AL Book Uschi

Accelerative Learning: Wonder method or pseudo-scientific gobbledygook? By Uschi Felix

Published by

Melbourne, 2006

Accelerative Learning: Wonder method or pseudoscientific 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

v

Introduction Chapter 1. Introduction

1

Part I. Background Chapter 2. The evolution of Accelerative Learning from Lozanov to the present Introduction Suggestopedia Adaptations of the Lozanov model Superlearning Suggestive Accelerative Learning and Teaching (SALT) Psychopädie Summary

13 13 14 20 21 28 31 35

Part II. Literature Review Chapter 3. The effects of music, relaxation and suggestion in the learning environment. Introduction Music Relaxation Suggestion General conclusions

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER-METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

39 39 40 51 59 66

iii

Chapter 4 A critical analysis of the claims made for Accelerative Learning Introduction Lozanov’s research Western research Non-experimental studies, Experimental and quasi-experimental studies General conclusions: research claims

69 69 70 80

105

Part III. Empirical Investigations Chapter 5. A quasi-experimental investigation of the effects of Accelerative Learning on behaviour, self-concept, attitude and achievement in the natural secondary school language class. Introduction Method Results Discussion

109

Chapter 6. An experimental investigation of the effects of Accelerative Learning on language learning, language self-concept and attitude in the primary school. Introduction Method Results Discussion

135

Chapter 7. The effects of Accelerative Learning on the functional use of language in a year 10 German class. Introduction Method Results Discussion

153

Chapter 8. Conclusions and recommendations for research

173

109 110 114 129

135 137 141 148

153 155 161 167

Bibliography

183

Appendices

199

iv

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

Foreword

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 reflection should induce us to listen, learn, adapt and reflect. Felix tackles the controversy surrounding the method in three important new ways. First, and probably for the first 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 first 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-scientific 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

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER-METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

v

vi

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDERMETHOD OR PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

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 benefit to present day, eclectic EFL programs, and at worst nothing more than an oversold package of pseudoscientific 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 confidence 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 deficient 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,

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

1

INTRODUCTION

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 specific 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 Sofia. This field 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 fifty minutes which was filmed 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. Overall, enjoyment and relaxation are provided in Suggestopedia through the creation

2

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

INTRODUCTION — CHAPTER 1

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, Brumfit 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 shuffling 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 artificial, 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 Schiffler (1992) indicate that learning may

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

3

INTRODUCTION

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 field of Accelerative Learning and in related and independent fields.

Chapter 4 Literature reviews on research findings 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 significance of findings. As a result of this it is impossible to arrive at definite 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 five 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.

8

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

INTRODUCTION — CHAPTER 1

Chapter 6 Following the findings 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 findings of the primary school study which largely supported those of the secondary school study regarding affective measures, and which showed significant 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 final 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.

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

9

INTRODUCTION

10

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDERMETHOD OR PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

Part I Background

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDERMETHOD OR PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

11

12

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDERMETHOD OR PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

Chapter 2 The Evolution of Accelerative Learning from Lozanov to the present

Introduction So many different versions of Suggestopedia exist that it is difficult 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 findings, 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

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

13

PART I — BACKGROUND

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 finally, determine whether or not these constitute a beneficial contribution to Suggestopedia.

Suggestopedia Suggestopedia has undergone a number of changes since it was first 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) confirms 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 officially 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

14

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

THE EVOLUTION OF ACCELERATIVE LEARNING FROM LOZANOV TO THE PRESENT — CHAPTER 2

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 first official model to the latest model first 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 final model below.

First Model The first 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, first 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 first, 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 preclassical or 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)

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

15

PART I — BACKGROUND

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, justified 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 efficacy 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 first 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 first phase. Students reproduce materials with Gestik during the second phase. ■ Teacher presents materials with Gestik during the first phase. Students repeat materials verbally without Gestik during the second phase.

32

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

THE EVOLUTION OF ACCELERATIVE LEARNING FROM LOZANOV TO THE PRESENT — CHAPTER 2

■

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 first 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 significant for all within-group tests. Between groups the difference between the first and second condition, as well as between the second and third condition was significant. The difference between the first and third condition was highly significant. In order to integrate these findings 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 first 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.

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

33

PART I — BACKGROUND

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 first 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 first 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. Psychopädie appears to be a well designed adaptation of Suggestopedia for intensive

34

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

THE EVOLUTION OF ACCELERATIVE LEARNING FROM LOZANOV TO THE PRESENT — CHAPTER 2

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 reshuffle 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 efficacy of students reproducing non-verbal elements in the presentation phase, this study on its own does not give sufficient 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 efficient. 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

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

35

PART I — BACKGROUND

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 reflected 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 reflected 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 find themselves. Although there is no empirical evidence as yet which supports the efficacy 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.

36

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

Part II Literature Review

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDERMETHOD OR PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

37

38

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDERMETHOD OR PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

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 field 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 (Schiffler 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 findings, 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 specific relaxation exercises, the question arises whether this element ought to be retained in Accelerative Learning on

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

39

PART II — LITERATURE REVIEW

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 field 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 findings 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 difficult 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 conflicting. 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 official 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

40

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

THE EFFECTS OF MUSIC, RELAXATION AND SUGGESTION IN THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT — CHAPTER 3

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 identified in Lozanov's (1978) original work. The first 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 significant 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 findings 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 findings are reported in translation in Lehmann and Gassner-

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

41

PART II — LITERATURE REVIEW

Conclusions – Music Judging from the findings 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 significant 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 significant positive results. Of the seven studies which looked at the effects of music after 48 hours or even later, six again reported significant positive results. The effect of music during testing has not been as extensively investigated, and findings are not as consistent as the above. While one study found a significant positive effect on performance when either classical or rock and roll music was played during testing, two studies found no significant effect when classical, baroque or jazz music was played during testing. Another study reported a significant 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 findings 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 find 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 ontask 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

50

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

THE EFFECTS OF MUSIC, RELAXATION AND SUGGESTION IN THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT — CHAPTER 3

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 field that rested gives a beautiful crop. Ovid While 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 benefit 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 field 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 field of anxiety research (Sinclair 1971) suggest that the effectiveness of relaxation training may be related to the difficulty 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 field of Accelerative Learning research suggests that relaxation may improve performance. Barber (1982) reported that modified (relaxation only) suggestopedic sessions in a college management class led to some academic acceleration, improved

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

51

PART II — LITERATURE REVIEW

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 findings of the majority of studies conducted within, as well as outside, this field 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 beneficial when the learning task is difficult 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 uninfluenced by anxiety or facilitated. Although the learning task in Accelerative Learning is not necessarily perceived as being difficult, 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 benefit 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.

58

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

THE EFFECTS OF MUSIC, RELAXATION AND SUGGESTION IN THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT — CHAPTER 3

Suggestion They can because 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 findings of different studies (Biggers & Stricherz 1976, Bordon & Schuster 1976, Schuster & Martin 1980 and Renigers 1981) are conflicting. 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 benefits 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 benefit 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 field 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

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

59

PART II — LITERATURE REVIEW

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 significantly improved recall, and that the variables interacted cumulatively such that learning was best when all three variables were present. These findings 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 significantly improving vocabulary recall when compared to the control group. These findings, however, are not supported by Biggers and Stricherz (1976), who did not find a significant 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 influence of relaxation on recall was reported in this study, suggestion was not found to have a significant influence in the same context. The conflicting findings of these studies in terms of suggestion highlight the difficulty 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, findings 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 five 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.

60

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

THE EFFECTS OF MUSIC, RELAXATION AND SUGGESTION IN THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT — CHAPTER 3

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 difficulty 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 findings 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, chiefly because of the difficulty of finding a widely accepted definition 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 definition of hypnosis as an "altered state of the organism originally and usually produced by a repetition of stimuli in which suggestion (no matter how defined) 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 find 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 defined as wakefulness. However, Tart (1969:167) defines 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 modification 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.

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

61

PART II — LITERATURE REVIEW

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 beneficial. Why then should we assume that suggestion used in education is not beneficial or even dangerous? It could be argued that teachers, in contrast to therapists and dentists, are not qualified 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) defines 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.

64

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

THE EFFECTS OF MUSIC, RELAXATION AND SUGGESTION IN THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT — CHAPTER 3

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 conflicting results. Research in this area may be hampered by the fact that suggestion is difficult 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 findings 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 difficulty with finding a clear distinction between the two is the fact that no widely accepted definition 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 find 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 confined to addressing the facilitation of the learning task.

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

65

PART II — LITERATURE REVIEW

This is done using suggestive means such as music and positive teacher behaviour, rather than by means of direct verbal suggestions. If students' attitudes towards learning are changed for the better in the process (see chapters 5 and 6), then this is most likely the result of a combination of variables present in Accelerative Learning, one of which is suggestion. Suggestion per se is already constantly present in any learning environment, and teachers make use of it both consciously and unconsciously. Lozanov has simply drawn attention to this fact and developed a method into which suggestion is integrated as an exclusively positive means. There is therefore no reason to exclude its systematic and positive application in Accelerative Learning.

General Conclusions Although findings are not completely consistent, it can be said that the bulk of the research on music and relaxation suggests that these elements are effective in learning. In music this applies especially to pieces from the baroque and classical period, although background music which shares characteristics with these has also been found to be effective. In relaxation there is some evidence that progressive relaxation may be more effective than other forms of physical and mental relaxation. Suggestion, as a variable, has not been extensively researched, and the limited results are not consistent. However, results from research in related fields indicate that suggestion may have a beneficial effect in learning. What are the benefits, though, of isolating one element for investigation? Although we will know something about the effectiveness of that particular variable, we do not know anything about its relationship with the other variables used in Accelerative Learning. The most obvious question, of course, would be to ask which is the most important of all the common variables. No study has yet answered this question, although some have thrown light on the relationship between some variables, suggesting a cumulative effect. Stein et al. (1982) showed that music together with visualisation appeared more effective than music alone for long-term retention. Gamble et al (1982) found relaxation together with music more effective than music alone. Baur (1982) reports that relaxation plus music was more effective than relaxation alone, and Bordon and Schuster (1976) showed that the elements suggestion, synchronisation and music interacted cumulatively with each other so that learning was best when all elements were part of the treatment. Although there are some conflicting findings in these studies, especially regarding the variables suggestion and relaxation, it appears that the findings for the variable music are consistent throughout, suggesting that music may well be the most important when more than one element is investigated. This conclusion must be treated with caution, however, bearing in mind the difficulties involved in isolating and measuring

66

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

THE EFFECTS OF MUSIC, RELAXATION AND SUGGESTION IN THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT — CHAPTER 3

variables such as suggestion and relaxation. Furthermore, the bulk of these studies were short-term and conducted in a laboratory setting, their findings can therefore not be generalised to the natural learning environment. Although it is interesting to know about the contribution of individual elements in Accelerative Learning, the most important interest, however, is how effective the method may be in the natural learning environment. Chapter 4 will therefore investigate the claims made for Accelerative Learning as a complete teaching method in this context.

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

67

PART II — LITERATURE REVIEW

68

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDERMETHOD OR PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

Chapter 4 A Critical Analysis of the Claims Made for Accelerative Learning

Introduction Researchers have gathered much naturalistic and experimental data on the effects of the use of Accelerative Learning through empirical, case and laboratory studies. Subjects under investigation have been predominantly language students, yet many other fields as far ranging as physical science (Gritton & Benitez-Bordon 1976), naval science (Peterson 1977) and vocational agriculture (Walters 1977) have been studied using Suggestopedia and SALT. Findings have varied greatly, depending on the particular aspect under investigation, the particular setting and the soundness of the research design. None of the controlled Western studies was ever able to replicate the dramatic findings of the original Bulgarian studies, on the basis of which Ostrander and Schroeder (1979) claim that results can be improved by fifty times. There are some Western studies (Schuster 1976b, Peterson 1977, Walters 1977) which claim that learning can be speeded up by two to three times without loss in achievement. A large body of studies carried out in non-experimental conditions in the university, secondary and primary school environment (Herr 1978, Beer 1978, Gassner-Roberts 1982, Stockwell 1985, Wagner 1985) report larger amounts of material taught, higher achievement, better classroom atmosphere and more confident students. These studies were not conducted only in the favourable conditions for which the method was developed — that is, with small classes (12-15 students), pleasant surroundings and block teaching (Herr 1978,1979, Gassner-Roberts 1982, Stockwell 1985) — but also in natural conditions (Beer 1978, Wagner 1985). Controlled experimental and quasi-experimental studies in natural conditions, such as normal university or school classes (Robinett 1975, Prichard, Schuster & Gensch 1980, Botha 1986), also report significant gains in achievement. Their findings are supported by Moon et al. (1986) who conducted a meta-analysis of 14 of the

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

69

PART II — LITERATURE REVIEW

most controlled studies chosen from an overall 40 published in the Journal for the Society of Accelerative Learning and Teaching (Journal of SALT). Treatments were not identical in all 14 studies, but each had a viable control group with which to compare results. Findings were that “the distribution of effect sizes over all categories and outcomes was leptokurtic and positively skewed” in favour of the experimental groups. Moon et al. concluded that the treatments were effective “relative to foreign language acquisition, foreign language retention, affective attributes, and cognitive achievement and creativity.” (p. 8) A number of studies mention other benefits being associated with Accelerative Learning, such as improved self-concept (Edwards & Thomas 1982, Portes & Foster 1986), attitude (Schuster & Ginn 1978, Gassner-Roberts & Brislan 1984), behaviour (Brown 1986), health (Lozanov & Balevski 1975), reduced stress (Lozanov 1978, Gassner-Roberts & Brislan 1984, Schuster & Gritton 1985), and improved motivation for continuing language study (Knibbler 1982). The purpose of this chapter is to take a critical look at the claims made for the effectiveness of Accelerative Learning in the literature from the early Lozanov studies to the present day. We will attempt to give a view of the general trends in the results and draw some conclusions about their general magnitude in the West. We will finally draw attention to important areas which have not been covered by the research so far.

Lozanov’s Research Lozanov’s research in the 1960s and 1970s was conducted predominantly at the Institute of Suggestology at Sofia, Bulgaria. Most of his studies were carried out within Suggestopedia, that is to say that he looked for effects that the method may have on memory and on physiological and psychological measures. He also conducted a small number of comparative studies in order to determine the effectiveness of Suggestopedia when compared to other teaching methods. Although Lozanov is not a linguist, the majority of studies were conducted with language students, since Lozanov (1978) believed that results in language learning were more easily measurable than in other fields of learning. Language teachers were extensively trained in the use of the method, and teaching was carried out in the favourable environment described earlier. Some experimentation, however, was carried out in natural teaching environments, most notably a two-year experiment in primary schools. Findings of Lozanov’s research are reported in Suggestology and Outlines of Suggestopedy (1978), the only major publication on Lozanov’s empirical work which is available in English in the West. (He also published a scientific magazine entitled Suggestologija which is not readily available in the West and has not officially been translated). On the basis of his findings, Lozanov made a series of claims for the effectiveness

70

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CLAIMS MADE FOR ACCELERATIVE LEARNING — CHAPTER 4

of Suggestopedia. These, however, need to be examined critically since Lozanov’s research procedures and the style in which experiments are reported have been the subject of severe criticism by a number of notable linguists (Scovel 1979, Mans 1981, Schiffler 1986a). The credibility of Lozanov’s research is further threatened by the fact that claims of a highly dramatic nature have been falsely attributed to Lozanov or to Suggestopedia, and have been generalised and promulgated by the popular press and by some commercial language teaching enterprises. The objective of this section is to present the claims that Lozanov himself makes for Suggestopedia, to examine their validity in the light of the evidence that he provides, to examine the soundness of his research procedures, and to point out distortions of his claims by other sources. Five broad categories of claims for Suggestopedia can be identified in Lozanov (1978): ■ Exceptionally large amounts of materials are assimilated by the students. ■ Functional use of these materials is exceptionally high. ■ Retention of these materials is exceptionally high over long periods of time. ■ Students’ physiological and psychological state is influenced positively. ■ Higher achievement can be produced in suggestopedic courses as compared to traditionally taught courses. We will now look at each of these claims in detail.

1 Volume of material One of the most dramatic claims which can be attributed to Lozanov (1978:322) is that an average of four times more new words can be given and assimilated in suggestopedic instruction than in instruction by other methods of language teaching such as audiovisual, audio-lingual and conventional (presumably grammar-translation) methods. In a basic suggestopedic course approximately 2000 items of vocabulary are taught in 96 lessons of instruction. This means that an average of 20.8 words are given per lesson. According to Lozanov (1978:322) the corresponding figures for traditionally taught courses are 7.0 words per lesson for audio-lingual courses, 5.55 for audiovisual courses, and 5.35 for conventional courses. This data is simply given in a table (p.322) without further explanation, except that the figures were obtained from “official data”. It appears therefore that this claim is not based on sound experimental research, but on observational data from an unknown source. There is also no further description of the nature of the courses used in the comparison. Lozanov’s teaching was conducted under such favourable conditions that a comparison with traditionally taught courses can hardly be valid. Not only did the teaching take place in small groups, in pleasant surroundings and for several hours at a time, but students were also exceptionally motivated. According

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

71

PART II — LITERATURE REVIEW

to Schiffler (1986a) suggestopedically taught students were selected from extensive waiting lists. Lozanov’s own (1988) description of selection procedures suggests that students were also chosen according to psychological characteristics, in order to make groups as homogeneous as possible. Lozanov provides no basis on which a valid comparison can be made about the volume of material assimilated by students taught at the Institute of Suggestology and that of students taught elsewhere. The term “assimilate”, used by Lozanov to describe the learning process and possibly the learning outcome, is also difficult to interpret. Does this mean that students are able to use these materials in a meaningful way, or do they simply recognise or recall them? From the way that Lozanov describes the various tests given either the day after a suggestopedic session or at the end of the course (p.166, 203, 210), it is clear that these were translation tests, predominantly from the foreign language into the mother tongue. This form of testing gives information on students’ recall only. Both Mans (1981) and Baur (1982) interpret this as a serious limitation of Lozanov’s research. Lozanov refers to hundreds of suggestopedic sessions in which between 100 and 1000 lexical items were presented to the students, and after which students were able to recall an average of 90% and more (p.166). However, we are only given sporadic information about the nature of the courses, the number and background of students involved or the length of the individual sessions. During the decade of experimentation at the Institute, Lozanov clearly had access to a vast pool of data regarding all aspects of the suggestopedic teaching, and it is unfortunate that he reports this in such as haphazard and unsatisfactory manner. Scovel (1979:261) is quite justified when he points out Lozanov’s inability to substantiate his speculations with empirical proof. On the basis of the evidence which Lozanov provides in his 1978 publication, therefore, the above claim would be more soundly based were it rephrased in these terms: Highly motivated students, taught suggestopedically in small classes and in a pleasant environment, are able to recall exceptionally large amounts of materials.

2 Functional use of materials Although language tests as described by Lozanov (1978:166, 203, 210) appear to be chiefly related to memory skills and passive knowledge of the language, he makes the following claims concerning the students’ ability to handle the lexical items with which they have been presented in a suggestopedic course (1978:321-322): ■ Students assimilate on average 90% of the 2000 lexical units presented. ■ More than 60% of the vocabulary can be used actively and fluently in everyday conversation; the rest of the vocabulary is known at translation level. ■ Students speak within the framework of the whole essential grammar. ■ Any text can be read. ■ Students can write with some mistakes.

72

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CLAIMS MADE FOR ACCELERATIVE LEARNING — CHAPTER 4

■ ■ ■ ■

Students make some mistakes in speaking but this does not hinder communication. Pronunciation is satisfactory. Students are not afraid to talk to native speakers. Students are eager to continue studying the same language, if possible in the same way.

As discussed above, only the first and the second half of the second claim have been supported, at least on a limited basis, by Lozanov’s experimental research. The other claims can only have been arrived at by means of the assessment of naturalistic data. With the exception of the third and fourth claim, these claims are not really dramatic or sensational from an applied linguist’s point of view, considering again that highly motivated students in small groups had almost 100 hours of intensive teaching with the addition of music and suggestion, which have been shown to be instrumental in improved learning. However, Lozanov provides insufficient background detail to allow a satisfactory evaluation of these claims. It may be that such claims are indeed valid, but on the basis of Lozanov’s (1978) reports, they must be treated with caution. They can at best be considered as items of anecdotal evidence.

3 Retention of materials One of Lozanov’s major interests was to test the retention rate of materials “assimilated” by the students over various periods of time. As a results of extensive tests, he claims that forgetting is minimal in Suggestopedia, and that retention is still exceptionally high as long as 2 years after the original learning. Again, however, most results are simply listed in tables with no precise information on how tests were conducted. The initial assessment appears to have been based on the results of written translations of lexical items presented at random the day after the suggestopedic sessions (p. 203), while the delayed assessment was taken at various intervals after an entire course had finished (p.213).There is no precise information, however, on which basis students were selected for the delayed tests or on the nature and conditions of this testing. Results are provided in two formats. Either individual students are referred to, or the results of a group of students are given. Lozanov usually states the students’ initial recall rate, their delayed recall rate, the time elapsed between the two tests and whether or not the students had reviewed the materials in the meantime. The tables do not give information about how many words had been taught or tested in each instance. Lozanov lists results, which tend to be inconsistent, at random, and, without providing sufficient evidence of standard statistical analyses, makes claims regarding the statistical reliability of results. An example of this can be found on pages 213-215. Table 21 (p.213) shows the “Percentage of Forgetting in Suggestopedic Memorization”. The results of 21 subjects are referred to. The data for 12 students, however, is

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

73

PART II — LITERATURE REVIEW

Naturally several possible threats to validity such as teacher-treatment confound and Hawthorne and Rosenthal effects, must be considered in studies of this nature. In almost all cases experimental and control conditions were taught by different teachers which may have influenced results. However, it is highly unlikely that all the superior results reported here are due to superior teachers in the experimental condition. Several ways of addressing the teacher-treatment confound will be shown in the language studies discussed below. Whether the superior performance can be attributed to other effects, such as the experimental students feeling more important because of the novelty of the approach (Hawthorne effect), or the experimental teacher’s positive expectations of their group’s success (Rosenthal effect), is almost impossible to say since we do not have enough detailed information about the nature of these studies. Journal space is usually very limited which often results in important information being omitted from an article describing an experiment. Since almost all students were involved in preand post-testing, it may be assumed that attention was not solely directed towards the experimental students, and since control teachers were aware of the nature of the experiments, they may have made an effort to match the performance of the experimental groups. Although it may be possible that these effects influenced the outcome of some studies, it cannot be assumed that this was the case in all studies. Language Studies The largest number of language studies have been carried out in non-experimental conditions. Many of these have been cited above. Although their observational data is interesting and illuminating, no reliable conclusions about the effect of Accelerative Learning procedures on achievement can be made on the basis of these studies. Another problem with language studies which has been emphasised by linguists (Scovel 1979, Baur 1982), is that they often test recall ability only. This is true for most of Lozanov’s (1978) research as well as for that of Dröbner (1985). It was also the major variable tested in the non-language studies above. Although recall ability is an important element in language learning, it is an exclusively receptive task since in most cases the foreign language items need only be recognised and translated into the mother tongue. Functional use of language items involves both receptive and productive skills, written as well as oral and aural. When comparing results it would therefore be most interesting to look at as many language skills as possible. In this section well controlled studies which compared more than just recall ability are presented. As much information as possible about materials, tests and control methods is given. Since most studies compare Accelerative Learning to conventional methods which are generally described as grammar-translation based, an attempt has also been made to locate studies which use non-conventional methods as a means for comparison, and studies which compare Accelerative Learning to intensive language learning. A summary of these studies is given in Table 4.2.

92

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CLAIMS MADE FOR ACCELERATIVE LEARNING — CHAPTER 4

Table 4.2 Summary of Language Studies Author

Model Design

Students

Time Subject

Con. Results

Robinett Sugg exp. 98 1977 pre-post 2 exp. 1 cntrl.

A

30x Spanish F 50m N sess.

Schuster SALT quasi-exp. 51 1976b 1 exp. 1 cntrl. Mignault Sugg quasi-exp. 94 1979 pre-post 2 exp 3 cntrl.

A

1 Spanish N sem.

A

90h French

?

A

13x English 40m sess.

N

Bass 1980

SALT exp. 58 pre-post 1 exp 2 cntrl.

Knibbler Sugg exp. 1982 5 exp 5 cntrl.

99

A

40h French

N

Gassner- SALT exp. Roberts 1 exp & Brislan 2 cntrl. 1984

24

A

1 German acad. year

F

Botha 1985

SALT quasi-exp. 143 A pre-post 1 exp 5 cntrl.

40h Afrikaans F

Schiffler Sugg exp. 72 1986 pre-post 2 exp 2 cntrl.

A

28h French

F N

Schiffler Sugg exp. ? 1986 pre-post 2 exp 2 cntrl. Odendaal Sugg quasi-exp. 32 1987 pre-post 1 exp 1 cntrl.

A

28h French

?

A

33h English

F

sign. *higher achievement in exp.1 +11.9% sign. **higher achievement in exp.2 +14.4% sign. **fewer absences in exp.1 materials taught in 1/3 time less homework materials taught in 60h less than intensive control beginners sign.*higher ach.overall intermediates sign.*higher in reading than intensive sign.* higher achievement overall compared to normal university course sign. *higher achievement than structural analysis group x– = +5.16 difference between exp. and combination control ns higher regard for learning ability higher motivation to continue written not tested oral ns, listening comprehension ns overall written + 11.8% oral +6% not statistically analysed work seen as less demanding less homework sign. *better attitude towards language and culture written proficiency higher overall@ oral proficiency ns weak exp. sign.**better comprehension sign.** better translation from TL strong exp.sign.*better grammar sign.* better translation into TL weak exp. sign.**better oral proficiency strong exp. ns overall sign.***higher oral proficiency sign.***higher verbal I.Q. sign.* higher non-verbal I.Q. sign.***higher total I.Q. attitude towards language + culture ns

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

93

PART II — LITERATURE REVIEW

No significant differences were found in achievement between the two experimental groups, suggesting that suggestopedic room design did not affect achievement in this study. The fact that the weaker students performed as well as the stronger students lends further support to the notion of beginning students benefiting more from this approach. A survey of students’ attitudes towards the experiment showed that two thirds of the experimental students liked the music, that one third of all students liked the intensive teaching and that one third disapproved of the change in teachers. The last factor may have influenced the performance of those students negatively, but since this comment was made in equal proportion by experimental and control students, the change of teachers is unlikely to have influenced performance differentially between groups. The entire experiment was then repeated in reverse order, experimental students becoming controls and vice versa. In order to test whether intensive conditions were effective in achievement, the groups were now taught for two lessons twice weekly over three and one half months which corresponds to the normal university timetable. All other conditions were as before except that some attrition in student numbers had taken place for reasons unrelated to the experiment. No exact numbers are given. No mention is made whether the two experimental groups were still taught in different environments. Results were quite different this time. While no significant differences were found between the stronger experimental students and their respective controls, only oral communication was found to be significantly higher for the weaker experimental students when compared with their respective controls. On the student survey only 59% of the experimental students liked the music while 18% rejected it. Previously 3% had rejected the music. No mention was made about the change of teachers, and almost 40% of all students disliked the extensive teaching time. Most interesting was that 78% of the control students found the progress too fast while only 18% of the experimental students found this. This had not been mentioned previously and supports Gassner-Roberts and Brislan’s (1984) findings above. Schiffler attributes the differences in results between the two studies solely to the intensive teaching time in the first study. However, other factors may have contributed to the decreased significance in results between the first and the second study. Students may have objected to the withdrawal of a condition which they had enjoyed. Teachers’ enthusiasm for administering the concert sessions may have decreased, former experimental students may have had higher motivation for continuing with the language (as has been shown by Knibbler, 1982, above), the fact that one third less students liked the music may have influenced the experimental students’ performance, and the fact that students had 56 hours more experience in

102

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CLAIMS MADE FOR ACCELERATIVE LEARNING — CHAPTER 4

learning French may have been important in the outcome. In the light of Mignault’s (1979) results above it is possible that suggestopedic teaching is indeed less effective with more advanced students. All this does not explain, however, why there was a shift in skills which were found to be significantly higher in the experimental group. While in the first study oral communication was not found to be significantly better in either experimental class when compared to their respective controls, this was the only significant difference found between experimentals and controls in the second study. It is regrettable that Schiffler altered the conditions for the replication study. Since more replications were planned, it may have been more illuminating to repeat the study in identical conditions first and then change the teaching time. In this way more may have been discovered about the role of teaching time allocation. Conclusions - Achievement in Language studies Judging from the studies reported here it can be said that the achievement of the experimental groups overall was significantly higher than that of the control groups, although results of the language studies were not as consistent as those of the nonlanguage studies. The reason for this may have been that in the non-language studies the focus of interest was frequently recall ability, while a variety of skills was tested in the language studies. In the language section the achievement of 18 experimental groups was compared to that of 24 control groups. A summary of the results is given in Table 2. Again no experimental group performed significantly less well than the controls. Seven experimental groups performed significantly (p .165 is significant at .01 level.

124

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

A QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF ACCELERATIVE LEARNING … — CHAPTER 5

suggest that the treatment had a positive effect on reducing the rate of decline. Separate school analyses showed that the Class within School x Method x Time interaction was again significant at School 2 where the pattern of change across time between the two experimental groups was different. Figure 5.12 shows that while initially the score for the second experimental group was higher than that of the first, post-test scores for both are very similar. The school analyses also showed a significant Time effect at Schools 2 and 3 where language self-concept declined between R1 and R3 in all but the first experimental group at School 2, and a significant Method effect at Schools 1 and 2 where scores for language self-concept were higher in the experimental groups than in the controls. In summary, the findings for self-concept did not follow the pattern of those reported for behaviour and attitude. For both overall and language self-concept a decline in scores across time was found for both the combined experimental and control group. For language self-concept, however, this decline was significantly less severe in the experimental group than in the control group.

Achievement All experimental classes received higher scores on the achievement test (Table 5.1) than their respective control classes except the first experimental class at School 2 which performed about as well as the control class. The experimental class at School 1 and the second experimental class at School 2 had the highest results, with over 70% A grades. Despite this ANCOVA did not show a significant Method effect (ANCOVA Table in Appendix 16). The fact that this effect approached significance at the .05 level suggested that examination of the achievement results in the different schools would be of interest. In School 1 and 3 the Method main effects were in fact significant (ANCOVA Tables in Appendix 17 and 18) reflecting the superiority of the combined experimental group over the control group. No other significant effects were found. However, the effect of Method on achievement in this study cannot be regarded as strong. While the experimental students generally scored higher on the post-test than the controls, there is no consistent advantage of membership in experimental class which holds across school and class.

Correlation analysis Since changes in some variables across time were expected in this study, two correlation analyses were performed on the whole sample. Table 5.3 shows the pattern of correlations between major variables with their February values (before treatment was introduced) with the equivalent pattern for the July values (end of study scores) shown in italics.

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

125

PART III — EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS

134

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDERMETHOD OR PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

Chapter 6 An experimental investigation of the effects of Accelerative Learning on language learning, language self-concept, and attitude in the primary school

Introduction Research on Accelerative Learning in the regular primary school environment is not extensive. Ten studies published between 1975 and 1982 are reviewed in Palmer (1985). Analysis of the effects suggests that SALT procedures were effective in most grades, subjects and ability levels and that best results were demonstrated by better students. However, low functioning students also improved significantly with SALT procedures (Palmer: 102): Statistical tests were used in five studies (Balevski & Ganovski, 1975; Boyle & Render, 1982; Held, 1976; Johnson, 1982; Lozanov & Balevski, 1975) revealing twelve differences significant at levels .05 and .01 for increases in creative thinking, recall of individual words, general achievement, weight gain, and school attendance. A later experimental study by Portes and Foster (1986), discussed in chapter 4, looked at the effect of SALT procedures on elementary school children’s self-concept. The findings were that the effect of the treatment interacted with the children’s grade level and gender. Differences between experimental and control groups were significant at the first grade level but not at the fourth grade level. This research in primary schools provides some evidence of improvement on academic (Johnson 1982, Lozanov & Balevski 1975) and non-academic measures (Johnson 1982, Fisher 1982 and Portes & Foster 1986) when elements of Suggestopedia or SALT are used in the treatment process. However, the data base is still relatively poor when compared to studies at high school and college level. Furthermore, research designs in the studies examined by Palmer (1985) were not always tightly controlled and the nature of experimental treatments varied considerably between studies. Also, the most recent study (Banerjee 1997) reported limited usefulness of Suggestopedia with younger children.

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

135

PART III — EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Finally, the variable most ignored in all three environments is that of the teacher. In most studies experimental and control groups were taught by different teachers with little or no information given about teaching approach and teacher behaviour. There are two ways of addressing this problem of teacher-treatment confound. Firstly, when different teachers are employed, it might be possible to select the two most enthusiastic ones for each treatment and set the experiment up as a type of competition. This approach, however, would largely reduce the external validity of the study. Secondly, when the same teacher administers both treatments, teacher behaviour could be monitored by independent observers to check whether hypothesised expectation effects are apparent, and tests which may be influenced by subjectivity could be marked by independent teachers. The second approach was used in the present study. In this study every possible effort was made to duplicate conditions across experimental and control classes and to minimize threats to validity. Children were assigned at random to the control and the experimental group, and both groups were taught by the researcher. Communicative teaching was used for instruction in both groups with the addition of relaxation, music and suggestion as the independent variables in the experimental group. Details of lesson content and procedures, apart from the experimental treatment, were identical for both groups. This included materials taught, length of time spent on each item, children’s activities before the class, changes in starting time, even clothing worn by the teacher. Two videos were taken at the same point in time of each group for comparison of teacher and student behaviour and students’ attention rate in order to provide a record of teaching style in both conditions. Oral tests were administered by the researcher in the presence of an independent teacher who was unaware of the nature of the experiment. It was this independent teacher who carried out the assessment for the oral tests. This study served essentially three purposes. In the widest sense, it set out to test in a primary school setting some of the broad claims made about the effects of Accelerative Learning in the literature. In a more narrow framework, it attempted to replicate some of the investigations of the secondary school study, reported in the previous chapter, in a more controlled experiment. Specifically, it endeavoured to find out whether the addition of music, relaxation and suggestion to good communicative teaching would have a positive effect on language self-concept, attitude and achievement in an elementary school German class. In contrast to our previous study, emphasis was given to the testing of achievement in language learning. Since Lozanov’s (1978) experiments have been criticised (Mans 1981, Baur 1982) for testing only receptive skills, such as translating back into the mother tongue, emphasis was given to the testing of receptive and productive skills, both written and oral. A retention test was also administered in order to test Lozanov’s (1978) claims for exceptionally high retention rates after long periods of time.

136

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF ACCELERATIVE LEARNING … — CHAPTER 6

Method Subjects and Setting Twenty-eight children, ten girls and eighteen boys (mean age nine years eight months) from one class combining years four and five took part in the experiment. The school was a Catholic Primary co-educational School in a predominantly middle class area in suburban Adelaide. No child had ever learnt German before, and about two thirds had never had any long term contact with a foreign language speaker. Four children (two in each group), were of Italian, Croatian or Indonesian background, but with little or no knowledge of these languages. The teaching was provided by the researcher herself. Teaching took place in the children’s normal classroom with minimal changes made to the class’s usual seating arrangement.

Length of study Children were taught for four weeks with daily sessions of 70 minutes, followed by one week of testing. Total hours of instruction were 23 hours for each group. Classes were deliberately longer than the usual 30-40 minutes for language instruction in primary schools. Initial sessions prior to the introduction of the treatment had shown that the children were able to sustain their attention this long, and this way a more substantial total teaching time could be achieved in the period allocated by the school.

Content The course consisted of six German songs, numbers up to 100, telling the time, and three dialogues written by the researcher (a copy of the first dialogue can be found in Appendix 19). The dialogues were especially designed to follow the standard suggestopedic format with the target language on the left hand side of the page and the corresponding English translation on the right hand side. The course content provided a total of approximately 300 lexical items representing a basic survival knowledge in German. No homework was set, and the children’s German folders were kept at the school until the last day of teaching when the children were allowed to take them home.

Procedure The complete group of children who took part in the experiment was taught as a whole (all 28 children) for four days in order to give children some information about the language and about the language learning process, and thus make more meaningful

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

137

PART III — EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS

their responses to the pre-training questionnaires. Communicative teaching was used as the teaching approach. This was characterised by reduced emphasis on linguistic accuracy and greater emphasis on active language use through the use of games, songs and other creative exercises. The distribution of time allocated to the four language skills was about 70% listening and speaking, 20% reading, and 10% writing. The children were told that the researcher was interested to see how a language could be taught at primary school. The experiment was vaguely set up as a competition between the two groups. The reason for this was that both groups should feel that they were expected to do well, that the first group should be discouraged from passing on any information to the second and that both groups should feel special in partaking in this experiment. All children were then tested for language self-concept and attitude. For language self-concept an adapted version of the Self Description Questionnaire (SDQ), a selfreport instrument devised by Marsh (1983) was administered. All items referring to Mathematics were isolated and replaced with German. This version of the SDQ had been successfully used in the secondary school study, reported in the previous chapter, to determine language self-concept. It had further been tested with primary school children outside this study, who had no difficulty in understanding and responding to the questions. The questionnaire was administered by the researcher in the last 15 minutes of pre-experiment teaching. Attitude was measured by the Illinois Foreign Language Attitude Questionnaire (IFLQ), devised by Jacobovits (1970). It provides information concerning specific aspects of the instruction process, as well as feedback concerning attitude towards the language itself. The questionnaire has been extensively tested and used in studies, the results of which are stored at the Center for Comparative Linguistics at the University of Illinois. It has also been satisfactorily used in the secondary school study. In order to determine its suitability for this age group, it was tested with children outside this study. It was found that provided that the teacher explained the questions carefully, children had no difficulty in understanding and filling in the questionnaire. In the light of this, it was administered in this study by the class teacher over several sessions outside the German teaching. Subjects were then matched for sex, age and language self-concept scores. The reason for use of the last was the fact that in the secondary school study language selfconcept had been shown to be the highest predictor of success in language learning at the time of pre-testing. The children in this study were then assigned at random to either the control or the experimental class (N=14 each). In order to provide a further check on the groups’ achievement level, the class teacher was asked to give a grade point average for each group regarding language arts. The means (70.5% for the experimental group and 71.4% for the control group) suggest

138

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF ACCELERATIVE LEARNING … — CHAPTER 6

that the groups were indeed quite evenly matched for this variable. The control group was taught for the first four weeks continuing the same communicative teaching approach as before. The programme was recorded in detailed lesson plans in order to reproduce it as identically as possible for the second group. The experimental class was taught for the four weeks immediately following the end of teaching for the control group. Part of the first session was spent explaining the suggestopedic approach to the students and preparing them for the relaxation and visualisation exercises. In order to be able to compare outcomes between this and the previous study, it was decided to use the same treatment as in the secondary study. This was introduced on the second day and consisted of the following: ■

Mind calming. At the start of each class a variety of music ranging from classical (e.g. 2nd movement of Beethoven’s Emperor Concerto) to environmental (e.g. Kitaro’s Oasis) was played while the students were encouraged to visualise in response to guided imagery. These sessions lasted approximately five minutes. An example of a scenario is given in the previous chapter.

■

Passive concert session. This session was conducted after the introduction of new material, approximately twice a week. Here suitable passages from the baroque repertoire (e.g. Pachelbel’s Canon) were played while the researcher read the new material aloud giving the English translation in a softer voice. These sessions lasted approximately 10 minutes. The following is an example of the reading of the first few lines of one of the dialogues the children learnt: Hallo, wer bist du? (read in normal voice)… Hello, who are you? (read in softer voice)… Hallo, wer bist du? (normal voice)… Ich heisse Piggy, und du? (normal voice)… My name is Piggy, and yours? (softer voice)… Ich heisse Piggy, und du? (normal voice)…

■

Positive learning suggestions. These were given during the mind calming sessions or whenever necessary. They related chiefly to the ease of retaining the material. Some examples are given in the previous chapter.

Two video tapes were taken of teaching sessions for both the control and the experimental group, one in the third, the other in the fourth week of teaching. The first shows a class engaged in elaboration exercises of familiar material, the second shows the introduction of new materials. After teaching had finished, the questionnaires were readministered to both groups in identical conditions. The children then completed five achievement tests: Tests 1-3 (R1,R2,R3) tested the students’ written receptive skills by asking them to translate into English the three German dialogues they had learnt. ■ Test 4 (W) tested the students’ written productive skills by requiring full sentence responses in German to twenty German questions. (Appendix 20) ■

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

139

PART III — EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS

■

Test 5 (O) tested the students’ aural/oral receptive and productive skills. Here the students had to respond orally to thirty German questions asked by the researcher. They were also required to sing one song of their choice. (Appendix 21)

The children had been given three short achievement tests (one a week) during the period of teaching in order to familiarise them with the testing format and to reduce anxiety about testing. The end of course written tests were administered by the class teacher in 15 minute sessions over 4 days. The oral test was administered by the researcher with an independent native German speaker scoring the responses on a check list. This teacher had not been informed about the nature of the experiment and therefore was not aware of group membership. The written tests were marked by the researcher, the oral test by the independent teacher (oral tests were recorded on audio tapes). Tests were administered in identical conditions at the same point in time in the programme for each group, with the exception that the experimental class had the same music that was used in the teaching sessions playing in the background for the written tests. At the end of the study, teacher and student behaviour shown in the videotaped lessons, was rated by six independent raters. The videos for rating consisted of one 25 minute extract from each of the experimental and the control class. In these segments 10 minutes of revision and 15 minutes of elaboration exercises were shown. These were taken at approximately the same point in time for each group and dealt with identical materials. Since no music or relaxation was shown in these extracts the videos contained essentially two identical German lessons. The rating scale was devised for this study by the researcher. The following definitions of items were given to the raters.

1. Children attentive well behaved relaxed quick in responses

refers to the degree of attention to the task refers to general class behaviour refers to whether children appeared stressed or not refers to the time involved in responding to the teacher’s actions instructions

2. Teacher demanding friendly relaxed positive clear enthusiastic

140

refers to the amount of pressure put on children to respond refers to the atmosphere created by the teacher refers to whether the teacher appeared stressed or not refers to the teacher providing positive reinforcement refers to clarity in giving instructions refers to the teacher’s interest in the teaching

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF ACCELERATIVE LEARNING … — CHAPTER 6

Scores were given on the following scale: 5 4 3 very quite average

2 slightly

1 not

The independent raters were four students in a Diploma of Education course and two language teaching academics unfamiliar with the type of research under investigation. Together with another researcher they discussed the items on the rating scale (Appendix 22), then watched five minutes of each video, then discussed the items on the scale again. They were then instructed to watch the full videos without interruption, taking notes as they went along. From these notes they arrived at their final score for each item at the end of each video.

Results Since this study was designed to test whether the use of Accelerative Learning in the primary school language classroom would positively influence language self-concept, attitude and achievement, we will look at these in detail. First, however, we will show the results of the video ratings in order to see whether teacher or student behaviour were different in the two groups. The mean scores given for each item concerning the state of the children are shown in Table 6.1. Table 6.1. Video Rating for the State of the Children (mean scores of six independent raters: maximum = 5) attentive well behaved relaxed quick in responses

Experimental Group 4.3 4.3 4.7 3.8

Control Group 3.1 3.7 4.0 3.7

The major difference in the two videos concerned the children’s behaviour, relaxed state and especially attention rate. While the experimental children were seen by two raters as very attentive and by four as quite attentive, the attention rate of the control children was seen by one as quite attentive, and by five raters as average. To test for significant differences between groups, the ratings were compared using a rank sum analysis technique for matched sets (Meddis, 1984, p.151). Although all means are higher in the experimental group, the only variable on which there was a significant difference was attentive where the Z value of 2.04 is significant at p. < .05. The question that needs to be asked is whether the difference could have been the result of different teacher behaviour. The mean scores for each item concerning the state of the teacher are given in Table 6.2.

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

141

PART III — EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Table 6.2. Video Rating for the State of the Teacher (mean scores of six independent raters: maximum = 5) demanding friendly relaxed positive clear enthusiastic

Experimental Group 4.2 4.7 5.0 4.7 4.5 4.8

Control Group 4.3 4.7 4.8 4.5 4.3 4.5

Here too, although differences were observed, these were of lesser magnitude in comparison with the differences seen in the children. The teacher is seen as equally friendly in both episodes and all other differences fluctuate between very and quite. At no stage does any item of teacher behaviour differ between very and average, as it did with the children’s attention rate above applying the same rank sum analysis. None of these differences was statistically significant in the rank sum. Considering the differences observed in the two episodes, how did the raters see the overall effectiveness of the teaching? The mean scores for this are shown in Table 6.3. Table 6.3 Video Rating of Overall Effectiveness of Teaching Episode. (mean scores of six independent raters: maximum = 5) Experimental Group 4.8

Control Group 4.3

Consensus was fairly high for the experimental episode, where teaching was seen as very effective by five and quite effective by one rater. For the control episode, opinions varied more, with three raters seeing the teaching as very effective, two as quite effective, and one as average. This 0.5 difference represents the largest discrepancy in all the ratings concerning the teacher. The rank sum analysis, however, showed this difference was not statistically significant. All spontaneous comments by the raters, except one, to the question Is there any feature of this teaching you would like to comment on? refer to the state of the children rather than the behaviour of the teacher. Perhaps we can tentatively conclude from this that the differences in effectiveness of the teaching episodes were seen as the result of the children’s attention rate, which was mentioned most consistently, rather than a differential treatment by the teacher.

142

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF ACCELERATIVE LEARNING … — CHAPTER 6

Language Self-Concept In contrast to beginning language students at secondary school who may overrate their ability (see chapter 5), children in both groups started with mildly positive mean self-concept scores of 35.0 for the experimental group and 36.4 for the control group out of 50. (See Table 6.4). The initial difference between group means was tested by analysis of variance (ANOVA). No significant difference was found. Table 6.4. Means for Language Self-Concept. – x control group 36.4 experimental group 35.0 SC2 control group 36.7 experimental group 42.8 SC1

Legend:

sd 7.9 10.8 11.8 5.6

Total possible 50 50

SC1 = language self-concept before experiment, SC2 = language self-concept after exp, –x = mean, sd = standard deviation.

The end of study ratings remained positive and showed a near unchanged score of 36.7 for the control group, while the score for the experimental group increased to 42.8. These differences were tested for significance using a two way (Group x Time) repeated measures ANOVA, with repeated measures on the Time factor (see Appendix 23 for ANOVA Table). There was no Group effect, but a Time effect (F1,26 = 6.09, p< .05) and a Group x Time interaction (F1,26 = 5.07, p< .05) were found. The interaction was due to the fact that language self-concept scores rose in the experimental group while remaining stable in the control group. This finding suggests that the treatment had a positive effect on the children’s language self-concept.

Attitude Two types of attitude were investigated in this study. Firstly, overall attitude (OA), which included all items on the IFLQ. Secondly, attitude towards the language learning process (LL), for which all relevant items on the IFLQ were isolated. (See Table 6.5). Table 6.5 Means for Overall Attitude and Attitude to Language Learning. – x sd Total possible OA1 control group 86.9 13.1 119 experimental group 80.4 19.0 OA2 control group 76.9 22.0 119 experimental group 89.6 17.1 LL1 control group 38.9 6.4 53 experimental group 36.4 7.3 LL2 control group 35.2 9.7 53 experimental group 40.7 6.2 Legend:

OA1 = overall attitude before experiment, OA2 = overall attitude after experiment, LL1 = attitude towards language learning before, LL2 = attitude towards language learning after experiment.

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

143

PART III — EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Children were tested individually in identical conditions. No music was used as a background for the experimental group. Questions were asked by the researcher but scored on a checklist by an independent native German speaker unaware of the nature of the experiment. The time necessary for the control group exam was 2 hours and 30 minutes. The time for the experimental group exam was 1 hour and 15 minutes. The mean class scores, given by the independent teacher, were 66% for the control group and 91% for the experimental group. A t Test analysis showed this difference to be significant beyond the .01 level (t (26)=5.88).

Productive-written The results in this section were even more surprising, since the children in both groups had little experience in writing German, and the level of spelling English was poor in most of the experimental children. (See W, Table 6.7). The children had to respond to twenty German sentences with complete sentences in German. Given the time involved in learning this task and the children’s spelling difficulties, it was decided that here approximations to the correct spelling would be accepted. The answers needed to be clearly understandable to a native speaker and contain the correct word order. The mean class scores were 59% for the control group and 85% for the experimental group. A t-Test analysis showed this difference to be significant beyond the .01 level (t (26)=3.45).

Overall Achievement All end of course achievement tests together were marked out of a total 300 points. All children in the experimental group scored over 200 points, representing no fail marks. The lowest mark was 220 (73%). The highest mark was 289 (96%). (See Total, Table 6.7). In the control group the range was much larger, namely from 85 (28%) to 286 (95%). Setting the fail mark at 150, there were three children failing overall. The mean class scores were 65% for the control group and 87% for the experimental group. A t-Test analysis showed this difference to be significant at the .01 level (t (26)=3.76). These findings suggest that the treatment had a positive influence on all areas of the children’s achievement in the following order of magnitude: aural/oral, written/ productive, written/receptive.

Retention Test One claim in Accelerative Learning is for exceptionally high long-term retention rates of materials (Lozanov 1978). In order to test this claim, two of the achievement tests (R2 and W) were readministered after 7 months to the whole group of children in identical conditions. The score for R2, testing recall, was 78.4% for the experimental group and 53.3% for the control group. Scores for W, testing written production, were

146

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF ACCELERATIVE LEARNING … — CHAPTER 6

50.3% and 36.4% respectively. The relationship of the retention scores (T2) to the initial scores obtained one week after teaching had finished (T1), is shown in Figure 6.1. The decrease in scores after 7 months was approximately 10% for the experimental group and 20% for the control group. For written production the decrease was higher, especially for the experimental group where scores dropped by approximately 35%. However, the experimental children’s score after 7 months was only slightly lower (50.3%) than the control children’s initial score (59%). Repeated measures ANOVA (see Appendix 26 for ANOVA Table) showed a Time and a Group effect, but no Time x Group effect on either test, which suggests that the superior performance of the experimental group was maintained both for recall (here children had to translate from German to English) and for productive skills (here children had to respond in German to questions written in German) over this period of time. It is important to note that the level of recall of the experimental group after 7 months was higher than that of the control group at the first testing.

Figure 6.1 Retention Rates for Recall and Written Production 90 exp.

80

70

60

cntrl.

exp.

50 cntrl.

40 Recall

Production

30 T1

T2

T1

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

T2

147

PART III — EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS

152

ACCELERATED LEARNING: WONDERMETHOD OR PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

Chapter 7 The Effects of Accelerative Learning on the functional use of language in a year 10 German class

Introduction The major criticism of Accelerative Learning when used for language learning has been that the method teaches memory skills exclusively. Lozanov’s (1978) original work has been criticised (Scovel 1979) for testing students’ recall ability only, and Baur(1982) extends this criticism to subsequent research in Accelerative Learning, particularly to the early studies in Canada and the U.S.A. such as Bordon and Schuster(1976) It is true that a large number of studies investigating some of the effects of Suggestopedia have been concerned with recall or recognition ability (e.g. Schuster & Martin 1980, Schuster & Mouzon 1982, Stein et al. 1982, Schuster 1985) The reason for this may be that the majority of studies were short-term and this variable was particularly easy to measure in studies of this nature. The findings are by no means unimportant since memory skills are an important factor in language learning, especially in the acquisition of vocabulary. The goal in language learning, however, is not to recite vocabulary items or phrases learnt by heart, but to reach a level of proficiency which allows students to function adequately and flexibly in an environment independent of the situations they have been exposed to in class. This is also Lozanov’s goal (Lozanov & Gateva 1988). However, although he makes claims for a high level of students’ functional use of language items after a suggestopedic course (Lozanov 1978), he has never tested these claims experimentally. The language studies reviewed in chapter 4 show that there has been a shift away from testing recall or recognition of language items, which can be described as a purely receptive task, to testing productive language skills, both written and oral. For example, Gassner-Roberts & Brislan (1984) and Schiffler (1986b) have included extensive language tests addressing sophisticated areas of language learning such as grammar, comprehension, oral communication and creative writing. Although findings

ACCELERATIVE LEARNING: WONDER METHOD OR PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC GOBBLEDYGOOK?

153

PART III — EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Error Rate Since the students produced significantly more words at P2 than at P1 it was necessary to check whether errors increased accordingly. This was achieved by calculating the proportion of errors to words produced for each of the eight Times (see Table 7.3 for means). ANOVA (Appendix 33) showed neither a Method nor a Method x Time interaction, but a Time effect (F3,21 =8.06, p