
Results 161 Discussion 167
Chapter 8. Conclusions and recommendations 173
for research
Bibliography
183Foreword
I have long been intrigued by Suggestopedia and sought a contemporary adaptation of the original version. Uschi Felix, a highly respected language education scholar, provides exactly this, a contemporary, researched, thought-through adaptation. Long controversial, Suggestopedia is one of those fringe methods that has aroused either scepticism or cynicism, adulation or imitation; but more careful refl ection should induce us to listen, learn, adapt and refl ect. Felix tackles the controversy surrounding the method in three important new ways. First, and probably for the fi rst time, she assembles an illuminating overview of its evolution from Lozanov’s earliest conceptualisation to the present day. Second, Felix critically examines claims made for Suggestopedia in the entire body of research conducted into its effectiveness. Third, she conducts three innovative investigations addressing important gaps in this research. These studies are not only superb models of controlled research designs, but also, again for the fi rst time, look at affective variables, such as self-concept and on-task behaviour in the natural school environment. Felix concludes that a great deal of pseudo-scientifi c gobbledygook has been promulgated about Accelerative Learning. However, her rigorous warts-and-all analysis also presents a substantial body of credible, valid evidence that should persuade us to take “a second look at an approach whose core values echo what good language teachers have long embraced as pedagogically sound”. For this we should all be very grateful.
Joseph LoBianco Professor of Language and Literacy The University of Melbourne
Chapter 1
Introduction
Kopf, Herz und Hand.[Head, heart and hand] Pestalozzi
Accelerative Learning, originally known as Suggestopedia, has been the subject of confusion and controversy. Comments have ranged from the damaging at one extreme (Scovel 1979:258):
...suggestopedy, taken as a self-contained method for language instruction, offers at best nothing much that can be of benefi t to present day, eclectic EFL programs, and at worst nothing more than an oversold package of pseudoscientifi c gobbledygook!
to the fantastic at the other (Ostrander & Schroeder 1979:43): With the Bulgarian approach, 500 words a day was just ‘Mach1’. By 1966, a group learned 1000 words in a day, and by 1974, a rate of 1800 words a day was charted. In 1977, Lozanov reported, some tests showed people capable of absorbing even 3000 words per day.
Having examined the method from both a theoretical and a practical viewpoint, it can be said with confi dence that neither of the above descriptions bears a resemblance either to the nature of Suggestopedia or to the realistic claims that can be made for the effectiveness of the approach.
There are several reasons for the confusion and controversy associated with Suggestopedia. When the method emerged in Europe and North America in the late 1960s it appeared to be shrouded in mystery since only incomplete information was available from Bulgaria. In this environment of defi cient information the Western popular press was quick to sensationalise the isolated bits of research that became available, a practice to this day continued by some commercial enterprises for better advertisement of their courses. To make things worse, several different versions of the approach were introduced, some contributing substantial changes to the original Suggestopedia. Descriptors for the approach were often used interchangeably,
with Superlearning being used for commercial courses while Suggestopedia and especially SALT (Suggestive Accelerative Learning and Teaching) were the versions most frequently used in experimental research. The terms Accelerative learning and Accelerated Learning also emerged. In the interest of clarity we will throughout this book use Accelerative Learning as a generic term to refer to all versions collectively, while individual versions will be referred to by their specifi c names.
Historical Background
The original version of the method was devised by Georgi Lozanov, a Bulgarian medical doctor, psychotherapist, Yogi and educator. In the 1950s and 1960s Lozanov was researching suggestion largely in the area of medicine, psychotherapy and parapsychology in Sofi a. This fi eld of research became known as Suggestology. Lozanov used suggestion in a waking state (in his view in contrast to hypnosis) in the treatment of skin diseases, ulcers and allergies, in a limited number of organic diseases, and for psychological disorders. He also experimented with reducing sensitivity to pain under extreme conditions such as surgical operations. In a controversial example, Lozanov successfully sustained anaesthetization during a hernia operation lasting fi fty minutes which was fi lmed and subsequently reported at the International Psychosomatic Congress in Rome in 1967 (Lozanov 1978). Nowadays, of course, these procedures are no longer deemed sensational and are included quite frequently in the practice of dentistry.
Lozanov became interested in applying the principles of Suggestology to the learning process. Together with a team of experts he created a unique teaching approach which he called Suggestopedia. The term simply meant what it represented linguistically, namely learning through suggestion.
Following his experiences with suggestology and psychotherapy, Lozanov (1978) formulated the following principles of Suggestopedia.
■ Learning is characterised by joy and the absence of tension. ■ Learning takes place on both a conscious and an unconscious level. ■ The learner’s reserve potential can be tapped through suggestion.
Joy and absence of tension
Suggestopedic classes were designed to take place in a physically pleasant environment, away from conventional academic surroundings. Classrooms look more like sitting rooms with comfortable easy chairs, plants and colourful posters. Ideally, class size is restricted to a maximum of 15 students.
of what may be called a positive suggestive atmosphere. Music plays a strategic role in this endeavour. The tone is exclusively positive and non-threatening, emphasis is given to co-operation and support rather than to competition, and students are encouraged to function at the highest level of their academic potential. While all this is equally emphasised in good Communicative Teaching (Widdowson 1978, Brumfi t 1979), in Humanistic Language Teaching (Moskovitz 1978) and even in more recent constructivist approaches (Felix 2002, 2003; Jonassen 1991, 1996), Suggestopedia has at its disposal more powerful means to realise these conditions. The unique combination of suggestion and music has the potential to create a state of relaxed alertness in the students which Lozanov (1978) calls concentrative psychorelaxation, a state which is not only generally perceived as pleasant, but which is also claimed to enhance learning (Lozanov 1978).
Unity of conscious and unconscious processes
Lozanov (1977:3) believes that the “inhibition of unconscious functions during the consciously directed learning process does not correspond to the natural, dialectic, inseparable link between conscious and unconscious processes”. This is not meant to imply that unconscious functions remain completely unutilised in conventional teaching approaches (Lozanov 1978:259). Lozanov’s system simply draws more attention to the importance of these functions and to ways in which they can effectively be integrated into the instruction process. In practical terms this principle is observed in suggestopedic teaching at all times. It is best demonstrated by looking at the behaviour of the teacher and at the presentation of the materials. The role of the teacher is paramount in Suggestopedia. Lozanov expects a great deal from his teachers. While most of the positive characteristics he outlines (Lozanov 1978:187) are equally required in other successful teaching methods, Lozanov gives special attention to dual plane behaviour. This means that the teachers’ verbal behaviour has to be completely congruous with their unconscious non-verbal behaviour. Paralinguistic phenomena such as gestures, mimicry, eye contact and posture are very important in communication and especially in persuasion. Teachers will not succeed in convincing students that learning will be easy and successful while shuffl ing about nervously and avoiding eye contact with the students. Lozanov (1978:194) suggests that mastery of dual plane behaviour is not achieved through practice which would render the technique artifi cial, but through sincerity.
Paralinguistic elements are also included in the presentation of the materials in Suggestopedia, in particular during the introduction of materials and during the active concert session when verbal language is accompanied by appropriate body language (various elements are discussed in detail in Chapter 2). In this way students perceive the language material simultaneously on a conscious and on an unconscious level. Studies by Baur and Grzybek (1984) and Schiffl er (1992) indicate that learning may
Chapter 3
The three major elements common to most versions of Accelerative Learning, and which distinguish the approach from other methods with similar objectives and strategies, are music, relaxation and suggestion. While Lozanov (1978) claims that the combination of these elements is effective in the learning process, he has not provided detailed empirical evidence for this claim. Subsequent research in Accelerative Learning has, however, placed some emphasis on isolating individual elements for investigation in order to determine the relative effectiveness and importance of each of these elements. This chapter provides a detailed review of the relevant literature within the fi eld of Accelerative Learning and in related and independent fi elds.
Chapter 4
Literature reviews on research fi ndings in Accelerative Learning when used as a complete teaching method, have so far been rather skimpy. Even major theses such as Fassiyian (1981) and Botha (1986) are largely restricted to an uncritical report of a small number of research studies. Furthermore, literature reviews tend not to distinguish between different versions of Accelerative Learning being used and, most importantly, with the exception of Schuster (1984) and Schuster & Gritton (1985), little or no distinction tends to be made between controlled experimental studies and non-experimental studies in terms of the signifi cance of fi ndings. As a result of this it is impossible to arrive at defi nite conclusions about the exact effects of Accelerative Learning. In this chapter an attempt was made to address these problems. A comprehensive critical review of the literature beginning with the Lozanov studies is presented. This includes non-language studies as well as language studies in order to determine whether the approach is particularly suited to language teaching as has often been claimed. The major aim of the chapter is to identify the claims made for the effectiveness of Accelerative Learning, to examine these in the light of controlled empirical support, and to highlight important gaps in the research.
Chapter 5
Although Accelerative Learning has been extensively used and tested in language classes, the most important gap in the research is of controlled studies in the natural school environment. While the claim for moderately improved achievement appears to be reasonably well supported, claims for improved affective variables such as attitude, self-concept and behaviour, have not been well supported overall, and particularly not in this environment. Comparative studies have also generally not given much attention to the teaching method used in the control groups. Our quasi-experimental study carried out in the natural secondary school environment reported in this chapter addresses these problems. Eight classes and fi ve teachers at three different schools took part in the study. Emphasis was given to the testing of affective variables with language achievement being tested by means of broad measures only.
Chapter 6
Following the fi ndings of the secondary school study which showed that use of the Accelerative Learning approach does have the potential to improve affective variables in this environment without compromising language achievement, it was decided to carry out an experimental study on a smaller scale in the primary school environment. The reason for this was threefold. Firstly, a study on a smaller scale allowed for more detailed language tests to be administered. Secondly, a study of this nature could more easily address a possible teacher-treatment confound. Thirdly, a study in the primary school environment could check the responsiveness of younger children to Accelerative Learning. In this study primary school children were assigned at random to either the experimental or control condition and teaching was carried out by the same teacher with teacher behaviour being monitored by independent observers. All four language skills as well as affective variables were tested.
Chapter 7
In the light of the fi ndings of the primary school study which largely supported those of the secondary school study regarding affective measures, and which showed signifi cant all round improvement in language achievement favouring the experimental students, the question arose whether this improved performance in achievement was solely due to improved memory skills, as has been claimed by some critics (Scovel 1979), or whether more sophisticated language skills were also affected by Accelerative Learning. In order to administer detailed language tests, a fi nal study was again carried out on a small scale with one year 10 class providing the subjects. A simple time series analysis was employed which meant that the same group of students took part in both the experimental and the control condition. Teaching was provided by the same teacher for both conditions with extensive checks for differential behaviour in place. Language tests were designed to test both quantitative and qualitative aspects of the students’ language use.
Chapter 8
This chapter, Conclusions, draws together the extensive information provided previously and considers the pedagogical implications for Accelerative Learning and for language teaching in general. It also includes a brief discussion of the limitation of our own studies and suggestions for further research.
Part I
Background
Chapter 2
The Evolution of Accelerative Learning from
Lozanov to the present
Introduction
So many different versions of Suggestopedia exist that it is diffi cult to arrive at a description of its structure which would cover all possible variations. A number of adaptations are known around the world today such as Superlearning, SALT (Suggestive Accelerative Learning and Teaching), Psychopädie, LIND (Learning in New Dimensions), Optimalearning and Holistic Learning. Elements have been included or omitted over the years, some according to sound research fi ndings, some simply at a personal whim or more often for better commercial viability. This has resulted in confusion about the exact structure and content of a suggestopedic course.
When interpreting research results, it is important to know precisely what form of experimental treatment was used, since the inclusion of visualisation techniques (SALT) or synchronised breathing (Superlearning), for example, may have an effect not otherwise associated with Suggestopedia. Unfortunately not all studies give a detailed description of the treatment used. Furthermore, terms, especially Superlearning and Suggestopedia, tend to be used as synonyms even though there exist clear distinctions between the two approaches.
One important element missing in the research is a precise description of the evolution of Suggestopedia since its inception by Lozanov in the 1960s to the present day. Bancroft (1978a,b), Gassner-Roberts (1986a,1986b) and Strudel (1986) point out different versions of Suggestopedia and Bayuk (1983) discusses the possible dangers involved in the confusion of one method with another. Although both Baur (1980) and Philipov (1981) refer to early and later versions of Suggestopedia, neither elaborates further.
The aim of this chapter is to present an analysis of the changes that have been made, as well as to provide a detailed description of three versions of Suggestopedia referred to in the literature. These are the two major versions Superlearning and SALT, both North
American adaptations, and Psychopädie, a European version. We will endeavour to isolate distinguishing elements between these versions and Lozanov’s Suggestopedia, highlight individual contributions in terms of innovation, discuss these in the light of the relevant research and fi nally, determine whether or not these constitute a benefi cial contribution to Suggestopedia.
Suggestopedia
Suggestopedia has undergone a number of changes since it was fi rst experimentally used by Lozanov in the early 1960s. Why some changes were made is not entirely clear. Lozanov (1978) claims, for example, that research was carried out on the suitability of certain types of music without giving any further details. Although he elaborates a little in a paper given to American researchers in 1977 (in Hinkelmann 1986), no data is available on this research in the West.
Until recently Lozanov himself never gave a clear description of a suggestopedic class. His main publication in English Suggestology and Outlines of Suggestopedy (1978), based on his Ph.D. thesis published in Bulgaria seven years earlier, is poorly organised and somewhat vague when it comes to a description of what actually happens in a suggestopedic classroom. This resulted in harsh criticism by linguists such as Scovel (1979) who based their review of suggestopedic language teaching solely on this publication. Bancroft (1976) suggests that there may have been a deliberate attempt to make the method inaccessible to the West and that certain items, especially those referring to Yoga, may have been removed for political reasons prior to publication. Barzakov (in Ostrander & Schroeder 1979) confi rms the notion of secrecy surrounding Suggestopedia in Bulgaria.
Confusion about the method became even more acute with the publication of Superlearning (Ostrander & Schroeder 1979). This book gave an account of Lozanov’s method that consisted partly of an early version which Lozanov stopped using in the 1970s, and partly of elements that were allegedly observed in classes in Bulgaria, but never offi cially acknowledged by Lozanov. Furthermore, the book elaborated on Lozanov’s method by advocating self-study courses using audio cassettes for instruction. The result of this was that teachers went out to practice what they thought was Suggestopedia, often using Superlearning and Suggestopedia interchangeably as a label for their method. This was particularly true for commercial courses which will be further discussed below.
In the 1980s numerous articles appeared, particularly in Western Europe, claiming to describe Suggestopedia. However, no two articles can be found that give an identical account of the structure and content of the method. If we compare Suggestopädie alias Superlearning – Lernen wie ein Kind (Nuber 1986), and Superlearning und
Suggestopädie als Superlernmethoden im Fremdsprachenunterricht (Brenn 1986), for example, it becomes obvious that Nuber is describing the American adaptation called LIND while Brenn is clearly describing Superlearning.
In order to throw some light on the confusion, which still exists today, we will make an attempt to trace the development of Lozanov’s Suggestopedia from its fi rst offi cial model to the latest model fi rst described by Lozanov and Gateva in 1984. Since the changes were made largely within the phase referred to as the suggestopedic session, we will concentrate on this phase here, and give a description of the entire suggestopedic cycle with the fi nal model below.
First Model
The fi rst description in English of what is involved in a suggestopedic session can be found in the report of the research committee working on a project in 1965 (Lozanov 1978:25):
The suggestopedic session consists of an active and a passive part. During the active part the teacher reads the unfamiliar words and phrases three times (with their Bulgarian translation), using a special kind of intonation. The students listen intently following the words and phrases on a printed program. During the passive part the students relax in a ‘passive’ state of distraction without concentrating their attention on anything in particular. The words and phrases are read again with special intonation by the teacher.
The special intonation referred to means that a word or short phrase was presented three times, fi rst in a normal speaking voice, second in a soft voice and third in a loud voice. At what stage the translation was given is not clear from this account, nor is it mentioned at any other stage in the book. Ostrander and Schroeder (1979) report that it was given fi rst, before the intoned target language material.
When exactly music was introduced to the programme is also not entirely clear. Lozanov (1978:268) speaking of the “numerous experimental variants” of the suggestopedic session, mentions that “In the beginning the passive part was accompanied by pre-classical or pre-classical music playing in the background.” The passive part was therefore termed the concert session. The active part was not accompanied by music at this stage, but emphasis was given to a dramatic performance of the materials by the teacher using gestures, mimicry, body language, voice intonation — in short, all possible artistic means available. During this part, students were completely alert, following either their text or the teacher’s performance or both. Before the passive part students were given relaxation exercises.
Which form the relaxation took is also vague in Lozanov’s (1978) own account. The only concrete reference to be found is: “With this variant (the concert session)
verknüpft ist, lässt die Suggestopädie (wie auch andere Methoden der Fremds prachenvermittlung) wichtige Faktoren des Erwerbs unberücksichtigt. [The language input is exclusively conducted via listening, reading and musical-emotional backing. Because language perception in communication is very strongly related to non-verbal elements such as eye contact, mimicry, gestures, proximity, as well as other factors of situational perception and proprioceptive processes, Suggestopedia (as well as other methods of language teaching) does not take into account important factors of acquisition.]
Baur speaks of the students’ Wahrnehmung [perception] rather than of the production of language items. Even though the students in Suggestopedia remain physically passive during the presentation stages, they do not exclusively perceive and receive the language via reading and listening. Lozanov (1978) makes it abundantly clear that communication takes place on more than one level, namely verbal and non-verbal and that the teacher needs to use every possible device, such as mimicry and gestures, in order to make materials more accessible to the students. Baur’s criticism, therefore, is more appropriate regarding the Superlearning courses produced on cassettes where such elements cannot be included.
Baur is, however, justifi ed in claiming that the students are not physically involved in what he terms Gestik during the long receptive periods in intensive suggestopedic courses. He not only believes that the students need to practise the materials earlier than Lozanov suggests, but that they also need to reproduce the non-verbal elements included in the presentation of the materials. He emphasises (Baur & Grzybek 1984:70) that the term Gestik has to be broad since gestures are inevitably linked with other non-verbal and/or paraverbal communication. In order to investigate the effi cacy of Gestik in the suggestopedic presentation phases, Baur and Grzybek (1984) carried out a study in which 60 lexical items of Russian were presented to 203 volunteer adult students who knew no Russian. The presentation phases were largely based on Lozanov’s fi rst model:
■ First decoding — (bilingual text) with the help of mimicry, gestures and movements.
■ Second decoding — as above, but students imitate words and non-verbal elements.
■ Intoned reading of the material (neutral, loud,whispering) — without music. ■ Musical séance — materials read to the playing of baroque music. Presentation of materials took place in three different conditions as follows: ■ Teacher presents materials with Gestik during the fi rst phase.
Students reproduce materials with Gestik during the second phase. ■ Teacher presents materials with Gestik during the fi rst phase.
■ Teacher presents materials audio-visually. Students repeat materials verbally.
Phases three and four of the presentation cycle remained as above and were identical for all groups. Subjects were given a 20 item multiple choice test immediately after the sessions and one week later. Students did not know that they were going to be re-tested. Baur and Grzybek were particularly interested in the results after one week since items had to be recalled from long-term memory. The results showed the following:
■ An increase in retention rate after one week in the fi rst condition. ■ An unchanged retention rate after one week in the second condition. ■ A decrease in retention rate after one week in the third condition. These trends were highly signifi cant for all within-group tests. Between groups the difference between the fi rst and second condition, as well as between the second and third condition was signifi cant. The difference between the fi rst and third condition was highly signifi cant.
In order to integrate these fi ndings and to provide a more balanced model in terms of the alternation of active and passive states in Suggestopedia, Baur (1984) developed the following structure for his Psychopädie cycle (information is included to give some idea about the distribution of time for the individual phases in an intensive language course):
Psychopädie structure Preparation
Before the course begins students are informed about the nature of the course and introduced to the relaxation techniques used. Baur does not specify the time involved.
Presentation Introduction Phase
The fi rst 20 minutes of the course are spent decoding the new materials in a lively manner integrating non-verbal elements to bring the text alive. This part is identical to the beginning of Lozanov’s presentation session, although the short duration suggests that fewer lexical items are introduced here. Baur (1984:309) stresses that the role of the teacher’s use of Kinesik, Gestik and Mimik is not to convey the meaning of the text, since its translation is given, but to activate the interest of the learner and to superimpose on the text characteristics which are perceived via a multitude of channels and are stored as secondary associations which aids in the retention of the materials.
Reproduction Phase
The next 90 minutes are spent with active reproduction of the text by the students through interactive exercises. This phase does not exist in this position in any other model of Accelerative Learning; the exercises described here, such as role play and introductions, are part of the review and elaboration sessions in all the other models. In a sense Baur distributes the activities for review and elaboration over two sessions. In this session the learners are to be made familiar with the text so that items used in the activation session are easily recognised. They are given the opportunity to develop their playful-creative fantasy, to lose their fear of speaking, to realise that it can be fun to operate in the target language, and with the integration of physical activities overcome their passive involvement in the learning process. Analytical Phase
This 40 minute session is largely based on the second model of Lozanov’s active concert session. Baur (1984:313) points out that here the cognitive-analytical abilities of the learners are activated through the reading of the text, the recognition of word and syllable divisions, the comparison of mother tongue and target language structures, and the comparison of phonetics and spelling.
Associative Phase
This session of 30 minutes is largely based on the fi rst model of Lozanov’s passive concert session. Before this session the students have a relaxation period with physical exercises and visualisation exercises. The placement of a relaxation session here, although different from the other models discussed earlier (except Lozanov’s fi rst model), is supported by some other practitioners of Accelerative Learning. Stockwell (1985), for instance, feels that students, especially in intensive courses, do not need relaxation at the beginning of the course but at this stage. Baur (1984:315) points out that here the logical-analytical processes of the left hemisphere, which were predominant in the phase before, give way to right hemisphere dominated processes. Now the materials are again perceived holistically with the superimposition of the musical structures.
Activation
Baur stresses that before this session at least one night of rest should be given to consolidate the materials. The next four to six hours are spent with the activation of materials in playful communicative situations. Emphasis is put on the development of spontaneous speaking, although writing skills and grammar are also included. Baur (1984:319) believes that because materials were already presented in a playful fashion during the reproduction phase, the transfer from input to activation and functional use is more natural than in Suggestopedia.
language teaching. Baur, too, points out that his model can be adapted for different learning environments, provided that the relationship of time and phases is held constant. The main difference between this model and Lozanov’s model is the inclusion of a reproduction phase before the concert sessions. In the Lozanov model as in Superlearning and SALT the students remain in a receptive state right up to the review and elaboration sessions. Baur’s model by contrast provides a more even alternation between receptive and active states which may well be more attractive to the students. However, the receptive phases in Suggestopedia are generally not seen as unpleasant, especially by adult students. Baur’s model may also be attractive from the teachers’ point of view. Intensive courses, in particular, tend to be very demanding on teachers in these prolonged “performance” sessions.
In terms of structure all Baur does is reshuffl e Lozanov’s model by taking some time devoted in Suggestopedia to elaboration and practice and using it for similar purposes in the presentation stages. Although Baur and Grzybek (1984) have given some empirical evidence for the effi cacy of students reproducing non-verbal elements in the presentation phase, this study on its own does not give suffi cient support to the rationale of including a reproductive phase in the presentation sessions. Lozanov’s and more recent researchers’ use of non-verbal elements in the review and elaboration sessions, and indeed throughout the suggestopedic cycle, may well prove equally as effi cient. In order to prove the superiority of a reproductive phase it would be more appropriate to compare the results after teaching with the entire cycles of both models.
Summary
Suggestopedia has undergone a variety of changes over the two decades of its existence. Some changes, mainly those to the concert session, were made by Lozanov himself, others were made by exponents adapting the method for their own environment. The latest version of the suggestopedic cycle includes a preparation session, decoding of the materials to be learnt, an active and a passive concert session in which materials are read with the backing of entire classical or baroque pieces respectively, and extensive review and elaboration sessions.
In Eastern Europe the method differs the least from this model and it is still referred to as Suggestopedia. Researchers, however, have reduced the two concert sessions to one and made changes to Lozanov’s music selection. Music from the baroque period which is still predominant in Lozanov’s selection is no longer used as a result of research which showed more favourable student responses for the Vienna classical period.
The two major versions of Suggestopedia in the West are Superlearning and SALT, both originating in North America. Another version developed by a linguist in Germany
is called Psychopädie. The originators of these versions have also made changes to Lozanov’s Suggestopedia. The chief contribution of Superlearning is the inclusion of synchronisation of breathing and presentation of words during the passive concert session. The limited research does not consistently show this element to have a positive effect on the retention of materials. However, the literature suggests consistently that this element may be cumbersome for the students to handle which is refl ected in the fact that synchronisation has been dropped by most practitioners. Superlearning also advocated self-study courses produced on audio-tapes, a system which was adopted by commercial enterprises around the world. Although good examples of such courses exist, vital elements such as the teacher’s presence, group dynamics and the communicative interaction between students cannot be included in such courses. The most important contribution of SALT is the inclusion of mind-calming during the presentation phase. Although research, here too, is not extensive, the literature shows a positive trend towards improved learning and improved behaviour as well as other positive psychological effects being associated with mind-calming. This may therefore well be a positive addition to Suggestopedia which is refl ected in the fact that most Western practitioners have adopted mind-calming in their programme. The contribution of Psychopädie to Suggestopedia is the insertion of a reproductive phase before the concert sessions. The rationale for this was to break up the long passive states in which suggestopedic students in intensive courses fi nd themselves. Although there is no empirical evidence as yet which supports the effi cacy of such a phase, it may well be attractive to students and teachers alike to have a more balanced programme in terms of students’ arousal level.
Although there are distinct differences between the four versions of Accelerative Learning discussed in this chapter, caution must be exercised when interpreting research results if the treatment is not described in detail. Labels are sometimes used interchangeably, and elements generally associated with a particular version may no longer be used. This has led to some confusion about the exact content of an Accelerative Learning course. However, all four versions consistently use the same three elements. These are music, relaxation and suggestion. While in the West special attention is given to relaxation in the form of progressive relaxation or mind-calming either during the preparation phase or before the concert session, practitioners in the East no longer practice relaxation explicitly. According to Lozanov (1978), however, relaxation is still produced through other suggestive means, such as music, teacher behaviour and classroom atmosphere.
Since music, relaxation and suggestion are also used in most other adaptations of Suggestopedia not discussed here, we can assume that these elements are generally seen as the most important in the approach. The presumed effects of these elements will therefore be discussed in detail in the next chapter.
Part II
Chapter 3
The Effects of Music, Relaxation and
Suggestion in the learning environment
Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to investigate whether music, relaxation and suggestion, the three major elements present in most versions of Accelerative Learning, have indeed been shown to be effective in the learning process. For this purpose studies have been reviewed not only within the fi eld of Accelerative Learning, but also outside it. One of the interests in Accelerative Learning research has been to isolate individual elements involved in the method in order to determine their effect on a number of dependent variables. This has been particularly true for the element of music. Some studies have investigated the effect of background music on vocabulary learning, both in laboratory settings (Schuster & Mouzon 1982, Stein et al 1982, Schuster 1985) and in the normal teaching environment (Schiffl er 1986b). Other studies, some independent of Accelerative Learning, have looked at the effect of background music on reading performance (Mullikin & Henk 1985), on students' on-task behaviour (Davidson & Powell 1986) and on context-dependent memory (Smith 1985). While the majority of studies explored the effect of music on achievement, Lehmann (1982) investigated psycho-physiological responses to different types of music in order to determine which music may be most readily accepted by students in Accelerative Learning classes. His fi ndings, together with those of Smith (1985), who included white noise as a background to learning, and those of Mullikin and Henk (1985), who investigated the effectiveness of easy-listening background music, are particularly interesting since they indicate that music selections other than those recommended by Lozanov (1978) and Lozanov and Gateva (1988) may be effective in the learning environment. Generally, the role of music in Accelerative Learning has been given more attention by researchers than either relaxation or suggestion.
Since Lozanov himself no longer recommends specifi c relaxation exercises, the question arises whether this element ought to be retained in Accelerative Learning on
the basis of the Western research. There have been a number of studies investigating the effect of various forms of relaxation training on achievement (Biggers & Stricherz 1976, Stricherz 1980, Johnson 1982, Baur 1982), on creativity (Gamble et al 1982), and on physiological and psychological variables (Matthews 1983, Setterlind 1983).
The most extensive research on the effect of relaxation on achievement independent of Accelerative Learning has been carried out in the fi eld of anxiety research. Since one of the principles of Accelerative Learning is that learning ought to be free from stress and tension, elements closely related to anxiety, the fi ndings of this research were found to be relevant to this chapter and have therefore been included.
The least researched of the three major elements in Accelerative Learning is suggestion. One reason for this may be that this element is particularly diffi cult to isolate in any teaching environment. Results of studies in which the effect of suggestion in Accelerative Learning was investigated (Bordon & Schuster 1976, Biggers & Stricherz 1976, Schuster & Martin 1980, Renigers 1981) are confl icting. Another reason for the lack of research on suggestion may be its close association with hypnosis. The possible relationship or distinction between Accelerative Learning and hypnosis will therefore also be explored in this chapter.
Music
La musique est la langue du cœur [Music is the language of the heart] Rousseau
While most elements of Accelerative Learning can be found in education in some form or other, the genuinely innovative element which Accelerative Learning brings to today's classrooms is the systematic use of music in the instruction process. While the coupling of music and messages is extensively used in advertising and in entertainment, music in education, outside offi cial music classes, tends to be restricted to use with young children in kindergarten and primary school. Although we know from experience that words synchronised with music or rhythm are easier to learn than words alone, preparation of materials in this form with older children or adults are usually only found in music or drama classes, and perhaps in some language classes. The idea of a mathematics class relaxing to the sounds of Handel's Watermusic while the teacher recites a list of formulae, or an English class listening to Pachelbel's Canon while the teacher reads excerpts from a novel, tends to elicit a variety of responses from today's educators, ranging from amusement to disbelief. This form of learning, however, is not new, and has been shown to be effective. As Rose (1985:97) points out, the coupling
of music and recital of words was already used by the ancient Greeks. ...audiences would attend a festival in the Panathenes [of the Panatheneia] once every four years. A presenter would chant the entire Iliad to the heartbeat rhythm of a softly playing lyre. From memory. Records show that many of the audience could remember large passages afterwards. Although the music used has changed, the technique of presenting words and music simultaneously in order to enhance retention of materials has been reintroduced in Accelerative Learning. Two major rationales for this can be identifi ed in Lozanov's (1978) original work. The fi rst was Lozanov's belief that music has the potential to create a state of relaxed alertness in the students which he calls psychorelaxation. Lozanov (1978) found that the body rhythms of students adjusted to the rhythms of the baroque music he used. He recorded a signifi cant increase in alpha brain waves during the passive concert sessions with a corresponding decrease in beta waves. He also recorded a drop in blood pressure and a slowing of the pulse. According to the relaxation and anxiety research discussed below, this state may be conducive to better performance.
The second rationale for the use of music in the instruction process was the idea of whole brain learning. Lozanov (1978) believed that the interaction of both hemispheres together with the neo-cortex had a positive effect on retention rates of learned materials. Research by Claycomb (1978) supports this claim. Other models on brain functioning, such as the Triune Brain system (McLean 1973), the Taxon and Locale Memory system (O'Keefe & Nadel 1978) and the Holographic Memory system (Pribram & Coleman 1979) also suggest, according to Stein et al. (1982), that multiple channels of input will increase information retention.
In Accelerative Learning language and music are presented simultaneously resulting in a complex interaction between both hemispheres and the neo-cortex. Strict lateralisation of music and language processing, as has been shown by Duffy et al (1981), can no longer generally be supported since it has been demonstrated that different and extended areas of both hemispheres undergo changes during musical tasks (Petsche et al 1985). While Duffy et al (1981) suggested that language is processed by the left hemisphere while music is processed by the right hemisphere, Petsche et al (1985) found that subjects listening to a Mozart symphony generated totally different topographic patterns of changes of the E.E.G. parameters studied. The latter's fi ndings support the proposition of Bever and Chiarello (1974) who suggested that the holistic appreciation of music of naive listeners is usually processed by the right hemisphere, whereas musically trained listeners tend to use their "analytical" left hemisphere.
The most detailed research on the role of music in Accelerative Learning has been carried out by Lehmann (1982,1983,1984) in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). whose major fi ndings are reported in translation in Lehmann and
Gassner-Conclusions – Music
Judging from the fi ndings of these studies it can be said that background music appears to have a positive effect in the learning environment. While most studies found a positive effect on the recall of vocabulary, one reported better reading performance and another better on-task behaviour associated with the use of background music. Of the ten studies which investigated the effectiveness of music during learning, nine reported signifi cant positive effects either on short-term or on long-term memory. Of the eight studies which looked at the effects of music immediately after the learning task, six reported signifi cant positive results. Of the seven studies which looked at the effects of music after 48 hours or even later, six again reported signifi cant positive results.
The effect of music during testing has not been as extensively investigated, and fi ndings are not as consistent as the above. While one study found a signifi cant positive effect on performance when either classical or rock and roll music was played during testing, two studies found no signifi cant effect when classical, baroque or jazz music was played during testing. Another study reported a signifi cant positive effect of classical and baroque music played during testing on vocabulary recall when students were tested immediately after learning but not when testing took place after one week. There is an indication, however, that best results are achieved when the same music is played both during learning and during testing. The two studies which investigated the effect of the reinstatement of the learning conditions during testing found this.
In terms of the effectiveness of different types of music, the fi ndings of the majority of studies discussed here lend strong support to the special effectiveness of baroque and classical pieces, as originally suggested by Lozanov (1978). However, it must be pointed out that this type of music has also been most extensively used and tested. Other types of music have only been sporadically tested in the same context. Yet the three studies which investigated jazz or rock music did not fi nd these types of music to be effective in learning. One study, however, found rock music effective during testing. A study which investigated the effect of easy-listening music, which shared characteristics with the classical music found most effective for suggestopedic teaching in the former GDR, also found this type of music effective in improving on-task behaviour. When making statements about the relative effectiveness of music in learning, it is important to give either exact titles or an accurate description of the musical piece used. It is not possible to state categorically that classical music is more effective in learning than pop music, since it appears that the individual properties of the pieces are important factors in the outcome.
Although there is strong support for the effectiveness of music in learning, we still know little about how the reported effects of music on learning are actually achieved. In the context of the studies reviewed here the effectiveness of music can be explained
in several ways. Music appears to create a more pleasant learning environment in terms of affective criteria (Schuster & Mouzon 1982) which may improve performance. It further appears to have the potential to affect concentration and attention rate and in turn improve on-task behaviour (Davidson & Powell 1986). Music also appears to be associated with physiological effects such as a lowered heartrate (Blanchard 1979) and increased alpha brain waves (Lozanov 1978) which may be instrumental in improved performance. Finally, studies which included the reinstatement of music during testing (Schuster & Mouzon 1982, Smith 1985) indicate that context-cuing may be involved.
Relaxation
Take rest; A fi eld that rested gives a beautiful crop. OvidWhile Lozanov (1978:269) argues that the suggestive environment itself is enough to produce concentrative psychorelaxation without special emphasis on physical or mental exercises, Western users of all versions of Accelerative Learning tend to include some form of relaxation exercise in almost every class. Is there any evidence in the research that students actually benefi t from this rather unorthodox addition to their learning environment?
Positive effects of relaxation on psychological, physiological and academic measures have not only been shown within the fi eld of Accelerative Learning (Gamble et al 1982, Barber 1982, Johnson 1982, Baur 1982, Moon 1985), but also independent of Accelerative Learning (Matthews 1983, Setterlind 1983). There are also some studies which show relaxation as having no effect (Stricherz & Stein 1980) or even a negative effect (Biggers & Stricherz 1976) on simple recognition tasks. Studies in the fi eld of anxiety research (Sinclair 1971) suggest that the effectiveness of relaxation training may be related to the diffi culty of the task and to the level of ego involvement. Other studies indicate that not all students are equally affected by relaxation training. While Straughan and Duford (1969) report a positive effect on high anxiety subjects, Wilson and Wilson (1970), Martin and Schuster (1977) and Schuster and Martin (1980) found relaxation to be most effective with low anxiety subjects. We will now look at the research in detail.
Within the fi eld of Accelerative Learning research suggests that relaxation may improve performance. Barber (1982) reported that modifi ed (relaxation only) suggestopedic sessions in a college management class led to some academic acceleration, improved
the end of the year, students taught with Accelerative Learning have reported fewer feelings of anxiety than their counterparts in traditional courses. Although there is not yet any systematic evidence for this, anecdotal reports from studies support this (Felix 1987).
Conclusions - Relaxation
Although we cannot say at this stage how great an effect relaxation alone has in Accelerative Learning, the fi ndings of the majority of studies conducted within, as well as outside, this fi eld give support to the retention of relaxation as an important element in the approach. Most studies report positive effects being associated with the use of relaxation. This is true for short term studies conducted in laboratory settings and for long term studies carried out in the natural learning environment. Findings include positive effects on achievement as well as on students' psychological and physiological states and creativity. However, one study reports no effect and another reports a negative effect of various forms of relaxation on long-term memory. In contrast to the bulk of studies reviewed here, both these studies investigated the effect of relaxation on a fairly simple task, namely recognition of vocabulary items. Research into the relationship between anxiety and performance suggests that relaxation training may be most benefi cial when the learning task is diffi cult or complex and ego-involvement is high. Easy tasks appear to be facilitated by anxiety while tasks with low ego-involvement appear to be either uninfl uenced by anxiety or facilitated. Although the learning task in Accelerative Learning is not necessarily perceived as being diffi cult, it is nevertheless a complex task with a high content of ego-involvement, especially in language learning, and it appears therefore, that students are likely to benefi t from relaxation in this context. There is some evidence that progressive muscle relaxation may be more effective than other types of relaxation.
There is also some evidence that the effect of relaxation may be related to the level of measured anxiety. Although results are not entirely consistent, a strong trend can be observed towards low anxiety students being more positively affected by relaxation during learning than high anxiety subjects. Since in Accelerative Learning, at least after a period of time, students appear to display more low anxiety characteristics towards learning and testing than high anxiety characteristics, this research further supports the retention of relaxation training in Accelerative Learning.
Suggestion
They canbecause they think they can. Virgil
Suggestion has existed in one form or another as long as human communication itself. Its effectiveness has best been demonstrated in hypnosis from the classical approach of Bernheim (1880) to the naturalistic work of Erickson (1980). It has further been demonstrated in Autogenic Training (Schultz 1959), in Progressive Relaxation (Jacobson 1938), in Psychosynthesis (Assagioli 1965), in Biofeedback (Green & Green 1977) and in Subliminal Learning (Budzynski 1976). Detailed reports on the effects of suggestion on learning as a result of experimental investigations are scarce, however, and the fi ndings of different studies (Biggers & Stricherz 1976, Bordon & Schuster 1976, Schuster & Martin 1980 and Renigers 1981) are confl icting.
Equally as important as establishing the effects of suggestion on learning is deciding whether or not it is ethical to use suggestion in the learning environment. One of the problems in Accelerative Learning is that the term suggestion may be seen as synonymous with hypnosis and the approach therefore dismissed by educators and administrators as unsuitable or dangerous in the learning environment. What is the evidence in the literature for such reasoning?
Harrison and Musial (1978), who reviewed the literature on hypnosis in education, report inconclusive and confusing results, yet a trend towards positive outcomes. Some examples given (p.72) are that Harley and Harley (1958) claim that hypnosis actually inhibits learning while Krippner (1966), Mutke (1967) and McCord (1962) all report success in using hypnosis to increase reading speed and comprehension. Hilgard (in Harrison and Musial 1978:73) points to the benefi ts of hypnosis in education:
The hundreds of students who have improved their learning and academic achievement do not need convincing. And those who may be helped in the future should not be denied the benefi t of hypnosis simply because we do not understand precisely what it is or why it works. For now, it is enough to know that, for many, it does work.
The effectiveness of suggestion in hypnosis cannot be disputed on the basis of a large body of studies. However, very few studies exist on the effectiveness of suggestion as a single variable and unrelated to hypnosis. Three studies, apart from Biggers and Stricherz (1976), discussed in the relaxation section above, could be located in the fi eld of Accelerative Learning which investigated the effects of elements including suggestion on recall or recognition of vocabulary in laboratory settings. During the early years when synchronisation was still used, Bordon and Schuster (1976) conducted a study using a factorial design in which they isolated suggestion, words synchronised
with students' breathing and words synchronised with background music. Thirty-two volunteer adult subjects, 4 per treatment cell, took part in the experiment. Findings were that all three elements separately had been effective in signifi cantly improved recall, and that the variables interacted cumulatively such that learning was best when all three variables were present.
These fi ndings concerning suggestion are supported by Renigers (1981) who in a similar design examined the effects of music, and suggestion coupled with relaxation. The rationale for coupling suggestion with relaxation was the belief that suggestion would be more effective when the subjects were in a relaxed state. Synchronised breathing was also used but not isolated as a separate variable for investigation. Ninety volunteer adult subjects, 15 per treatment cell, took part in this experiment. Renigers (1981) found that suggestion coupled with relaxation was effective in signifi cantly improving vocabulary recall when compared to the control group.
These fi ndings, however, are not supported by Biggers and Stricherz (1976), who did not fi nd a signifi cant difference in performance between the control and the suggestion condition in a recognition task. They are also not supported by Schuster and Martin (1980), discussed above, who included suggestion in a study on the effects of relaxation training on vocabulary recall. Although a positive infl uence of relaxation on recall was reported in this study, suggestion was not found to have a signifi cant infl uence in the same context.
The confl icting fi ndings of these studies in terms of suggestion highlight the diffi culty of accurately investigating variables of this kind. All four studies were well designed and controlled. However, there is considerable variation in the manner in which suggestion is administered in different studies. As a consequence, fi ndings are not readily comparable. In Renigers' (1981) study, for example, the subjects in the suggestion condition received one verbal suggestion relating to the ease with which subjects would learn the material, coupled with muscle relaxation (no time given) and four minutes of Zen breathing. In Biggers and Stricherz (1976) the suggestion condition involved a fi ve minute concentration exercise focussing on the suggestion that this exercise would result in higher level mental functioning. In Bordon and Schuster (1976) the suggestion treatment consisted of a one hour preparation including a lecture on Suggestopedia, verbal suggestions and instructions in the use of imagery, and meditation procedures in order to establish an expectation that learning would take place. In Schuster and Martin (1980) the suggestion treatment consisted of an "early pleasant learning restimulation" (no time given) described as a technique which "focuses on the bodily feelings, sensations, emotions and thoughts associated with an early pleasant learning situation" (p.277). Although it can be said that in all four studies subjects in the suggestion condition also received some form of relaxation, the type of relaxation differed considerably between studies, and the time involved in administering this variable varied substantially.
Several other studies already discussed in previous sections of this chapter included suggestion (e.g. Wilson and Wilson 1970, Schuster and Mouzon 1982 and Schuster 1985). However, this variable was either not separately analysed as in Wilson and Wilson (1970), or the suggestion treatment was restricted to written suggestions relating to either the ease or the diffi culty of learning the materials as in Schuster and Mouzon (1982) and Schuster (1985). Since we cannot be certain whether subjects in these studies actually read the suggestions, their fi ndings are not included in the discussion here.
Studies which involve verbal suggestion might be described as having contained some form of hypnosis. Since the possible relationship to hypnosis is an important issue in the acceptance of Accelerative Learning in educational institutions, we will now look at the relevant literature in order to present distinguishing factors between Accelerative Learning and hypnosis, or between suggestion in the waking state and suggestion in hypnosis.
Lozanov's early work in suggestology led him to claim that hypnosis is not involved in suggestopedia because suggestions are exclusively administered in the waking state. Yet little information is available on the differences or similarities between suggestion in the waking state and suggestion under hypnosis, chiefl y because of the diffi culty of fi nding a widely accepted defi nition of suggestion or hypnosis. As Marcuse (1966:19) put it: "That hypnosis exists has become generally accepted; what it is, however, is generally disputed." He offered a tentative defi nition of hypnosis as an "altered state of the organism originally and usually produced by a repetition of stimuli in which suggestion (no matter how defi ned) is more effective than usual." (p.21) In the literature on hypnosis this altered state is often referred to as a form of sleep, which is in accordance with the etymological origin of the word hypnosis.
In the latest versions of Accelerative Learning there is no deliberate repetition of stimuli and at no stage do the students fi nd themselves in a state of induced sleep. It is generally conceded, instead, that the students experience a state of alert relaxation which is at all times defi ned as wakefulness. However, Tart (1969:167) defi nes light hypnosis as "a state of relaxed wakefulness, accompanied by receptivity to suggestion, with alpha brain waves as the dominant pattern." Bayuk (1983) believes that his study establishes a direct relationship between the light hypnotic state and the intellective alertness which characterises Suggestopedia. Bayuk claims that descriptions of the suggestopedic state found throughout Lozanov's work (she has had access to the original Bulgarian texts) closely parallel Tart's observations in his studies of light hypnosis.
Marcuse (1966), too, speaks of waking hypnosis as a modifi cation of hypnosis for patients who are overly anxious about the loss of conscious awareness as a consequence of being in a sleep-like state. Here, the verbal patterns of hypnosis are employed, but without any mention of sleep or drowsiness. Instead, the term relaxation is used.
your stomach to relax. Tell your arms and hands to relax. Tell your feet and toes to relax. Now let your mind relax. Let it become quiet and silent. Do not let any thought distract you.
This scenario is as reminiscent of Jacobson’s (1938) Progressive Relaxation as it is of Uneståhl’s (1986) Systematic Approach to Relaxation for Youths and Schultz's (1959) Autogenic Training. None of these approaches is immediately associated with hypnosis. Maybe the difference really is only in the name. And maybe it is hypnosis which is incongruous. According to Harrison and Musial (1978) even Braid who coined the term hypnosis realised that the equation with sleep was probably erroneous, since a state of heightened awareness is not really synonymous with sleep.
Suggestion as used in the approaches above, as in medicine and dentistry, is usually seen as benefi cial. Why then should we assume that suggestion used in education is not benefi cial or even dangerous? It could be argued that teachers, in contrast to therapists and dentists, are not qualifi ed to use suggestion. However, is suggestion not a constant part of their interaction with students? As Ginott (in Schuster & Gritton 1985:80) put it:
I have come to a frightening conclusion. I am the decisive element in the classroom. It is my personal approach that creates the climate. It is my daily mood that makes the weather. As a teacher I possess tremendous power to make a child's life miserable or joyous. I can be a tool of torture or an instrument of inspiration. I can humiliate or humour, hurt or heal. In all situations it is my response that decides whether a crisis will be escalated or de-escalated, and a child humanised or dehumanised.
Ginott speaks neither of hypnosis nor of suggestion but of the teacher’s everyday behaviour in the classroom. He is pointing out that a mood-setting is part of any teaching, that the teacher sets up some mood context for any lesson, and that this can be negative as well as positive. What Lozanov has done is make teachers aware of the power of the suggestions transmitted through everyday behaviour. These suggestions are not exclusively verbal, but more often found in gestures, mimicry, posture and tone of voice. Lozanov (1978:201) defi nes suggestion as “a constant communicative factor” and does not advocate bombarding students with obvious direct verbal suggestions such as Learning German will be fun. While this may be effective with volunteer adult students, a statement like this given to less motivated students in a secondary school, some of whom do the language only because it is a compulsory subject, may produce a counter-productive reaction such as Oh, no it won't.
If teachers believe that learning should be fun, easy and without stress and fatigue, then they have to demonstrate this to the students and let them experience it so that students in fact believe it as a result of their personal success, not as a result of a verbal suggestion which could not possibly have the same effect.
Maybe Lozanov's decision to call his method Suggestopedia was unwise in the light of the fact that suggestion may be regarded with suspicion in the education process. However, if educators are able to see suggestion with the same clinical neutrality demonstrated by Lozanov, they may agree with Galisson (1983:104):
…je ne vois pas comment la pédagogie (en général) pourrait se passer de la suggestion, quand il est avéré que celle-ci constitue un ferment d'interaction essentiel entre les êtres, et qu'elle est à ce titre omniprésente à l'école, lieu de socialité, donc d'interaction par excellence. En bref: la suggestion en pédagogie: oui nécessairement; rien que la suggestion en pédagogie: sûrement pas! [I do not see how pedagogy (in general) could do without suggestion, when it is obvious that it constitutes an essential mode of interaction between human beings, and when it is in this capacity everywhere present in the school, which is par excellence a centre of socialising, and therefore of interaction. In short, suggestion in pedagogy is necessary; but surely not nothing but suggestion in pedagogy.]
Conclusions – Suggestion
We do not know from the research available exactly how effective suggestion is in Accelerative Learning. When efforts were made to isolate this element for investigation, studies showed confl icting results. Research in this area may be hampered by the fact that suggestion is diffi cult to isolate and administer in an environment which involves human communication. Other approaches in which suggestion is used, most notably hypnosis, indicate that suggestion may indeed be effective in the learning process. Although fi ndings concerning the effect of hypnosis on learning tasks are mixed, there appears to be a trend towards a positive effect of hypnosis in the learning environment. However, hypnosis is still largely regarded with apprehension and suspicion by educators and administrators in schools.
Since Accelerative Learning is often associated with hypnosis, it is frequently dismissed as a viable teaching method for the same reasons. While it cannot categorically be stated that Accelerative Learning has nothing in common with hypnosis, especially not when compared to recent naturalistic techniques, it can also not be claimed that Accelerative Learning is hypnosis. The diffi culty with fi nding a clear distinction between the two is the fact that no widely accepted defi nition of hypnosis exists. Hypnosis may range from extremely light states, which are similar to the relaxed states reached in Accelerative Learning, to deep somnambulism, a state which cannot even remotely be associated with the state of relaxed alertness in which students in Accelerative Learning courses fi nd themselves. While suggestion in hypnosis may be used for many forms of treatments, ranging from attitude changes to painless tooth extractions, suggestions in Accelerative Learning are confi ned to addressing the facilitation of the learning task.