Accelerative Learning

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1 Introduction
PART 1 BACKGROUND
Chapter 2 The evolution of Accelerative Learning from Lozanov to the present
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Suggestopedia
2.3 Adaptations of the Lozanov model
2. Superlearning
2.! Suggestive Accelerative Learning and Teaching "SALT#
2.$ %s&chop'die
2.( Summar&
PART II LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter 3 The effects of music) rela*ation and suggestion in the learning environment.
3.1 Introduction
3.2 +usic
3.3 ,ela*ation
3. Suggestion
3.! -eneral conclusions
Chapter A critical anal&sis of the claims made for Accelerative Learning
.1 Introduction
.2 Lozanov.s research
.3 /estern research
.3.1 0on1e*perimental studies
.3.2 2*perimental and 3uasi1e*perimental studies
.3.2.1 Time saving
.3.2.2 Improvement in affective variables
.3.2.3 Improved achievement
.3.2.3.1 0on1language studies
.3.2.3.2 Language studies
.3.2.3.2.1 Comparison 4ith intensive conditions
.3.2.3.2.2 Comparison 4ith conventional methods
.3.2.3.2.3 Comparison 4ith non1conventional methods
. -eneral conclusions5 research claims
PART III EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Chapter ! A 3uasi1e*perimental investigation of the effects of Accelerative Learning on
behaviour) self1concept) attitude and achievement in the natural secondar& school
language class.
!.1 Introduction
!.2 +ethod
!.3 ,esults
!. 6iscussion
Chapter $ An e*perimental investigation of the effects of Accelerative Learning on
language learning) language self1concept and attitude in the primar& school.
$.1 Introduction
$.2 +ethod
$.3 ,esults
$. 6iscussion
Chapter ( The effects of Accelerative Learning on the functional use of language in a
&ear 17 -erman class.
(.1 Introduction
(.2 +ethod
(.3 ,esults
(. 6iscussion
Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations for research

9ibliograph&
Appendices
ABSTRACT

The purpose of this thesis 4as to revie4 and investigate the effectiveness of Accelerative
Learning) a teaching method 4hich claims to affect positivel& both the ps&chological
state of the student and the cognitive learning process.
In order to thro4 some light on the confusion and controvers& associated 4ith
Accelerative Learning) it 4as necessar& to begin b& e*amining the evolution of the
method over the past t4o decades. This sho4ed that several different versions had
emerged since Lozanov.s original Suggestopedia) and that important changes had been
made to the content and structure of the method.
The contribution of three versions 1 Superlearning, Suggestive Accelerative Learning and
Teaching (SALT) and Psychopdie 1 4ere e*amined in the light of relevant research
findings) and it transpired that although distinct differences e*ist bet4een these versions
and Suggestopedia) all four have three ma:or elements in common. These are music)
rela*ation and suggestion.
The literature revie4) therefore) e*amined the effectiveness of these three elements as
individual variables in the learning process as 4ell as the effectiveness of Accelerative
Learning as a complete teaching method. Anal&sis of studies sho4ed consistent findings
for the effectiveness of music and rela*ation in a variet& of learning tas;s. <indings for
the effectiveness of suggestion as a single variable 4ere less e*tensive and less
consistent.
Studies 4hich investigated Accelerative Learning as a complete teaching method in the
classroom consistentl& reported findings for the time saving and for improved
achievement "albeit not as dramatic as those promulgated b& the popular press#) 4ith
some indication of improved affective variables being associated 4ith use of Accelerative
Learning procedures. The most important gap in the literature 4as of studies carried out
in the natural school environment investigating the effect of Accelerative Learning on
affective variables and achievement in the conte*t of language learning.
This problem 4as addressed in the empirical part of the thesis 4hich consisted of three
studies. =f ma:or importance in these investigations 4as that Accelerative Learning 4as
compared to a teaching method 4ith similar ob:ectives and strategies. The first stud& 4as
a 3uasi1e*periemental investigation of the effect of Accelerative Learning on behaviour)
attitude) self1concept and achievement in five secondar& school language classes. The
findings strongl& supported claims for improved behaviour and attitude) 4ith limited
support given to claims for improved achievement. Claims for improved self1concept
4ere not supported in this environment.
The second stud& 4as an e*perimental investigation of the effect of Accelerative
Learning on attitude) language self1concept and achievement in one primar& school
language class. <indings strongl& supported claims for improvement in all three variables
and for high long1term retention rates of materials.
The third stud& 4as a time1series anal&sis of the effect of Accelerative Learning on the
functional use of language in one secondar& school class. Significantl& better
performance during the e*perimental phase 4as found on tests of recall) 4ritten 4ord
production) 4riting 3ualit&) fluenc& and transfer s;ills of structures. 0o support for high
long1term retention rates of vocabular& 4as found.
Chapter 1
Introduction

Kopf, Herz und Hand.
Head, heart and hand]
Pestalozzi

Language teaching in Australian schools is often difficult) despite the fact that Australia is
one of the trul& multicultural societies in the 4orld. =nce the students realise that
learning a second language ade3uatel& is not as eas& or as much fun as the& imagined)
man& lose interest. In particular) those 4ho are onl& learning a language because the
sub:ect is compulsor& can become ver& unenthusiastic even disruptive in the
classroom.
A surve& completed as part of the pilot 4or; for this research "<eli* 1>8$# has sho4n that
even good language classes ma& have students 4ho openl& resist learning a language for
a variet& of reasons. The& ma& believe themselves incapable) find the activit& boring or a
4aste of time) or even react to a *enophobic attitude at home.
It 4ould appear that one obvious solution to the problem is to present the language and
the learning activit& in a more interesting 4a&. The introduction of Communicative
Teaching, as e*emplified b& /iddo4son "1>(8#) 9rumfit "1>(># and man& others) to
South Australian schools has alread& improved conditions considerabl&. In order to
develop real communication in the classroom there has been a shift a4a& from the
mechanics of language learning 4hich are highlighted b& a segregation of specific
language areas such as phonolog&) grammar and le*is) to active language use. 2mphasis
has moved from teaching .about. the language to ma;ing the learning activit& intrinsicall&
4orth4hile in order to stimulate and retain students. interest. +aterials are presented in a
conte*t 4hich is meaningful to the students. lives and practised b& means of
communicative activities.
It seems that Communicative Teaching has indeed made the learning process a more
satisf&ing and interesting one. It has) ho4ever) slo4ed do4n the process considerabl&.
%ractising meaningful materials in pseudo1authentic conditions might be a lot of fun) but
it can be an e*travagant use of teaching time 4hich is alread& ver& limited in schools.
There is also a real danger of interpreting a communicative approach as teaching for oral
production onl&) 4hich 4ill act to limit students. overall proficienc&.
?et the positive 3ualities of Communicative Teaching cannot be denied. /e therefore
need a strateg& 4hich provides the conditions for good communicative teaching in a
more economical fashion. A teaching method) developed in the earl& 1>$7s in 9ulgaria)
and referred to as Accelerative Learning in Australia) appears to have the potential to do
:ust that and even more. 0ot strictl& a language teaching method) but a techni3ue
applicable to an& learning and teaching situation) Accelerative Learning is claimed to
improve both the 3uantit& and the 3ualit& of teaching as 4ell as classroom conditions.
@sed for language teaching toda&) the method can be described as creative
communicative teaching 4ith the addition of an intricate combination of music)
rela*ation and suggestion. It can be seen as a holistic approach to teaching 4hich
endeavours to affect positivel& the ps&chological state of the student and through this
process to facilitate effective learning.
/hile the strategies involved during the elaboration periods in Accelerative Learning, are
most li;e those proposed for Communicative Teaching "Savignon 1>(2) ,ivers
1>(2)1>(8) Little4ood 1>()1>81) Aohnson 1>(>) Brashen 1>($) 1>82) /iddo4son
1>(8) All4right 1>(>) 9rumfit 1>(>) Brashen C Terrell 1>83#) Accelerative Learning
also includes strategies not e*plicitl& present in other teaching methods. These are best
illustrated b& ta;ing a brief loo; at the origins and principles of Accelerative Learning.
The original version of the method 4as devised b& -eorgi Lozanov) a 9ulgarian medical
doctor) ps&chotherapist) ?ogi and educator. In the 1>!7s and 1>$7s Lozanov 4as
researching suggestion largel& in the area of medicine) ps&chotherap& and
paraps&cholog& in Sofia. This field of research became ;no4n as Suggestology. Lozanov
used suggestion in a 4a;ing state "in contrast to h&pnosis# in the treatment of s;in
diseases) ulcers and allergies) in a limited number of organic diseases) and for
ps&chological disorders. De also e*perimented 4ith reducing sensitivit& to pain under
e*treme conditions such as surgical operations. In a controversial e*ample) Lozanov
successfull& sustained anaesthetization during a hernia operation lasting fift& minutes
4hich 4as filmed and subse3uentl& reported at the International %s&chosomatic Congress
in ,ome in 1>$( "Lozanov 1>(8#.
Lozanov became interested in appl&ing the principles of Suggestology to the learning
process. Together 4ith a team of e*perts he created a uni3ue teaching approach 4hich he
called Suggestopedia. The term simpl& meant 4hat it represented linguisticall&) namel&
learning through suggestion.
<ollo4ing his e*periences 4ith suggestolog& and ps&chotherap&) Lozanov "1>(8#
formulated the follo4ing principles of Suggestopedia.
1. Learning is characterised y !oy and the asence o" tension.
#. Learning ta$es place on oth a conscious and an unconscious level.
%. The learner&s reserve potential can e tapped through suggestion.
Joy and absence of tension. Suggestopedic classes 4ere designed to ta;e place in a
ph&sicall& pleasant environment) a4a& from conventional academic surroundings.
Classrooms loo; more li;e sitting rooms 4ith comfortable eas& chairs) plants and
colourful posters. Ideall&) class size is restricted to a ma*imum of 1! students.
=verall) en:o&ment and rela*ation are provided in Suggestopedia through the creation of
4hat ma& be called a positive suggestive atmosphere. The tone is e*clusivel& positive and
non1threatening) emphasis is given to co1operation and support rather than to
competition) and students are encouraged to function at the highest level of their
academic potential. /hile all this is e3uall& emphasised in good Communicative
Teaching and in 'umanistic Language Teaching as e*emplified b& +os;ovitz "1>(8#)
Suggestopedia has at its disposal more po4erful means to realise these conditions. The
uni3ue combination of suggestion and music has the potential to create a state of rela*ed
alertness in the students 4hich Lozanov "1>(8# calls concentrative psychorela(ation, a
state 4hich is not onl& generall& perceived as pleasant) but 4hich is also claimed to
enhance learning "Lozanov 1>(8#.
Unity of conscious and unconscious processes. Lozanov "1>((53# believes that the
Einhibition of unconscious functions during the consciousl& directed learning process
does not correspond to the natural) dialectic) inseparable lin; bet4een conscious and
unconscious processesE. This is not meant to impl& that unconscious functions remain
completel& unutilised in conventional teaching approaches "Lozanov 1>(852!>#.
Lozanov.s s&stem simpl& dra4s more attention to the importance of these functions and
to 4a&s in 4hich the& can effectivel& be integrated into the instruction process. In
practical terms this principle is observed in suggestopedic teaching at all times. It is best
demonstrated b& loo;ing at the behaviour of the teacher and at the presentation of the
materials.
The role of the teacher is paramount in Suggestopedia. Lozanov e*pects a great deal from
his teachers. /hile most of the positive characteristics he outlines "Lozanov 1>(8518(#
are e3uall& re3uired in other successful teaching methods) Lozanov gives special
attention to dual plane behaviour. This means that the teachers. verbal behaviour has to
be completel& congruous 4ith their unconscious non1verbal behaviour. %aralinguistic
phenomena such as gestures) mimicr&) e&e contact and posture are ver& important in
communication and especiall& in persuasion. Teachers 4ill not succeed in convincing
students that learning 4ill be eas& and successful 4hile shuffling about nervousl& and
avoiding e&e contact 4ith the students. Lozanov "1>(851># suggests that master& of dual
plane behaviour is not achieved through practice 4hich 4ould render the techni3ue
artificial) but through sincerit&.
%aralinguistic 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 4hen verbal language is accompanied b& appropriate bod& language. In
this 4a& students perceive the language material simultaneousl& on a conscious and on an
unconscious level. A stud& b& 9aur and -rz&be; "1>8# indicated that learning ma& be
most effective if the non1verbal elements used b& the teacher are mimic;ed b& the
students. This 4as not originall& suggested b& Lozanov.
/hile the inclusion of paralinguistic elements is not uni3ue to Suggestopedia it is
3uite e*plicit in Asher.s "1>8$# Total Physical )esponse approach and in -attegno.s
"1>(2# The Silent *ay method one of the ma:or contrasts to other teaching approaches
that can be identified in Suggestopedia is the presentation of materials during t4o distinct
modes of students. consciousness. Since students never find themselves in a trul&
unconscious state) it is perhaps more useful to illustrate the dichotom& b& means of
6ei;man.s "1>(1# model of bi1modal consciousness 4hich consists of an action and a
receptive mode. 2ach mode is characterised b& distinct ph&siological and ps&chological
properties described b& ,enigers "1>8151#5
The action mode is basically what could be termed our 'every-day' waking consciousness. It is
organised in order to manipulate the environment by selectively attending to certain inputs which are
pertinent to a course of action. Physiologically the action mode is characterised by increased muscle
tension and beta-wave E.E.G. Psychologically the action mode is distinguishable by object based
logic, focal attention, heightened boundary perception and the dominance of formal over sensory
characteristics.
The receptive mode by contrast is organised to perceive the environment. Physiologically it is
characterised by decreased muscle tension and by alpha-wave E.E.G. Psychologically the receptive
mode is manifested by para-logical thought, diffuse attending, decreased boundary perception and
the dominance of the sensory over the formal.
/hile it can be said that the largest part of the learning in Suggestopedia ta;es place in
the action mode) namel& during the introduction of materials) during the activation and
elaboration periods and during the active concert session) an important part also ta;es
place in the receptive mode 4hich is particularl& demonstrated in the passive concert
session. In this mode students can be described as being in a reverie+li$e state) completel&
rela*ed) not specificall& attending to the music or to the language 4hich are presented
simultaneousl&. Although students are not consciousl& attending to the learning tas;)
Lozanov "1>(851>8# claims that Esuch passiveness facilitates h&permnesia and liberates
the intellectual activit& to operate 4ithout an& disturbing strain.E /hile Lozanov himself
has not provided empirical support for this claim) research in subliminal learning
"9udz&ns;i 1>($# indicates that a reverie1li;e state ma& indeed be conducive to
memorisation. 9enefits relating to the ps&chological and ph&siological state of the sub:ect
resulting from e*perience of a reverie1li;e state have further been demonstrated in
h&pnosis "2ric;son 1>87#) in autogenic training "Schultz 1>!># and in biofeedbac;
"-reen C -reen 1>((#.
Suggestive intervention. Lozanov is interested in e*panding the learner.s potential on
both a ps&chological level and an intellectual level. Dis goal is to improve students. self1
concept) their attitude to4ards learning and the effectiveness of their learning. /hile all
three principles of Suggestopedia are intricatel& involved in achieving this goal)
suggestion is especiall& useful in overcoming students. barriers to learning. Language
students in particular often hold a negative and misguided vie4 about their learning
potential 4hich ma& be negativel& reflected in their performance. This is especiall& the
case in the students. oral performance 4here personalit& characteristics pla& an important
role. Suggestion is intended to have a direct influence on the students. elie" and set
",ussel 1>(># regarding the nature and difficult& of the tas;.
Lozanov.s idea) ho4ever) 4as not to superimpose a set of suggestions 1 direct verbal)
indirect verbal) direct non1verbal and indirect non1verbal "Schuster C -ritton 1>8! define
all these in detail# 1 on the teachers. normal 4a& of teaching) but to integrate these
naturall&) &et consciousl&) not onl& into the instruction process but into their behaviour. In
other 4ords) the teaching environment as a 4hole is perceived as positive) supportive and
inspiring.
<or teachers this means a closer loo; at their o4n personalit& and communication
strategies. -enerall& negative and c&nical teachers could never hope to create a lastingl&
positive and inspiring classroom atmosphere) even if the& managed to match their
behaviour to the 4ords that 4ere transmitted. As 9enoist1Danappier "in 9audouin
1>235137# put it5
We do not act only by our words and by our example. Our personality exercises per se an influence
which is as real as it is mysterious. Directly two human beings encounter one another, there ensues a
phenomenon analogous to that which physicists describe under the name of osmosis. The intimate
and powerful tie between a master and his disciple is sometimes created, not so much by formal
instruction as by the instructive personality of the master. Make yourself stronger, make yourself
continually better, and then leave your personality to its spontaneous radiation Unconscious action
is often more effective than willed or ostentatious action.
-ood teachers are intuitivel& a4are of this fact. Lozanov has simpl& gone one step
further b& labelling these e*pressions of personalit&) behaviour and communication as
direct and indirect suggestion) :ust as he sees one role of the music as a form of non1
verbal suggestion 4hich acts as a stimulus for rela*ation. Lozanov is a ps&chotherapist
and therefore uses the terminolog& of a therapist. This does not mean that he proposes to
h&pnotise his students on the contrar&) he goes to some length to provide
distinguishing factors bet4een suggestion used in h&pnosis and suggestion used in
Suggestopedia "Lozanov 1>(85118#.
Accelerative Learning sounds li;e an attractive teaching method 4hich merits
investigation since it appears to have the potential not onl& to provide a stress1free
environment but also to accelerate learning and improve ps&chological measures.
Although the approach has alread& been 4idel& used all over the 4orld) reports of
research results have been rather inconsistent) ranging from no significant effects on
achievement "Bnibbler 1>82# to claims of learning being improved b& fift& times
"=strander C Schroeder 1>(># and more. The emergence of several versions of Lozanov.s
original Suggestopedia over the past t4o decades) including commercial courses 4hich
tend to promulgate the e*aggerated claims made for the method) have led to a state of
confusion and controvers& associated 4ith Accelerative Learning.
Purpose of present study. In the broadest sense the present stud& set out to clarif& the
confusion) to revie4 and investigate in detail the claims made for Suggestopedia and its
adaptations) and to find out 4hether these are still supported 4hen the method is
compared to a teaching approach 4ith similar ob:ectives and strategies in the natural
school environment.
The thesis is presented in three parts. %art I deals 4ith the evolution of Suggestopedia
over the past t4o decades and the development and contribution of three important
adaptations. %art II deals 4ith the claims 4hich are made for individual elements
involved in the approach and 4ith the claims made for the method as a 4hole. %art III
deals 4ith empirical investigations of these claims in areas 4hich have not previousl&
been e*plored.
Chapter 2. Since some ne4 versions of Suggestopedia have included elements 4hich
4ere not originall& part of Suggestopedia, but 4hich ma& 4ell have an important effect
on learning or affective measures) it 4as necessar& to e*plore the development of the
structure and content of the approach over the past t4o decades. =ne important fla4 in
the research on this sub:ect is that names for the different versions are often used
interchangeabl&) and that little attention is given to the e*act content of the treatment
administered 4hen interpreting research results. This chapter 4ill provide for the first
time a detailed description of the evolution of the structure and content of Suggestopedia
and its three ma:or adaptations) identif& changes and contributions made to the original
version and) in the light of relevant research findings) discuss the merit of additions to
Lozanov.s Suggestopedia. The term Accelerative Learning 4ill be used to refer to all
versions collectivel&) 4hile individual versions 4ill be referred to b& their specific names.
Chapter 3. The three ma:or elements common to most versions of Accelerative Learning,
and 4hich distinguish the approach from other methods 4ith similar ob:ectives and
strategies) are music) rela*ation and suggestion. /hile Lozanov "1>(8# claims that the
combination of these elements is effective in the learning process) he has not provided
detailed empirical evidence for this claim. Subse3uent research in Accelerative Learning
has) ho4ever) 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 revie4 of the relevant literature 4ithin the field of
Accelerative Learning and in related and independent fields.
Chapter 4. Literature revie4s on research findings in Accelerative Learning 4hen used
as a complete teaching method) have so far been rather s;imp&. 2ven ma:or theses such
as <assi&ian "1>81# and 9otha "1>8$# are largel& restricted to an uncritical report of a
small number of research studies. <urthermore) literature revie4s tend not to distinguish
bet4een different versions of Accelerative Learning being used and) most importantl&)
4ith the e*ception of Schuster "1>8# and Schuster C -ritton "1>8!#) little or no
distinction tends to be made bet4een controlled e*perimental studies and non1
e*perimental studies in terms of the significance of findings. As a result of this it is
impossible to arrive at definite conclusions about the e*act effects of Accelerative
Learning. In this chapter an attempt 4as made to address these problems. A
comprehensive critical revie4 of the literature beginning 4ith the Lozanov studies is
presented. This includes non1language studies as 4ell as language studies in order to
determine 4hether the approach is particularl& suited to language teaching as has often
been claimed. The ma:or aim of the chapter is to identif& the claims made for the
effectiveness of Accelerative Learning, to e*amine these in the light of controlled
empirical support) and to highlight important gaps in the research.
Chapter 5. Although Accelerative Learning has been e*tensivel& used and tested in
language classes) the most important gap in the research is of controlled studies in the
natural school environment. /hile the claim for improved achievement appears to be
reasonabl& 4ell supported) claims for improved affective variables such as attitude) self1
concept and behaviour) have not been 4ell supported overall) and particularl& not in this
environment. Comparative studies have also generall& not given much attention to the
teaching method used in the control groups. The 3uasi1e*perimental stud& carried out in
the natural secondar& school environment reported in this chapter addresses these
problems. 2ight classes and five teachers at three different schools too; part in the stud&.
2mphasis 4as given to the testing of affective variables 4ith language achievement being
tested b& means of broad measures onl&.
Chapter . <ollo4ing the findings of the secondar& school stud& 4hich sho4ed that use
of the Accelerative Learning approach does have the potential to improve affective
variables in this environment 4ithout compromising language achievement) it 4as
decided to carr& out an e*perimental stud& on a smaller scale in the primar& school
environment. The reason for this 4as threefold. <irstl&) a stud& on a smaller scale allo4ed
for more detailed language tests to be administered. Secondl&) a stud& of this nature could
more easil& address a possible teacher1treatment confound. Thirdl&) a stud& in the
primar& school environment could chec; the responsiveness of &ounger children to
Accelerative Learning. In this stud& primar& school children 4ere assigned at random to
either the e*perimental or control condition and teaching 4as carried out b& the same
teacher 4ith teacher behaviour being monitored b& independent observers. All four
language s;ills as 4ell as affective variables 4ere tested.
Chapter !. <ollo4ing the findings of the primar& school stud& 4hich largel& supported
those of the secondar& school stud& regarding affective measures) and 4hich sho4ed
significant allround improvement in language achievement favouring the e*perimental
students) the 3uestion arose 4hether this improved performance in achievement 4as
solel& due to improved memor& s;ills) as has been claimed b& some critics "Scovel
1>(>#) or 4hether more sophisticated language s;ills 4ere also affected b& Accelerative
Learning. In order to administer detailed language tests) a final stud& 4as again carried
out on a small scale 4ith one &ear 17 class providing the sub:ects. A simple time series
anal&sis 4as emplo&ed 4hich meant that the same group of students too; part in both the
e*perimental and the control condition. Teaching 4as provided b& the same teacher for
both conditions. Language tests 4ere designed to test both 3uantitative and 3ualitative
aspects of the students. language use.
Chapter ". Conclusions. The implications of the revie4 and the research findings for
Accelerative Learning and for language teaching are considered in this chapter.
Chapter 2

The Evolution of Accelerative Learning
from Lozanov to the present

INTRODUCTION
So man& different versions of Suggestopedia e*ist that it is difficult to arrive at a
description of its structure 4hich 4ould cover all possible variations. A number of
adaptations are ;no4n around the 4orld toda& such as Superlearning, SALT (Suggestive
Accelerative Learning and Teaching), Psychopdie, L,-. (Learning in -e/
.imensions), 0ptimalearning and 'olistic Learning. 2lements have been included or
omitted over the &ears) some according to sound research findings) some simpl& at a
personal 4him or more often for better commercial viabilit&. This has resulted in
confusion about the e*act structure and content of a suggestopedic course.
/hen interpreting research results) it is important to ;no4 precisel& 4hat form of
e*perimental treatment 4as used) since the inclusion of visualisation techni3ues "SALT#
or s&nchronised breathing "Superlearning#) for e*ample) ma& have an effect not
other4ise associated 4ith Suggestopedia. @nfortunatel& not all studies give a detailed
description of the treatment used. <urthermore) terms) especiall& Superlearning and
Suggestopedia, tend to be used as s&non&ms even though there e*ist clear distinctions
bet4een the t4o approaches.
=ne important element missing in the research is a precise description of the evolution of
Suggestopedia since its inception b& Lozanov in the 1>$7s to the present da&. 9ancroft
"1>(8a)b#) -assner1,oberts "1>8$a)1>8$b# and Strudel "1>8$# point out different versions
of Suggestopedia and 9a&u; "1>83# discusses the possible dangers involved in the
confusion of one method 4ith another. Although both 9aur "1>87# and %hilipov "1>81#
refer to earl& and later versions of Suggestopedia, neither elaborates further.
The aim of this chapter is to present an anal&sis of the changes that have been made) as
4ell as to provide a detailed description of three versions of Suggestopedia referred to in
the literature. These are the t4o ma:or versions Superlearning and SALT, both 0orth
American adaptations) and Psychopdie, a 2uropean version. /e 4ill endeavour to
isolate distinguishing elements bet4een these versions and Lozanov.s Suggestopedia)
highlight individual contributions in terms of innovation) discuss these in the light of the
relevant research and finall&) determine 4hether or not these constitute a beneficial
contribution to Suggestopedia.
SUGGESTOPEDIA
Suggestopedia has undergone a number of changes since it 4as first e*perimentall& used
b& Lozanov in the earl& 1>$7s. /h& some changes 4ere made is not entirel& clear.
Lozanov "1>(8# claims) for e*ample) that research 4as carried out on the suitabilit& of
certain t&pes of music 4ithout giving an& further details. Although he elaborates a little in
a paper given to American researchers in 1>(( "in Din;elmann 1>8$#) no data is available
on this research in the /est.
@ntil recentl& Lozanov himself never gave a clear description of a suggestopedic class.
Dis main publication in 2nglish Suggestology and 0utlines o" Suggestopedy "1>(8#)
based on his %h.6. thesis published in 9ulgaria seven &ears earlier) is poorl& organised
and some4hat vague 4hen it comes to a description of 4hat actuall& happens in a
suggestopedic classroom. This resulted in harsh criticism b& linguists such as Scovel
"1>(># 4ho based their revie4 of suggestopedic language teaching solel& on this
publication. 9ancroft "1>($# suggests that there ma& have been a deliberate attempt to
ma;e the method inaccessible to the /est and that certain items) especiall& those
referring to ?oga) ma& have been removed for political reasons prior to publication.
9arza;ov "in =strander C Schroeder 1>(># confirms the notion of secrec& surrounding
Suggestopedia in 9ulgaria.
Confusion about the method became even more acute 4ith the publication of
Superlearning "=strander C Schroeder 1>(>#. This boo; gave an account of Lozanov.s
method that consisted partl& of an earl& version 4hich Lozanov stopped using in the
1>(7s) and partl& of elements that 4ere allegedl& observed in classes in 9ulgaria) but
never officiall& ac;no4ledged b& Lozanov. <urthermore) the boo; elaborated on
Lozanov.s method b& advocating self1stud& courses using audio cassettes for instruction.
The result of this 4as that teachers 4ent out to practice 4hat the& thought 4as
Suggestopedia, often using Superlearning and Suggestopedia interchangeabl& as a label
for their method. This 4as particularl& true for commercial courses 4hich 4ill be further
discussed belo4.
In the 1>87s numerous articles appeared) particularl& in /estern 2urope) claiming to
describe Suggestopedia. Do4ever) no t4o articles can be found that give an identical
account of the structure and content of the method. If 4e compare Suggestopdie alias
Superlearning + Lernen /ie ein 1ind "0uber 1>8$#) and Superlearning und
Suggestopdie als Superlernmethoden im 2remdsprachenunterricht "9renn 1>8$#) for
e*ample) it becomes obvious that 0uber is describing the American adaptation called
L,-. 4hile 9renn is clearl& describing Superlearning.
In order to thro4 some light on the confusion) 4hich still e*ists toda&) 4e 4ill ma;e an
attempt to trace the development of Lozanov.s Suggestopedia from its first official model
to the latest model first described b& Lozanov and -ateva in 1>8. Since the changes
4ere made largel& 4ithin the phase referred to as the suggestopedic session, 4e 4ill
concentrate on this phase here) and give a description of the entire suggestopedic c&cle
4ith the final model belo4.
First Model. The first description in 2nglish of 4hat is involved in a suggestopedic
session can be found in the report of the research committee 4or;ing on a pro:ect in 1>$!
"Lozanov 1>(852!#5
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 4ord or short phrase 4as presented three
times) first in a normal spea;ing voice) second in a soft voice and third in a loud voice. At
4hat stage the translation 4as given is not clear from this account) nor is it mentioned at
an& other stage in the boo;. =strander and Schroeder "1>(># report that it 4as given first)
before the intoned target language material.
/hen e*actl& music 4as introduced to the programme is also not entirel& clear. Lozanov
"1>(852$8# spea;ing of the Enumerous e*perimental variantsE of the suggestopedic
session) mentions that EIn the beginning the passive part 4as accompanied b& pre1
classical or classical music pla&ing in the bac;ground.E The passive part 4as therefore
termed the concert session. The active part 4as not accompanied b& music at this stage)
but emphasis 4as given to a dramatic performance of the materials b& the teacher using
gestures) mimicr&) bod& language) voice intonation in short) all possible artistic means
available. 6uring this part) students 4ere completel& alert) follo4ing either their te*t or
the teacher.s performance or both. 9efore the passive part students 4ere given rela*ation
e*ercises.
/hich form the rela*ation too; is also vague in Lozanov.s "1>(8# o4n account. The onl&
concrete reference to be found is5 E/ith this variant "the concert session) students used to
be trained in muscle rela*ation.E "p.2$8# %resumabl& this rela*ation too; the form of
?oga e*ercises and breathing 4hich 4ould e*plain 4h& later versions such as
Superlearning put such a heav& emphasis on rh&thmical breathing. =strander and
Schroeder "1>(># report that at this stage students 4ere trained in rela*ation techni3ues
for four da&s before beginning a suggestopedic course.
Second Model. In the earl& 1>(7s specific rela*ation 4as no longer regarded as
necessar& since) according to Lozanov "1>(852$8#) the state of pseudo1passivit& achieved
in the concert part of the session 4as Esufficient for attaining concentrative
ps&chorela*ation even 4ithout resorting to e*ercises in muscle rela*ation and rh&thmical
breathing.E /e do not ;no4 the reasons for this change.
+usic gained more prominence in the mid 1>(7s. The concert session no4 included t4o
parts) an active concert in 4hich materials 4ere presented 4ith music of the classical
period) such as +ozart.s Concerto no 3 in . 4a!or "or 5iolin and 0rchestra, and a
passive concert 4ith pieces from the baro3ue period such as Corelli.s Concerto 6rosso,
op.7. 6uring the active concert) materials 4ere still presented in the livel& fashion
described aboveF during the passive concert materials 4ere read more 3uietl&. Although
Lozanov "1>(8# includes a music list) he gives no specific instructions as to ho4 the
pieces are to be used. =strander and Schroeder "1>(>583# report that) for the passive
concerts) onl& slo4 movements of the baro3ue period 4ere used. The& 4ere strung
together to create an half hour concert and usuall& finished 4ith a faster movement to
allo4 students to come out of the reverie state in a pleasant 4a&.
Three level intonation 4as still used for presenting materials in the passive concert) but
the voice level 4as changed 4ith each ne4 4ord or phrase and repetition disappeared.
<or e*ample) instead of presenting 6uten Tag three times) it 4as no4 onl& presented
once in a soft spea;ing voice) then the ne*t phrase *ie geht&s 4as presented in a normal
voice and .an$e gut in a loud voice "see 9aur 1>87 and A'nic;e 1>82#. /hile A'nic;e.s
account suggests that translations 4ere no longer given) 9aur reports that translations
4ere given Esoftl& and neutrall&E before the special intonation of each phrase 4hich
supports =strander and Schroeder.s claim "9aur ma&) ho4ever) be referring to the
,ussian model#.
Third Model. 9& the late 1>(7s the three level intonation as practised above had been
dropped "Schmid 1>(8#. The reason for this remains unclear. Lozanov.s "1>(852$>#
e*planation leads one to believe that he ma& have 4anted to avoid a comparison 4ith
h&pnosis. 9aur "1>87# points out that the onl& criterion for brea;ing up the te*t into
segments for presentation 4as that a certain number of s&llables 4as not to be e*ceeded
and therefore little consideration to the natural s&nta* and semantics 4as given in the
unnatural intonation of language segments. De speculates that the change to4ards a more
natural reading of the materials ma& have been the result of tr&ing to rectif& this problem.
6uring the active concert the music no4 guides the reading in terms of rh&thm and
volume. 6uring the passive concert the material is presented in its natural structure of
intonation.
Lozanov and -ateva "1>8)1>88# also specif& that entire musical pieces should be used
no4) 4hich supports =strander and Schroeder.s claim that pieces 4ere used onl& in parts
before. Again no specific reasons for the change are given b& Lozanov. -assner1,oberts
"1>88a# speculates that the inclusion of all movements of a classical or baro3ue piece
4ith its distinctl& different tempi substitutes for the three level intonation) b& raising and
lo4ering the students. activation level in a more natural 4a&.
The full suggestopedic c&cle) in its latest Lozanov version) has the follo4ing structure5
1. % , 2 % A , A T I = 0. 0o specific rela*ation e*ercises are given to prepare students
for the class. %reparation is related to the setup of the room and to giving students
information about 4hat to e*pect in the course of the teaching. The behaviour of the
teacher suggests at this stage) as 4ell as throughout the course) that learning 4ill be
en:o&able and easier than students ma& have thought. 2mphasis is given to ma;ing
students comfortable and confident in their abilities. The room is 4ell lit and air&)
e3uipped 4ith comfortable chairs and decorated 4ith posters containing elaborations of
the material to be taught. This material is not referred to at the beginning of the course)
serving simpl& as a peripheral stimulus. In language teaching the posters might contain
con:ugation tables or pronouns) or other e*planations of grammar. The posters are richl&
illustrated using man& colours and designs. 9efore teaching starts) students choose ne4
identities from the target culture.
2. % , 2 S 2 0 T A T I = 0. 6uring this session the materials for the first c&cle are
handed out to the students. "In the earl& version students did not have materials at this
time Schmid 1>(8) 9aur 1>82#. <or language teaching the& are usuall& organised in
dialogue form) 4ith some e*planations of vocabular& and grammar. Do4ever) other
materials) such as prose te*ts) songs) poems or grammar) are also presented from time to
time. The target language te*t is given on the left hand side 4ith the translation given on
the right hand side. +aterials are clearl& laid out 4ith 4ide margins so that te*ts can be
follo4ed easil& b& the students. If a te*tboo; is used then the translations are given on
loose sheets attached to the right hand pages of the boo;. Lozanov and -ateva.s
"1>8)1>88# Italian course) for e*ample) gives the 9ulgarian translations on loose strips
of paper corresponding line b& line 4ith the te*t in the target language.
The first part of this session is called the introduction or decoding. Dere the teacher
introduces the te*t to the students using gestures) mimicr& and bod& language) describing
characters and settings in the stor&. Students ma& repeat the te*t aloud if the& 4ish but
the& are not encouraged to read as a group. The te*t is treated globall&F at this stage little
detailed information about separate items is given. Students are able to understand the
te*t immediatel& b& glancing at the translations 4hich reduces an*iet& about handling
rather large chun;s of materials. These ma& consist of 377 to (77 le*ical items in one
sitting in the first session of an intensive course of 3.! hours duration and up to 377 in the
sessions that follo4 the completion of the first c&cle. The teacher.s gestures further
reinforce understanding) and help 4ith memorisation.
After the entire te*t has been introduced) the concert session follo4s. The method boo;
4hich accompanies Lozanov and -ateva.s "1>8) 1>88# Italian course contains detailed
instructions of ho4 materials should be presented during the active and passive concert.
#he $ctive Concert. The room is 4ell lit. The students sit calml& in their chairs. The&
have their te*ts in front of them. The teacher 4ho is standing reads the te*t in the target
language 4hile an entire piece of classical music is pla&ing in the bac;ground. The music
is ta;en from the Gienna Classical period "e.g. 4or;s b& Da&dn) +ozart and 9eethoven#)
and from the standard romantic repertoire "e.g. Tchai;ovs;&.s Concerto "or 5iolin and
0rchestra, in . ma!or, op. %8#. This music is rich in harmon& and melod&. The teacher
calml& 4aits until the introductor& part of the musical piece is finished and then begins
the reading) adapting voice modulation and volume according to the rh&thms and
phrasing of the music. The voice virtuall& acts as an additional instrument of the
orchestra) underlining the musical phrase. 2speciall& important le*ical items ma& be
mar;ed b& a distinct change in intonation. The teacher loo;s at the students fre3uentl&
and uses gestures to illustrate the te*t. The teacher.s diction is clear and each 4ord
distinctl& shaped phoneticall&. The students follo4 the te*t) glancing at the translations
during brea;s in the music) at 4hich time the teacher does not read. At the end of the
active concert there is a short brea; 4hen students ma& get up and stretch) but not tal;.
#he Passive Concert. The room remains 4ell lit. The students are again calml& seated in
their chairs. The teacher) too) is no4 seated. The students have no te*ts to refer to. The
music is ta;en from the pre1classical "baro3ue# period) such as 4or;s b& 9ach) Dandel
and Givaldi "e.g. Givaldi.s Concerti "or 2lute and 0rchestra#. The character of the music
is such that it creates an atmosphere of contemplation and introspection and a removal
from ever&da& problems and conflicts. =nl& the materials 4hich have been decoded and
presented in the active concert are read hereF no ne4 materials ma& be introduced. The
teacher 4aits until the music has begun to captivate the audience before the reading
begins. The speed no4 is that of ever&da& speech 4ith clear diction. There are no
unnatural pauses during the reading. /hen reading a dialogue the voice is slightl&
changed to indicate a change in character. The students ma& choose 4hether the& 4ant to
direct their attention to4ards the music or the reading. /hen the te*t is finished) the
teacher 4aits for the musical piece to end) then 3uietl& gets up and immediatel& leaves
the room. The 3uiet atmosphere at the end of this session prevails. The passive concert
al4a&s ends the lesson for the da&.
3. , 2 G I 2 / A 0 6 2 L A 9 = , AT I = 0. The first revision of the materials
ta;es place on the ne*t da&. Do4ever) students are encouraged to read the te*t again
before going to bed and on 4a;ing. It is emphasised that the& should not learn the te*t
but simpl& glance through it. Lozanov stresses that the material must be read on the ne*t
da& or at least 4ithin 8 hours after the passive concert. De also stresses that materials
must not be practised bet4een the t4o concerts or immediatel& after the passive concert.
%ractice ta;es place during the revie4 and elaboration sessions in the form of creative
communicative e*ercises. These ma& include s;etches) songs and games. 2mphasis is put
on meaningful communication. <irst) ho4ever) materials are simpl& re1read 4ithout
elaborations. The te*t is then graduall& e*panded in terms of vocabular& andHor grammar.
The revie4 and elaboration session is usuall& about t4ice as long as the previous
sessions) and ma& be e*tended until the material is believed to have been assimilated.
"This ma& ta;e an entire 4ee; if (77 le*ical items have been presented#. /hen this stage
is reached) the c&cle starts ane4.
According to Lozanov "1>(8# a first suggestopedic language course is taught over 2
da&s 4ith four ! minute sessions dail&. It can also be taught in 17 da&s 4ith the
e3uivalent hours of dail& teaching. Appro*imatel& 2777 le*ical items are presented
during such a course. Lozanov does not specificall& recommend an& distribution for
teaching and claims that the suggestopedic c&cle can be tailored to normal school or
universit& time tables if bloc; teaching is not possible) 4ithout an& loss in effectiveness.
"Lozanov5321#
<or school children Lozanov recommends a slightl& different procedure during the
concert session. /hile the active concert is almost as above 4ith concessions made to the
children.s reading abilit& in terms of speed and understanding) the passive) or in this case
pseudo1passive) concert is 3uite different from that for adults. The same music as for the
active concert is used for the reading 4hile the children dra4 on a sub:ect of their choice.
The dra4ings are displa&ed and used in the elaboration sessions. Again) Lozanov gives
no specific reasons for these recommendations. The music selections for children are
different from the ones for adults) ho4ever) although 4or;s are largel& ta;en from the
same composers "e.g. Dandel.s *atermusic) Givaldi.s 2our Seasons#.
ADAPTATIONS OF THE LOZANOV MODEL
/hile the above represents Lozanov.s latest version of Suggestopedia, several
adaptations retaining the same name e*ist throughout /estern and 2astern 2urope) most
notabl& the ,ussian model "see 9aur 1>87# and the version practised in the -erman
6emocratic ,epublic "-6,#. The -6, model is particularl& interesting since changes
that 4ere made to Lozanov.s model 4ere the result of published research findings.
,esearch 4as carried out at the Institute for +nemolog& at the Barl +ar* @niversit& in
Leipzig. The music research) to some of 4hich 4e have access) led to a different
selection of musical pieces for the concert session. The choice of music 4as arrived at b&
measuring ps&cho1ph&siological responses to certain t&pes of music 4ith the use of
polarit& profiles completed b& the students "Lehmann 1>82#. The music recommended as
a result of this research consists mainl& of slo4 movements of orchestral 4or;s b&
+ozart and Da&dn 4hich are strung together to form one piece. 9aro3ue pieces are no
longer part of the repertoire. The concert session ma& start 4ith an introductor& adagio
b& 9oildieu) for e*ample) and it al4a&s ends 4ith an allegro, e.g. b& Da&dn. The same
collection of music "Lehmann C -assner1,oberts 1>88# ma& be used in ever& concert
session.
According to -assner1,oberts "1>88a53# in the -6, model the active and passive
concerts have been combined into one musical sance. Three level intonation "normal)
4hisper) loud# is still used. Students have their te*t in front of them) accompanied b& a
full translation at the beginning and a partial translation later in the course. The teacher
4aits until the end of the first adagio in order to give students time to .tune in. to the
music before beginning to read a page or a specific section of the te*t 4ith the ne*t
adagio. The students follo4 their te*t 4ith their e&es. At the end of that section the
teacher sa&s E2&es closedE and re1reads the same te*t 4hile the music continues. At the
end of this the teacher sa&s E2&es openE and reads the ne*t section 4hich is then repeated
4ith the students. e&es closed as before. This c&cle continues until all the material has
been presented. The teacher then sa&s E ?ou have learned le*ical items in the sances
so farE. After 4aiting for the end of the last adagio, the teacher turns on the allegro and
the students open their e&es. The& leave the room at the end of the music.
-assner1,oberts "1>88a# further reports that 4hile she has e*perimented 4ith several
versions of the concert session over a number of &ears in the teaching of -erman to
universit& students) the -6, version 4as most readil& accepted b& the students.
Although ever&one had li;ed the passive concerts before) the active concerts 4ere
sometimes re:ected b& the students as being artificial and strange. <urthermore) some
students) particularl& those interested in music) found themselves anal&sing the different
musical pieces presented during the concert session. In the -6, version the students hear
the same music throughout the course 4hich means that the& become familiar 4ith it and
therefore no longer focus special attention on it.
SUPERLEARNING
To describe Superlearning accuratel& as a method is not eas&. There are problems in
organising the material since Superlearning is often used simpl& as a s&non&m for either
Suggestopedia or SALT or for a combination of both. Din;elmann "1>8$# deplores the
fact that the onl& attempt made at a distinction bet4een the t4o is the labelling of
Superlearning as the commercial product of the more scientificall& valid and serious
Suggestopedia. /hile this distinction ma& hold true 4hen comparing Superlearning
courses 4hich boldl& advertise their product 4ith the help of unsubstantiated claims
"such as those pointed out b& -assner1,oberts 1>8( and Schiffler 1>8(#) this is not
al4a&s the case 4ith 4ell researched Suggestopedia courses. @ndoubtedl& there are good
and bad e*amples of all versions of Accelerative Learning. The concern in this chapter is
not to compare the different versions in terms of their efficac&) but to identif&
distinguishing features bet4een each version in order to clarif& 4hat has so far been a
confused situation for users and researchers ali;e.
The term Superlearning 4as introduced b& t4o American researchers "=strander C
Schroeder 1>(>#. The& define it thus5
Superlearning refers to an eclectic system for accelerated learning of factual data
resulting from westernized, modernized techniques for developing supermemory.
Superlearning is also used generally to refer to all the learning systems that work
holistically to develop reserves of mind and body. (p.24)
We've used the same background sources Lozanov drew from (such as Raja Yoga)
and also others he does not mention. We've drawn from Lozanov's own highly
creative work. Finally, we've tried to draw from the experience of those who've
gotten rapid-learning results in North America. (p.69)
This definition suggests that Superlearning 4as designed using some elements of
Suggestopedia and some elements of the American version 4hich became SALT.
Superlearning differs from Lozanov.s Suggestopedia in several 4a&s.
%ela&ation. Although =strander and Schroeder 4ere a4are of the fact that Lozanov had
dropped specific rela*ation from his programme) the& 4ere in agreement 4ith the
/estern rationale for retaining rela*ation and for using special visualisation techni3ues)
and therefore included both in Superlearning. Since these elements 4ere introduced b&
the American researchers responsible for SALT, the& 4ill be discussed in the relevant
section belo4.
Synchronisation. <ollo4ing 9ancroft.s "1>($# observations) =strander and Schroeder
"1>(># interpreted Lozanov.s method as including s&nchronisation of the students.
breathing and the presentation of materials. There is no evidence of this in an& of
Lozanov.s publications) &et 9ancroft "1>($# felt that this 4as the vital element 4ithheld
from e*planations about the method 4hen visiting 9ulgaria.
It is possible that 9ancroft observed classes during the period 4hen Lozanov 4as
e*perimenting 4ith presenting materials at different intervals. A'nic;e "1>82# and 9aur
"1>87# report such e*periments) although no e*act data is given. Apparentl& Lozanov
e*perimented 4ith presenting 4ords via tape recordings in one second) five second and
ten second intervals and found significant differences in retention rate. ,eports of the
magnitude of these differences var&) ho4ever. =strander and Schroeder "1>(># report that
in the one second condition students learnt about 27I of the 4ords) in the five second
condition 37I) and in the ten second condition 7I) 4hile 9aur "1>87# 4rites that the
ten second condition increased retention rate b& 17I 4hen compared to the other t4o.
A'nic;e "1>82# reports that t4ice as man& 4ords 4ere retained in the five second
condition and three times as man& in the ten second condition 4hen compared to the
control groups. =strander and Schroeder and 9aur do not mention control groupsF it is
therefore possible that either different e*periments 4ere 3uoted or that the one second
condition functioned as the control. =nl& 9aur gives an e*act source for the stud&)
Lozanov.s Suggestologi!a, 1>(152) 4hich is not officiall& available in 2nglish. This is
:ust a small e*ample of the inconsistenc& of reports about research on Suggestopedia.
+ore 4ill be discussed in chapter .
=n the basis of 9ancroft.s observations in 9ulgaria) =strander and Schroeder "1>(>511!#
placed a great deal of importance on correct rh&thmical presentation of materials in
Superlearning. The& suggest the follo4ing c&cle for the presentation of materials and the
students. breathing5 EAll the materials spo;en are precisel& timed on an 81second c&cle so
breathing 4ill naturall& fall into a rh&thmic pattern of5 hold F out 2F in 2.E This means
that the material to be learnt is presented in small chun;s during the four seconds in
4hich the students hold their breath.
Students are e*tensivel& coached in the correct breathing procedure and encouraged to
practise several cadences of this breathing before a concert session. =strander and
Schroeder point out that some students) especiall& children) have difficulties learning or
sustaining the rh&thmical breathingF the& suggest therefore that taped material could
contain a metronome .tic;. to aid 4ith timing. It is not clear 4h& materials are presented
in an eight second c&cle. =strander and Schroeder claim that this 4as the precise c&cle
observed b& 9ancroft in 9ulgaria. Do4ever) if Lozanov had found the best results 4ith
presenting 4ords ever& ten seconds) 4h& 4ould he have used a rh&thm in 4hich 4ords
are presented ever& four secondsJ 9ancroft "1>(8a# speculates that he ma& have s4itched
to this presentation because of the rh&thms of the baro3ue music but does not give an&
further e*planation.
,esearch on s&nchronisation is minimal and does not consistentl& sho4 that it is
beneficial to the students. learning. 9ordon and Schuster "1>($# found a significantl&
positive effect on retention of vocabular&) 4hile ,enigers "1>81# speculates in his
conclusions that the students. efforts to concentrate on s&nchronisation ma& have
hampered their rela*ation and conse3uentl& their performance. <or similar reasons almost
all practitioners have no4 dropped s&nchronisation from their programmes. ,enigers.
"1>81# speculations are supported b& <assihi&an "1>81# 4ho reports unfavourable results
in Iranian e*periments based on ?oga e*ercises and rh&thmic breathing 4hen comparing
these to e*periments based on music in Canada ",acle 1>(!#. =strander and Schroeder
"1>(># give Shaffer "1>(># as one of their sources for the efficac& of breathing techni3ues
in Superlearning. Shaffer claims that the ?oga breathing techni3ues are the most
responsible for rapid learning. De asserts that Lozanov himself 4as Etotall& una4are of
the ;e& mechanisms responsible for accelerated learning in his methodE "p.187# and
offers the follo4ing scientific e*planation of the .Lozanov 2ffect.5
It is asserted that the Lozanov effect achieves memory and learning enhancement by
lowering the carbon dioxide concentration of the blood through voluntary
hyperventilation, thereby raising the pH level of the body fluids and thus increasing
the excitability of the nerve cells. In this way, it is maintained, learning and memory
consolidation occur faster than by ordinary means. (p.180)
0o empirical evidence of ho4 this effect is achieved in Suggestopedia or Superlearning
is given. The assertion that breathing is the single most important element in improved
learning is strongl& refuted b& the fact that the ma:orit& of studies 4hich report such
improvement "see chapter # do not use s&nchronised breathing. Schiffler "1>8$b#
indicates his intentions to investigate the effectiveness of s&nchronisation follo4ing his
findings of a positive effect of music as a variable in the intensive language learning
environment.
Self'instruction. Superlearning is presented as a self1stud& procedure 4here materials
can be prepared on audio tapes. This is the greatest element of distinction bet4een
Lozanov.s Suggestopedia and Superlearning. Three ver& important aspects of
Suggestopedia are ignored5 the vital role of the teacher) the e*tensive revie4 and
elaboration periods and group d&namics. In Superlearning students are being told that all
the& need is a tape1recording and a set of instructions in order to accelerate their learning
b& astounding rates. "Claims made are discussed in chapter #. The focal part of the
method is the supermemory session, 4hich corresponds to the first model of the
suggestopedic session described above. The decoding and activation of the materials are
left to the students themselves. The passive state of the student is promoted 4hile the
active state is largel& ignored. 2mphasis is given to lo4ering bod& rh&thms through
rela*ation and breathing) &et little consideration is given to the fact that) especiall& in
language learning) students need to engage in meaningful communication in order to
assimilate the materials given in the concert sessions in terms of functional use.
The structure of a Superlearning programme) as described b& =strander and Schroeder
"1>(># is as follo4s5
SUPERLEARNING STRUCTURE
1. % , 2 % A , A T I = 0. In order to prepare for the supermemory session, students are
encouraged to practise rela*ation) either in the form of Aacobson.s "1>38# progressive
rela*ation e*ercises or through visualisation. +an& e*amples are given. The& are further
instructed to practise the correct breathing procedure and to give themselves affirmations
such as Learning and rememering are easy "or me.
2. % , 2 S 2 0 T A T I = 0. 9efore beginning the supermemory session students are
instructed to .revie4. the materials the& 4ish to learn as vividl& as possible. It is
suggested that the& tr& to do this in the form of a game) a pla& or a dialogue. It is difficult
to 4or; out ho4 this is done 4hen the materials are completel& un;no4n to the students
but no further suggestions are given.
Then follo4s the supermemory session. In the first part) students are instructed to read
silentl& through the materials 4hile the materials are recited either b& a person present or
on tape. "2*tensive instructions for the preparation of tapes are given#. In the second part)
students are as;ed to close their e&es and listen to the materials again) this time 4ith the
slo4 baro3ue movements pla&ing in the bac;ground. In contrast to Lozanov.s instructions
above) students are told to pa& attention to 4hat is being said) to breathe in
s&nchronisation 4ith the presentation of the materials) and to visualise the materials. The
combination of attention on three comple* processes is far removed from Lozanov.s
original intentions of .concert pseudo1passivit&.. Do4 effective imager& 4ould be in this
conte*t) 4hen students are alread& concentrating on their breathing) is also 3uestionable.
Schuster and /ardel "1>(8# found that imager& as a variable of instruction for vocabular&
learning 4as ver& effective on its o4n) but less effective 4hen coupled 4ith other
variables.
3. , 2 G I 2 / A 0 6 2 L A 9 = , A T I = 0. This is the part that is conspicuousl&
missing from Superlearning. Students are simpl& instructed to give themselves a 3uiz
after the supermemory session and to .use. the materials the& have studied 4ithin the ne*t
fe4 da&s.
<rom the point of vie4 of language learning Superlearning in this form has more in
common 4ith audio1lingual courses than 4ith Suggestopedia. The addition of music)
rela*ation and imager& ma& produce a more efficient and en:o&able audio1lingual course)
although no comparative studies are ;no4n to this author. The addition of s&nchronised
breathing) ho4ever) ma& hamper students. learning. Superlearning in this form cannot be
compared to Suggestopedia 4hich can in essence be described as creative communicative
teaching 4ith the addition of music and suggestion.
Linguists) notabl& 9aur "1>852>2# have criticised Superlearning for the follo4ing5
1. Sprachenlernen wird mit dem Lernen von Vokabeln und/oder idiomatischen Redewendungen
gleichgesetzt; die produktiv-kreativen und pragmatischen Aspekte von Sprache und Sprechen
bleiben unbercksichtigt.
2. (ie Sprachbeherrschung )ird durch die bersetzung *+eist ,er-bersetzung von einzelnen ./rtern
-berpr-ft0 -ber )elche sprachlichen 1ertig2eiten die 3erner tats4chlich verf-gen5 bleibt v/llig un2lar.
3. (en 3ernenden )ird suggeriert5 sie br4uchten sich nur zu entspannen und 2/nnten den produ2tiven
6ebrauch der 1re+dsprache rein passiv erlernen. 7s )ird ignoriert5 da8 Sprechenlernen an
9o++uni2ation gebunden ist und ein a2tiver Proze8 sein +u80 andernfalls )erden nur rezeptive
14hig2eiten trainiert *falls das Sprach+aterial dazu geeignet ist:.
K1. Language learning is characterised b& the learning of vocabular& andHor idiomatic
phrasesF the productive1creative and practical aspects of language and spea;ing are not
considered.
2. Language competence is tested through translation "mostl& from foreign to mother
tongue# of single 4ordsF 4hich language s;ills the learners have actuall& mastered)
remains completel& unclear.
3. It is suggested to the learners that all the& have to do is rela* and that the& 4ill be able
to ac3uire the productive use of the foreign language b& simpl& remaining passive. It is
completel& ignored that language learning is coupled 4ith communication and has to be
an active processF other4ise onl& receptive s;ills are trained "provided that the language
materials are suitable#.L
/hile 9aur.s criticism is perfectl& valid 4hen referring to Superlearning as described
above) it does not hold true 4hen referring to Suggestopedia, although some linguists
"Scovel 1>(>) 9ro4n 1>8(# appear not to distinguish bet4een the t4o. Scovel "1>(>#)
revie4ing Lozanov.s Suggestology and 0utlines o" Suggestopedy, believes that
Esuggestoped& ...is an attempt to teach memorisation techni3ues and is not devoted to the
far more comprehensive enterprise of language ac3uisitionE. "p.2$7# -iven the nature of
Lozanov.s presentation of Suggestopedia in this boo;) it is not surprising that Scovel
came to this conclusion. Lozanov does spea; predominantl& of h&permnesia) and he does
not describe in detail the entire suggestopedic c&cle 4hich includes the e*tensive revie4
and elaboration session described above. Lozanov is not a linguist) and in this publication
he 4as concerned 4ith the effect of suggestion as related to h&permnesia. To ma;e a
valid criticism of Suggestopedia used for language teaching) it is more appropriate to
loo; at courses designed b& linguists. The Lozanov c&cle described above 4as designed
in collaboration 4ith 0ova;ov and -ateva) both notable linguists) and it includes
elements that specificall& address the comple*it& of language learning) long before the
advent of Communicative Teaching and the -atural Approach 4hich are generall& 4ell
received b& linguists and 4ith 4hich Suggestopedia has much in common.
<ollo4ing the publication of Superlearning, t4o things happened. Teachers began using
Superlearning in the classroom) and commercial courses) largel& follo4ing the structure
above) 4ere offered. <or the former) the model had to be e*panded and tended to include
Lozanov.s revie4 and elaboration sessions. In this form) the method became a
combination of Suggestopedia, Superlearning and SALT. A t&pical e*ample of this is
6rMbner "1>8$#. <rom no4 on labels 4ere used almost at random) and if the treatment in
e*perimental studies 4as not described in detail) it 4as impossible to ;no4 4hich
elements had been included. It follo4ed from this that Suggestopedia 4as sometimes
:udged b& courses 4hich had little in common 4ith Lozanov.s model.
The appearance of high profile commercial Superlearning courses contributed to the
confusion. <urthermore) man& courses of this nature use sensationalist research reports
for advertising such as the claim that language learning can be increased !7 times and
more "a claim that Lozanov himself never made but that is attributed to him as a
conse3uence of the confusion# even though sound scientific data on Accelerative
Learning 4hich disputes such claims has become available. This practice did not enhance
the credibilit& of Suggestopedia in the e&es of applied linguists. These courses are
generall& self1stud& courses produced on cassettes accompanied b& a te*tboo;. The&
en:o& var&ing degrees of success depending on ho4 4ell the& are designed and produced.
/hile some courses are ver& poor in terms of content and structure) there are also some
good ones.
An e*ample of the latter is a course produced b& a ps&chologist and a linguist in /est
-erman& "Bell& C Din;elmann 1>8$#. An attempt has been made to include the entire
suggestopedic c&cle) s&nchronisation has been dropped and students. arousal level is
monitored b& alternating active and passive states guided b& the appropriate musical
bac;ing. +aterials are organised in dialogue form) 4ith vocabular& lists and e*ercises
follo4ing ever& chapter. A brief grammatical overvie4 and a small dictionar& for
travelling purposes are also provided in the te*tboo;. Students are informed about the
nature of Superlearning in the introduction. It is suggested that students 4ill learn in a
rela*ed atmosphere in 4hich learning bloc;s are impossible. ,esearch in 4hich
Superlearning students learnt three times as much as students in traditional courses
"6rMbner 1>8$# is referred to. The term Superlearning is used as a s&non&m for both
Suggestopedia and SALT. The course follo4s this structure5
COMMERCIAL SUPERLEARNING STRUCTURE
1. % , 2 % A , A T I = 0. An audio cassette 4ith rela*ation e*ercises is provided. These
range from s&stematic muscle rela*ation to visualisation e*ercises such as mind1calming
described belo4 in the SALT section. The& are accompanied b& music such as the second
movement from 9eethoven.s 9mperor Concerto and %achelbel.s Canon finishing 4ith a
short piece of the faster third movement from the 9mperor Concerto accompanied b&
4a;e1up suggestions.
2. % , 2 S 2 0 T A T I = 0. +aterials are presented in t4o concert sessions. <or the first
concert the students are instructed to remain rela*ed but to follo4 the te*t in their boo;.
0o translations are given during the reading and the target language is read rather slo4l&.
This session is accompanied b& the slo4 movement of 9eethoven.s Pastoral Symphony.
9efore the ne*t session begins the visualisation e*ercise given on the preparation tape is
repeated.
<or the second concert students are instructed to remain completel& passive and to en:o&
the simultaneous presentation of music and language as if the& 4ere at a concert or at the
opera. This session is accompanied b& 9ach.s Air and the reading this time includes the
translation of the materials 4hich are no4 presented in short phrases and at normal speed.
This session finishes 4ith the same piece of music and 4a;e1up suggestions that 4ere
given at the end of the preparation tape. In an accompan&ing brochure the suggestion is
given that during these learning concerts a passive ;no4ledge of the materials is ac3uired
"Din;elmann 1>885$#.
3. , 2 G I 2 / A 0 6 2 L A 9 = , A T I = 0. The students are no4 encouraged to
practise these materials in a communicative fashion) presumabl& 4ith a partner.
A variet& of language games are provided for this purpose.
The designers of this course have attempted to include a more substantial activation
period of the materials than 4as suggested b& =strander and Schroeder "1>(>#. Do4
effective these practice sessions are) ho4ever) 4hen students are left to their o4n devices)
cannot be ascertained. Although this course ma& 4ell be more effective and more
interesting than a traditional audio1lingual course) it is far removed from Lozanov.s
Suggestopedia. The main difference bet4een the t4o is still the ph&sical presence of the
teacher in Suggestopedia. It is the teacher 4ho provides the suggestive atmosphere)
creates positive group d&namics) guides the direction of the elaboration e*ercises and
provides constant positive feedbac;. And even if students 4ere able to conduct their o4n
revie4 and elaboration periods ade3uatel&) the cassette course still lac;s the coherence of
the Lozanov c&cle and the positive reinforcement that is gained b& the students
4itnessing each other.s progress.
The main difference bet4een Suggestopedia and Superlearning 4hen used in the
classroom is the latter.s use of rela*ation and visualisation e*ercises and the inclusion of
s&nchronisation of students. breathing 4ith the presentation of materials. It does not
appear from the research that s&nchronisation is a beneficial addition to Suggestopedia,
4hich is reflected in the fact that most practitioners of Superlearning and SALT have
e*cluded this element from their teaching. The supposed benefits of visualisation 4ill be
discussed in the SALT section belo4. Since all /estern versions of Suggestopedia include
some form of rela*ation) the effect of rela*ation 4ill be e*plored in chapter 3.
SUGGESTIVE ACCELERATIVE LEARNING
AND TEACHING (SALT)

This version of Suggestopedia 4as developed b& a group of American teachers and
college professors "Schuster) 9enitez19ordon C -ritton 1>($) Schuster C -ritton 1>8!#.
Their first version in the mid 1>(7s follo4ed essentiall& Lozanov.s second model but
retained ?oga breathing and e*ercises and) follo4ing 9ancroft.s "1>($# suggestions)
included s&nchronised breathing during the concert sessions. The Americans believed that
specific rela*ation 4as beneficial to students in the /estern 4orld) especiall& in the
school environment 4here students can be h&peractive) badl& disciplined and lac;ing in
concentration. /hile Lozanov "1>(8# claimed that in Suggestopedia rela*ation is
naturall& produced in the concert sessions and therefore does not need special attention)
the Americans reintroduced rela*ation) both ph&sical and mental. The& believed that the
cultural differences bet4een 9ulgaria and America "pointed out at length b& 9arza;ov
1>82 and 9a&u; 1>83# 4ere such that Lozanov.s model needed to be adapted for
American conditions. This adaptation 4as mainl& reflected in the introduction of
rela*ation and visualisation techni3ues.
In their second version) therefore) the Americans favoured a techni3ue called mind+
calming over ?oga breathing and e*ercises) although some practitioners "Deld 1>(8# used
both. S&nchronisation 4as eventuall& dropped b& most practitioners but not b& all. The
reasons for dropping s&nchronisation 4ere largel& the same as those mentioned above.
%richard and Ta&lor "1>($#) for e*ample) report that some learning disabled children had
difficulties rela*ing 4hile concentrating on the s&nchronised breathing.
4ind+calming consists essentiall& of visualisation e*ercises related or unrelated to the
sub:ect taught. Its purpose is to focus the students. concentration and attention on the
tas;) to create a positive learning environment and to clear students. minds of all
irrelevant information to do 4ith their personal lives "Schuster 1>($a#. Stricherz "1>(>#
4ho compared the effectiveness of several ph&sical and mental rela*ation techni3ues)
reports that the techni3ue similar to mind+calming as described here Eaffected blood
pressure the least) but provided the greatest self1reported sense of rela*ation and 4ell1
beingE. "p.18># This suggests that although ph&sical rela*ation ma& be more effective on
a ph&siological basis) mind+calming ma& produce greater ps&chological effects.
Do4 visualisation can be used to affect the ps&chological state of the students is
e*tensivel& outlined in Schuster and -ritton "1>8!#. 0ervous or h&peractive students
might be calmed through a E4al; in the forestE) tired students given ne4 energ& through
Esoa;ing up the sun on the beachE and negative students made more cheerful and positive
through recalling a positive learning e*perience from their past.
Schuster "1>($a# describes this last techni3ue of restimulation as a -estalt procedure
4hich involves not onl& visualisation but also the students. emotions. De claims that this
element alone ma& be effective in increased learning in SALT but gives no further details.
De ma& be referring to earl& e*periments such as -ritton and 9enitez19ordon "1>($#
4ho taught mathematics) science and spelling to school children in large classes using
restimulation and other forms of mind+calming onl&. Since there 4as no control group)
-ritton and 9enitez19ordon "1>($# report the results on a naturalistic basis5 students
4or;ed better) 4ere more interested in the sub:ect) 4ere more confident and had fe4er
discipline problems. -ritton as the teacher felt more rela*ed 4hich rene4ed his interest in
teaching. Achievement 4as not tested e*perimentall& but he reports that Ethe children
4ent from sa&ing that the& could not spell five 4ords a da& to fift&E "p.333#.
4ind+calming can also be used for sub:ect specific activities. Derr "1>81# suggests an
interesting visualisation techni3ue related to language learning. Dere the students are
encouraged to imagine themselves in the environment of the language the& are stud&ing)
hearing the sounds) seeing the language 4ritten on signs) literall& e*periencing the
language. /ith some imagination this could be transferred to other sub:ects. Similar
techni3ues have been successfull& demonstrated b& S4art "1>8(# in the teaching of a
Sha;espeare te*t.
Gisualisation during mind+calming can also be used for goal oriented purposes) such as
students seeing themselves as having successfull& completed the course) or at various
successful stages along the course. It can further be used to reduce an*iet& before tests b&
students calml& completing the test in their imagination. These techni3ues are e*tensivel&
used in Sports ps&cholog&. Setterlind) @nesthl and Baill "1>8$# developed a s&stematic
rela*ation training for &outh) based on visualisation of this ;ind 4hich 4as introduced to
all S4edish schools and is no4 in the process of evaluation. Some results are reported in
chapter 3.
2*perimental research on the effects of mind+calming in education is not e*tensive but
suggests a positive effect on learning and behaviour. Stricherz and Stein "1>87#
investigated the effect of four different rela*ation techni3ues on students. abilit& to
recognise 4ords 4hich had been presented audio1visuall& after induction to the different
conditions. 112 adult students 4ere the sub:ects in this 4ell controlled e*periment. The
results sho4ed a significant difference in the number of 4ords recognised favouring the
cognitive mind e*pansion procedure "similar to mind+calming# over the control group. 0o
significant differences 4ere found bet4een an& of the other conditions.
-al&ean "1>87# investigated the effect of guided imager& activit& on various behaviours
of lo4 achieving students at a minorit& school in Los Angeles. Three independent
observers recorded various positive and negative behaviours of students in t4o Spanish
classes taught b& the same teacher. Treatment in the e*perimental class consisted of
visualisation sessions lasting five to seven minutes at the beginning of each class.
Students 4ere encouraged to a# focus on their inner strength) b# vie4 themselves as
potentiall& successful learners) and c# vie4 the teacher and the others as helpers in their
3uest for success. ,esults after three months and 12 observations sho4ed significantl&
fe4er occurrences of negative and disruptive behaviour in the e*perimental class. It must
be pointed out) ho4ever) that sub:ects 4ere not assigned at random) and that the
behavioral compatibilit& of the t4o classes 4as not chec;ed before the introduction of the
treatment. /hile -al&ean herself realises these limitations) she 4as satisfied 4ith the
classes. compatibilit& on the basis of teacher reports prior to the e*periment.
The positive effect of visualisation in the learning environment has further been sho4n b&
Bossl&n "1>87)1>83# and its po4erful use in verbal learning b& %aivio "1>(1#. Although
in SALT visualisation is rarel& used for mnemonic purposes as in %aivio and 6esrochers
"1>(>#) the range of uses is enormous and onl& limited b& the e*pertise) enthusiasm and
imagination of the teacher and the students.
The SALT version described b& Schuster and -ritton "1>8!# is structured as follo4s5

SALT STRUCTURE
1. % , 2 % A , A T I = 0. This session starts 4ith simple ph&sical rela*ation and
stretching e*ercises follo4ed b& mind+calming e*ercises. The visualisation during the
latter often ta;es the form of recalling a pleasant learning e*perience in the past. The
session ma& include positive learning suggestions related to the ease of learning or to
goal setting.
2. % , 2 S 2 0 T A T I = 0. This session is almost the same as that in Lozanov.s third
model. It begins 4ith a revie4 of previousl& learnt material) follo4ed b& a previe4 of the
material to be studied. The t4o concert sessions) using Lozanov.s earl& music
suggestions) namel& classical pieces for the active concert and slo4 baro3ue movements
for the passive concert) conclude this session.
3. , 2 G I 2 / A 0 6 2 L A 9 = , A T I = 0. This session follo4s to a large e*tent
the format suggested b& Lozanov.s c&cle above) but it ma& include self1corrected 3uizzes
and a mind+calming session at the end of the class.
/hile this is the predominant version of SALT there are slightl& altered versions 4ithin
SALT. Some practitioners insert a mind1calming session immediatel& before the concert
sessions and others practise the material bet4een concert sessions.
SALT appears to be a sensible adaptation of Suggestopedia in the /estern 4orld. The
chief difference bet4een the t4o approaches is the retention of ph&sical rela*ation in the
former and the inclusion of mind+calming for mental rela*ation during the preparation
session. Although research on the effects of mind+calming is limited) there is some
indication of its benefits in terms of positivel& affecting the ps&chological state of the
students as 4ell as improving students. performance in recognition tas;s. 4ind+calming
ma& therefore 4ell be a valuable contribution to Suggestopedia 4hich is reflected in the
fact that it has been adopted b& man& practitioners of other versions of Accelerative
Learning around the 4orld.
PSYCHOPDIE
This version of Suggestopedia 4as developed in /est -erman& b& 9aur "1>8# 4ho
loo;ed at the method as an applied linguist. /hile previous versions had been used for
teaching various sub:ects) Psychopdie 4as specificall& designed for language teaching.
9aur re:ects the long periods of purel& receptive states in 4hich students taught 4ith
Superlearning, SALT and Suggestopedia find themselves. De believes) in sharp contrast
to Brashen "1>82#) that language learning has to be an active process right from the start.
/ith suggestopedic teaching students ma& remain passive for the entire first da& of an
intensive language course) 4hich 4ould correspond to Brashen.s "1>82# .silent period..
9aur has his students reproducing materials after the first t4ent& minutes of the course.
De argues that if active periods are included in the presentation sessions) students 4ill
find the transition to the activation periods more natural. De further points out that during
the long passive periods) rational1anal&tical learning strategies ma& be activated 4hich
could hinder communication considerabl& "9aur 1>852>!#.
/hile these observations ma& be :ustified from a linguistic point of vie4) the follo4ing
criticism of Suggestopedia b& 9aur "1>852># seems surprising5
(er sprachliche ;nput erfolgt nur -ber h/ren5 lesen und +usi2alisch'e+otionale $nreicherung. ' (a
Sprach)ahrneh+ung in der 9o++uni2ation sehr star2 +it nonverbalen 7le+enten )ie <lic22onta2t5
=i+i25 6esti25 Pro&e+i2 so)ie )eiteren 1a2toren der Situations)ahrneh+ung und propriozeptiven
Prozessen ver2n-pft ist5 l48t die Suggestop4die *)ie auch andere =ethoden der
1re+dsprachenver+ittlung: )ichtige 1a2toren des 7r)erbs unber-c2sichtigt.
The language input is exclusively conducted via listening, reading and musical-emotional backing.
Because language perception in communication is very strongly related to non-verbal elements such
as eye contact, mimicry, gestures, proximity, as well as other factors of situational perception and
proprioceptive processes, Suggestopedia (as well as other methods of language teaching) does not
take into account important factors of acquisition.]
9aur spea;s of the students. *ahrnehmung KperceptionL rather than of the production of
language items. 2ven though the students in Suggestopedia remain ph&sicall& passive
during the presentation stages) the& do not e*clusivel& perceive and receive the language
via reading and listening. Lozanov "1>(8# ma;es it abundantl& clear that communication
ta;es place on more than one level) namel& verbal and non1verbal and that the teacher
needs to use ever& possible device) such as mimicr& and gestures) in order to ma;e
materials more accessible to the students. 9aur.s criticism) therefore) is more appropriate
regarding the Superlearning courses produced on cassettes 4here such elements cannot
be included.
9aur is) ho4ever) :ustified in claiming that the students are not ph&sicall& involved in
4hat he terms 6esti$ during the long receptive periods in intensive suggestopedic
courses. De not onl& believes that the students need to practise the materials earlier than
Lozanov suggests) but that the& also need to reproduce the non1verbal elements included
in the presentation of the materials. De emphasises "9aur C -rz&be; 1>85(7# that the
term 6esti$ has to be broad since gestures are inevitabl& lin;ed 4ith other non1verbal
andHor paraverbal communication. In order to investigate the efficac& of 6esti$ in the
suggestopedic presentation phases) 9aur and -rz&be; "1>8# carried out a stud& in 4hich
$7 le*ical items of ,ussian 4ere presented to 273 volunteer adult students 4ho ;ne4 no
,ussian. The presentation phases 4ere largel& based on Lozanov.s first model5
1. <irst decoding "bilingual te*t# 4ith the help of mimicr&) gestures and
movements.
2. Second decoding as above) but students imitate 4ords and non1verbal
elements.
3. Intoned reading of the material "neutral) loud)4hispering# 4ithout
music.
. +usical sance materials read to the pla&ing of baro3ue music.
%resentation of materials too; place in three different conditions as follo4s5
1. Teacher presents materials 4ith 6esti$ during the first phase.
Students reproduce materials 4ith 6esti$ during the second phase.
2. Teacher presents materials 4ith 6esti$ during the first phase.
Students repeat materials verball& 4ithout 6esti$ during the second phase.
3. Teacher presents materials audio1visuall&.
Students repeat materials verball&.
%hases three and four of the presentation c&cle remained as above and 4ere identical for
all groups. Sub:ects 4ere given a 27 item multiple choice test immediatel& after the
sessions and one 4ee; later. Students did not ;no4 that the& 4ere going to be re1tested.
9aur and -rz&be; 4ere particularl& interested in the results after one 4ee; since items
had to be recalled from long1term memor&. The results sho4ed the follo4ing5
1. An increase in retention rate after one 4ee; in the first condition.
2. An unchanged retention rate after one 4ee; in the second condition.
3. A decrease in retention rate after one 4ee; in the third condition.
These trends 4ere highl& significant for all 4ithin1group tests. 9et4een groups the
difference bet4een the first and second condition) as 4ell as bet4een the second and third
condition 4as significant. The difference bet4een the first and third condition 4as highl&
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, 9aur "1>8# developed the
follo4ing structure for his Psychopdie c&cle "information is included to give some idea
about the distribution of time for the individual phases in an intensive language course#5

PSYCHOPDIE STRUCTURE
1. % , 2 % A , A T I = 0. 9efore the course begins students are informed about the
nature of the course and introduced to the rela*ation techni3ues used. 9aur does not
specif& the time involved.
2. % , 2 S 2 0 T A T I = 0
*a: ;ntroduction Phase. The first 27 minutes of the course are spent decoding the ne4
materials in a livel& manner integrating non1verbal elements to bring the te*t alive. This
part is identical to the beginning of Lozanov.s presentation session) although the short
duration suggests that fe4er le*ical items are introduced here. 9aur "1>8537># stresses
that the role of the teacher.s use of 1inesi$, 6esti$ and 4imi$ is not to conve& the
meaning of the te*t) since its translation is given) but to activate the interest of the learner
and to superimpose on the te*t characteristics 4hich are perceived via a multitude of
channels and are stored as secondar& associations 4hich aids in the retention of the
materials.
*b: %eproduction Phase. The ne*t >7 minutes are spent 4ith active reproduction of the
te*t b& the students through interactive e*ercises. This phase does not e*ist in this
position in an& other model of Accelerative Learning: the e*ercises described here) such
as role pla& and introductions) are part of the revie4 and elaboration sessions in all the
above models. In a sense 9aur distributes the activities for revie4 and elaboration over
t4o sessions. In this session the learners are to be made familiar 4ith the te*t so that
items used in the activation session are easil& recognised. The& are given the opportunit&
to develop their pla&ful1creative fantas&) to lose their fear of spea;ing) to realise that it
can be fun to operate in the target language) and 4ith the integration of ph&sical activities
overcome their passive involvement in the learning process.
*c: $nalytical Phase. This 7 minute session is largel& based on the second model of
Lozanov.s active concert session. 9aur "1>85313# points out that here the cognitive1
anal&tical abilities of the learners are activated through the reading of the te*t) the
recognition of 4ord and s&llable divisions) the comparison of mother tongue and target
language structures) and the comparison of phonetics and spelling.
*d: $ssociative Phase. This session of 37 minutes is largel& based on the first model of
Lozanov.s passive concert session. 9efore this session the students have a rela*ation
period 4ith ph&sical e*ercises and visualisation e*ercises. The placement of a rela*ation
session here) although different from the models discussed above "e*cept Lozanov.s first
model#) is supported b& some other practitioners of Accelerative Learning. Stoc;4ell
"1>8!#) for instance) feels that students) especiall& in intensive courses) do not need
rela*ation at the beginning of the course but at this stage. 9aur "1>8531!# points out that
here the logical1anal&tical processes of the left hemisphere) 4hich 4ere predominant in
the phase before) give 4a& to right hemisphere dominated processes. 0o4 the materials
are again perceived globall& 4ith the superimposition of the musical structures.
3. A C T I G A T I = 0. 9aur stresses that before this session at least one night of rest
should be given to consolidate the materials. The ne*t four to si* hours are spent 4ith the
activation of materials in pla&ful communicative situations. 2mphasis is put on the
development of spontaneous spea;ing) although 4riting s;ills and grammar are also
included. 9aur "1>8531># believes that because materials 4ere alread& presented in a
pla&ful fashion during the reproduction phase) the transfer from input to activation and
functional use is more natural than in Suggestopedia.
Psychopdie appears to be a 4ell designed adaptation of Suggestopedia for intensive
language teaching. 9aur) 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 bet4een 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 revie4
and elaboration sessions. 9aur.s model b& contrast provides a more even alternation
bet4een receptive and active states 4hich ma& 4ell be more attractive to the students.
Do4ever) the receptive phases in Suggestopedia are generall& not seen as unpleasant)
especiall& b& adult students. 9aur.s model ma& also be attractive from the teachers. point
of vie4. Intensive courses) in particular) tend to be ver& demanding on teachers in these
prolonged EperformanceE sessions.
In terms of structure all 9aur does is reshuffle Lozanov.s model b& ta;ing some time
devoted in Suggestopedia to elaboration and practice and using it for similar purposes in
the presentation stages. Although 9aur and -rz&be; "1>8# have given some empirical
evidence for the efficac& of students reproducing non1verbal elements in the presentation
phase) this stud& on its o4n 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 non1verbal elements in the revie4 and elaboration sessions) and indeed throughout
the suggestopedic c&cle) ma& 4ell prove e3uall& as efficient. In order to prove the
superiorit& of a reproductive phase it 4ould be more appropriate to compare the results
after teaching 4ith the entire c&cles of both models.
SUMMARY
Suggestopedia has undergone a variet& of changes over the t4o decades of its e*istence.
Some changes) mainl& those to the concert session) 4ere made b& Lozanov himself)
others 4ere made b& e*ponents adapting the method for their o4n environment. The
latest version of the suggestopedic c&cle includes a preparation session) decoding of the
materials to be learnt) an active and a passive concert session in 4hich materials are read
4ith the bac;ing of entire classical or baro3ue pieces respectivel&) and e*tensive revie4
and elaboration sessions.
In 2astern 2urope the method differs the least fom this model and it is still referred to as
Suggestopedia. ,esearchers in the -erman 6emocratic ,epublic) ho4ever) have reduced
the t4o concert sessions to one and made changes to Lozanov.s music selection. +usic
from the baro3ue period 4hich is still predominant in Lozanov.s selection is no longer
used in the -6, as a result of research 4hich sho4ed more favourable student responses
for the Gienna classical period.
The t4o ma:or versions of Suggestopedia in the /est are Superlearning and SALT, both
originating in 0orth America. Another version developed b& a linguist in /est -erman&
is called Psychopdie. The originators of these versions have also made changes to
Lozanov.s Suggestopedia. The chief contribution of Superlearning is the inclusion of
s&nchronisation of breathing and presentation of 4ords during the passive concert
session. The limited research does not consistentl& sho4 this element to have a positive
effect on the retention of materials. Do4ever) the literature suggests consistentl& that this
element ma& be cumbersome for the students to handle 4hich is reflected in the fact that
s&nchronisation has been dropped b& most practitioners. Superlearning also advocated
self1stud& courses produced on audio1tapes) a s&stem 4hich 4as adopted b& commercial
enterprises around the 4orld. Although good e*amples of such courses e*ist) vital
elements such as the teacher.s presence) group d&namics and the communicative
interaction bet4een students cannot be included in such courses.
The most important contribution of SALT is the inclusion of mind1calming during the
presentation phase. Although research) here too) is not e*tensive) the literature sho4s a
positive trend to4ards improved learning and improved behaviour as 4ell as other
positive ps&chological effects being associated 4ith mind1calming. This ma& therefore
4ell be a positive addition to Suggestopedia 4hich is reflected in the fact that most
/estern practitioners have adopted mind1calming in their programme.
The contribution of Psychopdie to Suggestopedia is the insertion of a reproductive phase
before the concert sessions. The rationale for this 4as to brea; up the long passive states
in 4hich suggestopedic students in intensive courses find themselves. Although there is
no empirical evidence as &et 4hich supports the efficac& of such a phase) it ma& 4ell be
attractive to students and teachers ali;e to have a more balanced programme in terms of
students. arousal level. Some practitioners alread& use this phase in their programme)
most notabl& the -6, researchers.
Although there are distinct differences bet4een the four versions of Accelerative
Learning discussed in this chapter) caution must be e*ercised 4hen interpreting research
results if the treatment is not described in detail. Labels are sometimes used
interchangeabl&) and elements generall& associated 4ith a particular version ma& no
longer be used. This has led to some confusion about the e*act content of an Accelerative
Learning course. Do4ever) all four versions consistentl& use the same three elements.
These are music) rela*ation and suggestion. /hile in the /est special attention is given
to rela*ation in the form of progressive rela*ation or mind1calming either during the
preparation phase or before the concert session) practitioners in the 2ast no longer
practice rela*ation e*plicitl&. According to Lozanov "1>(8#) ho4ever) rela*ation is still
produced through other suggestive means) such as music) teacher behaviour and
classroom atmosphere.
Since music) rela*ation and suggestion are also used in most other adaptations of
Suggestopedia not discussed here) 4e can assume that these elements are generall& seen
as the most important in the approach. The presumed effects of these elements 4ill
therefore be discussed in detail in the ne*t chapter.
Chapter 3

The Effects of
Music, Relaa!i"# and Su$$es!i"#
in the learning environment.

INTRODUCTION
The aim of this chapter is to investigate 4hether music, rela(ation and suggestion, the
three ma:or elements present in most versions of Accelerative Learning, have indeed
been sho4n to be effective in the learning process. <or this purpose studies have been
revie4ed not onl& 4ithin the field of Accelerative Learning) but also outside it.
=ne 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 particularl& true for the element of music. Some
studies have investigated the effect of bac;ground music on vocabular& learning) both in
laborator& settings "Schuster C +ouzon 1>82) Stein et al 1>82) Schuster 1>8!# and in the
normal teaching environment "Schiffler 1>8$b#. =ther studies) some independent of
Accelerative Learning, have loo;ed at the effect of bac;ground music on reading
performance "+ulli;in C Den; 1>8!#) on students. on1tas; behaviour "6avidson C
%o4ell 1>8$# and on conte*t1dependent memor& "Smith 1>8!#.
/hile the ma:orit& of studies e*plored the effect of music on achievement) Lehmann
"1>82# investigated ps&cho1ph&siological responses to different t&pes of music in order to
determine 4hich music ma& be most readil& accepted b& students in Accelerative
Learning classes. Dis findings) together 4ith those of Smith "1>8!#) 4ho included 4hite
noise as a bac;ground to learning) and those of +ulli;in and Den; "1>8!#) 4ho
investigated the effectiveness of eas&1listening bac;ground music) are particularl&
interesting since the& indicate that music selections other than those recommended b&
Lozanov "1>(8# and Lozanov and -ateva "1>88# ma& be effective in the learning
environment. -enerall&) the role of music in Accelerative Learning has been given more
attention b& researchers than either rela*ation or suggestion.
Since Lozanov himself no longer recommends specific rela*ation e*ercises) the 3uestion
arises 4hether this element ought to be retained in Accelerative Learning on the basis of
the /estern research. There have been a number of studies investigating the effect of
various forms of rela*ation training on achievement "9iggers C Stricherz 1>($) Stricherz
1>87) Aohnson 1>82) 9aur 1>82#) on creativit& "-amble et al 1>82#) and on ph&siological
and ps&chological variables "+atthe4s 1>83) Setterlind 1>83#.
The most e*tensive research on the effect of rela*ation on achievement independent of
Accelerative Learning has been carried out in the field of an*iet& research. Since one of
the principles of Accelerative Learning is that learning ought to be free from stress and
tension) elements closel& related to an*iet&) the findings of this research 4ere found to be
relevant to this chapter and have therefore been included.
The least researched of the three ma:or elements in Accelerative Learning is suggestion.
=ne reason for this ma& be that this element is particularl& difficult to isolate in an&
teaching environment. ,esults of studies in 4hich the effect of suggestion in Accelerative
Learning 4as investigated "9ordon C Schuster 1>($) 9iggers C Stricherz 1>($) Schuster
C +artin 1>87) ,enigers 1>81# are conflicting. Another reason for the lac; of research on
suggestion ma& be its close association 4ith h&pnosis. The possible relationship or
distinction bet4een Accelerative Learning and h&pnosis 4ill therefore also be e*plored in
this chapter.
MUSIC

La musique est la langue du cur
Music is the language of the heart]
%ousseau
/hile most elements of Accelerative Learning can be found in education in some form or
other) the genuinel& innovative element 4hich Accelerative Learning brings to toda&.s
classrooms is the s&stematic use of music in the instruction process. /hile the coupling
of music and messages is e*tensivel& used in advertising and in entertainment) music in
education) outside official music classes) tends to be restricted to use 4ith &oung children
in ;indergarten and primar& school. Although 4e ;no4 from e*perience that 4ords
s&nchronised 4ith music or rh&thm are easier to learn than 4ords alone) preparation of
materials in this form 4ith older children or adults are usuall& onl& found in music or
drama classes) and perhaps in some language classes. The idea of a mathematics class
rela*ing to the sounds of Dandel.s *atermusic 4hile the teacher recites a list of formulae)
or an 2nglish class listening to %achelbel.s Canon 4hile the teacher reads e*cerpts from a
novel) tends to elicit a variet& of responses from toda&.s educators) ranging from
amusement to disbelief. This form of learning) ho4ever) is not ne4) and has been sho4n
to be effective. As ,ose "1>8!# points out) the coupling of music and recital of 4ords 4as
alread& used b& the ancient -ree;s.
.....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. (p.97)
Although the music used has changed) the techni3ue of presenting 4ords and music
simultaneousl& in order to enhance retention of materials has been reintroduced in
Accelerative Learning. T4o ma:or rationales for this can be identified in Lozanov.s
"1>(8# original 4or;. The first 4as Lozanov.s belief that music has the potential to create
a state of rela*ed alertness in the students 4hich he calls psychorela(ation. Lozanov
"1>(8# found that the bod& rh&thms of students ad:usted to the rh&thms of the baro3ue
music he used. De recorded a significant increase in alpha brain 4aves during the passive
concert sessions 4ith a corresponding decrease in beta 4aves. De also recorded a drop in
blood pressure and a slo4ing of the pulse. According to the rela*ation and an*iet&
research discussed belo4) this state ma& be conducive to better performance.
The second rationale for the use of music in the instruction process 4as the idea of 4hole
brain learning. Lozanov "1>(8# believed that the interaction of both hemispheres together
4ith the neo1corte* had a positive effect on retention rates of learned materials. ,esearch
b& Cla&comb "1>(8# supports this claim. =ther models on brain functioning) such as the
Triune 9rain s&stem "+cLean 1>(3#) the Ta*on and Locale +emor& s&stem "=.Beefe C
0adel 1>(8# and the Dolographic +emor& s&stem "%ribram C Coleman 1>(># also
suggest) according to Stein et al. "1>82#) that multiple channels of input 4ill increase
information retention.
In Accelerative Learning language and music are presented simultaneousl& resulting in a
comple* interaction bet4een both hemispheres and the neo1corte*. Strict lateralisation of
music and language processing) as has been sho4n b& 6uff& et al "1>81#) can no longer
generall& be supported since it has been demonstrated that different and e*tended areas of
both hemispheres undergo changes during musical tas;s "%etsche et al 1>8!#. /hile
6uff& et al "1>81# suggested that language is processed b& the left hemisphere 4hile
music is processed b& the right hemisphere) %etsche et al "1>8!# found that sub:ects
listening to a +ozart s&mphon& generated totall& different topographic patterns of
changes of the 2.2.-. parameters studied. The latter.s findings support the proposition of
9ever and Chiarello "1>(# 4ho suggested that the holistic appreciation of music of naive
listeners is usuall& processed b& the right hemisphere) 4hereas musicall& trained listeners
tend to use their Eanal&ticalE left hemisphere.
The most detailed research on the role of music in Accelerative Learning has been carried
out b& Lehmann "1>82)1>83)1>8# in the -.6.,. 4hose ma:or findings are reported in
translation in Lehmann and -assner1,oberts "1>88#. In this publication Lehmann and
-assner1,oberts "1>885(# offer an even more detailed description of the relative roles of
the t4o cerebral hemispheres in the processing of music and language5
In righthanded people and at least 60 of lefthanders the rhythm of music appears to be processed
by the left (speech) hemisphere, while melody, tonality, timbre (in speech: intonation, pitch, gestures,
mimicry), etc. seem to be processed by the right hemisphere. Although both hemispheres interact
closely, each has specific tasks to fulfill.
Lehmann.s 4or; dra4s on the findings of music therap& 4hich have sho4n that Ethe use
of music for therapeutic purposes and for rehabilitation of the learning1disabled children
can lead to a behaviour modification 4hich contributes to mental and ph&siological
recover&E "Lehmann C -assner1,oberts 1>8853#. De states) ho4ever) that5
Contrary to the use of music in music therapy and pedagogy for the learning- disabled, music in the
normal learning process has to be seen as a medium of communication additional to language. In this
process the experience gained from the use of music therapy has to be utilized, but always keeping in
mind the specifics of the learning behaviour of the average student. However, music has an ideal
combination of cognitive, affective and psychomotor elements which stimulate and activate the
psychic reserves of the learner so that these reserves can be utilized in the learner's learning
behaviour, thus improving his/her mental capacity. (p.3)
Lehmann believes that the function of the music in Accelerative Learning is t4ofold. =n
the one hand it rela*es the students) on the other it broadens and changes the potential
perceptions of the students. De claims that Ethe change of perception through music can
influence the attitude to learningE and Eeffect an e*pansion of attentionE "Lehmann C
-assner1,oberts 1>8852>#.
Assuming that there are sound ph&siological and ps&chological reasons for using music
in the instruction process) can the research bac; up the claims for the conse3uent
improved performanceJ /e 4ill no4 loo; in detail at studies 4hich have investigated the
effect of bac;ground music either during learning or during testing or both. /e 4ill also
loo; at different music st&les in order to find out 4hich t&pe of music ma& be the most
effective.
9ordon and Schuster "1>($# found that baro3ue music b& Givaldi and 9ach resulted in a
significant improvement in scores in a Spanish paired1associates tas; as compared to
4hen this music 4as not pla&ed during the learning period in a laborator& setting. This
stud& is further discussed in the suggestion section belo4. The findings for significantl&
improved performance as a result of baro3ue bac;ground music in a laborator& setting
are supported b& ,enigers "1>81#) 9aur "1>82#) and b& Stein et al. "1>82#. In the natural
teaching environment the& are supported b& Schiffler "1>8$b# This stud& is discussed in
detail in chapter .
/hile all the laborator& studies investigated the effect of baro3ue music on learning)
Schuster and +ouzon "1>82# also included classical music for investigation. The effects
of three treatment conditions 1 no music) baro3ue music as bac;ground to presenting rare
2nglish 4ords and their definitions) and classical music in the same conte*t 1 on the
recall score immediatel& after the learning tas; and on retention scores ( da&s later) 4ere
investigated in this stud&. It must be pointed out that the format for the immediate and the
dela&ed tests 4as not identical. In the immediate test students 4ere re3uired to provide
the appropriate definition of the 4ords presented. This can be described as testing the
students. recall abilit&. In the dela&ed tests students 4ere re3uired to match 4ords to the
correct definition. This can be described as testing the students. recognition abilit&.
Sub:ects 4ere 228 volunteer college students divided into 18 treatment groups. The&
4ere se3uentiall& given four vocabular& lists to learn) t4o of 4hich 4ere classified as
eas& and t4o as hard. Sub:ects. recall scores on a preliminar& test 4ere used as a
covariate. +usic 4as presented for three minutes before the presentation session and
during the three minute presentation 4hen the 4ords and their definitions 4ere read out
aloud b& the e*perimenter. Sub:ects in the baro3ue music condition received e*cerpts
from Dandel.s *atermusic, 4hile sub:ects in the classical music condition received
e*cerpts from ,ims;&1Borsa;off.s Schehera;ade Suite, The <oung Princess and the
<oung Prince. Sub:ects in the control condition had the same amount of time devoted to
the learning tas; 4ith the same oral presentation) but no music 4as pla&ed. The same
conditions 4ere reinstated during the testing. Affective ratings 4ere also ta;en at various
times during the e*periment.
,esults sho4ed that 4hen music 4as pla&ed during the learning session) the control
group performed lo4est) 4ith the classical condition ne*t and the baro3ue condition
performing best. All differences bet4een groups 4ere statisticall& significant for both
immediate recall and retention. +usic pla&ed during testing resulted in significantl&
improved performance for immediate recall but not for retention. The best results 4ere
achieved 4hen sub:ects had learned 4ith baro3ue music and had been tested 4ith
baro3ue music. The authors concluded that this condition 4as best because it also had the
highest affective ratings for pleasantness and alertness.
The results of Schuster and +ouzon "1>82# suggest t4o possible e*planations for the
positive effect of music on learning. <irstl&) the& indicate that students e*perience the
learning environment 4ith a music bac;ground as more pleasant than no music
conditions 4hich ma& lead to improved performance. This vie4 is also held b& Lozanov
"1>(8# 4ho refers to it as a Eplacebo effectE and Lehmann "Lehmann C -assner1,oberts
1>88523# 4ho refers to the 4or; of +etzger "1>$1# 4hich discusses the close relationship
bet4een mood and achievement. Secondl&) the findings sho4 for the first time in this
conte*t that recall is positivel& affected b& the reinstatement of the learning conditions
during testing. Therefore another effect) such as conte*t1cueing) as suggested b& Smith
"1>8!#) ma& be produced b& the use of music in the learning environment.
Smith "1>8!5!>1# states that a number of dimensions of bac;ground conte*t) such as
general ph&sical environment "-odden C 9addele& 1>(!#) drug states "2ich 1>87#) mood
states "9artlett C Santroc; 1>(>#) or bac;ground colours "6uls;& 1>3!# have sho4n to be
effective for inducing conte*t1dependent memor&. Smith "1>8!#) independent of
Accelerative Learning, investigated 4hether memor& is li;e4ise affected b& acoustic
bac;ground stimuli. Sub:ects in this stud& 4ere ! volunteer adult students. 0o
musicHnoise conditions 4ere compared 4ith +ozart) Aazz and 4hite noise. <or the Aazz
condition t4o instrumental pieces entitled People 4a$e the *orld 6o Around and
.estiny&s Children 4ere used. <or the +ozart condition the Piano Concerto -o. #= in C
4inor 4as used) and for the 4hite noise condition noise recorded at sub:ectivel& similar
sound levels from a 4hite noise generator 4as used.
Smith.s stud& consisted of t4o e*periments. The first compared +ozart) Aazz and 3uiet
conditions) the second Aazz) 4hite noise and 3uiet conditions. Smith found that if music
or 4hite noise 4as used during learning then the reinstatement of the same condition
improved recall performance. /hen learning too; place in 3uiet conditions) performance
4as unaffected b& the testing condition. 9oth e*periments sho4ed no significant
differences bet4een conditions on initial recall) but the first e*periment sho4ed that
significantl& less forgetting occured in the condition 4hich had +ozart for both learning
and testing. The noiseHnoise condition 4as ne*t) follo4ed b& the AazzHAazz condition 4ith
the 3uietH3uiet condition being last.
It is interesting to note that in Smith.s "1>8!# stud& the 4hite noise condition performed
better in terms of retention of materials than both the Aazz and the 3uiet conditions. These
findings are difficult to interpret in the light of the conclusions of Schuster and +ouzon
"1>82# 4ho felt that the music pla&ed ma& have produced a more favourable environment
in affective terms. /hile sub:ects in the +ozartH+ozart condition in Smith.s "1>8!# stud&
ma& have performed best because the& felt best) it is difficult to imagine that sub:ects in
the 4hite noise condition 4ould have felt better than either the Aazz or the 3uiet condition
since this t&pe of bac;ground stimulus is usuall& either not consciousl& perceived or
perceived as an irritant.
A stud& b& Aellison "1>((#) reported in 9rislan "1>8$#) for e*ample) sho4ed that sub:ects
4ho received 4hite noise as a bac;ground 4hen placed in a stress situation reported
significantl& more stress than sub:ects 4ho had received bac;ground music. /hile both
9ach.s Air on a 6+String and 6vor;.s -e/ *orld Symphony had been effective in
significantl& decreasing an*iet& scores on the State1Trait An*iet& Inventor& "STAI#)
4hite noise resulted in significantl& increased an*iet& scores.
Smith "1>8!5$77# e*plains the fact that music or noise can serve as a memor& cue 4hile
3uiet does not in the follo4ing 4a&5
One idea is that white noise and unpopular music selections are far less likely than quiet conditions to
be encountered frequently during the 48-hr retention interval, and therefore should serve as more
distinctive cues than the more common experience of relative quiet. Another idea is that subjects
encode an experimentally presented music or noise selection, but they do not encode the absence of
experimentally presented sounds any more than they might encode the absence of any type of
stimulus, such as pain or food. This assumes, of course, that subjects are not expecting to hear
experimentally presented background music or sound. At the time of testing, a replayed background
sound could act as a memory cue if its encoded representation is associated with learned material,
but the reinstatement of quiet conditions would not cue memory if there were no encoded
representation of quiet.
/hile this is a plausible conclusion to arrive at in the light of other studies on conte*t1
dependent memor&) it does not e*plore the reasons for the superiorit& of the
+ozartH+ozart condition in this stud& or the superiorit& of the baro3ue music in Schuster
and +ouzon "1>82#. %erhaps there is indeed an added effect of the sub:ects. li;ing of the
bac;ground environment as suggested b& Schuster and +ouzon "1>82#. Audging from
polarit& profiles collected b& Lehmann "1>82#) it is 3uite possible that the +ozart
condition 4as e*perienced as the most pleasant b& the adult students in this stud&. /ould
this mean that teenagers 4ho generall& prefer roc; music to classical or baro3ue music
"<eli* 1>8$# 4ould perform better 4ith such music as a bac;ground to learningJ
A stud& b& +ulli;in and Den; "1>8!# investigating the effectiveness of bac;ground
music on comprehension performance in reading 4ith ! th18th grade children at a
private school does not support this notion. 0o music conditions 4ere compared to
classical and roc; music conditions. <or the classical condition +ascagni.s Cavalleria
)usticana, described as Ea soft composition 4ith a slo4) methodical cadenceE "p.3!!#
4as used. <or the roc; condition music from an album b& a popular roc; group "not
further described# 4as used. The t4o music selections 4ere administered at the same
volume.
0ine children 4ere randoml& selected from each grade level. The sample 4as
appro*imatel& half male and half female) and appro*imatel& one third 4as blac;. 2ach
grade 4as tested separatel& in intact groups. The stud& 4as carried out over three
consecutive da&s. 2ach da& the children read one of 1! social studies passages of e3ual
difficult& and ans4ered 17 comprehension 3uestions. 6uring this time either no music or
classical or roc; music 4as pla&ed. <or each level the order of treatments and reading
passages 4as randomised. 2ach child read a total of three passages and ans4ered 37
3uestions.
,esults 4ere consistent across all grade levels. The roc; condition performed the least
4ell) 4ith the no music condition ne*t and the classical condition performing best. All
differences bet4een conditions 4ere statisticall& significant. It is interesting to note that
4hile the trend for the t4o music selections 4as clear) there 4ere 3 sub:ects for 4hom the
roc; condition &ielded better results than the classical condition. Although the results of
this stud& sho4 that classical music is more effective in a reading comprehension tas;
4ith teenage children) the& sho4 that not all children are affected in the same 4a&.
/hile the results of Schuster and +ouzon "1>82#) Smith "1>8!# and +ulli;in and Den;
"1>8!# suggest that certain st&les of music are more effective in learning than others)
caution has to be ta;en 4ith dra4ing definite conclusions about 4hich t&pe of music ma&
be most effective. There are not onl& distinctions bet4een st&les) such as baro3ue or roc;
music) in terms of tempo) melod&) rh&thm and timbre) but also bet4een pieces 4ithin the
same period such as baro3ue and bet4een movements 4ithin the same piece. It is
therefore important to ;no4 e*cactl& 4hich part of a musical piece 4as used in the
investigation. All too often) ho4ever) studies do not report this information in detail. In
Schuster and +ouzon "1>82#) for e*ample) music 4as pla&ed for three minutes during the
learning tas;) &et the music used 4as described as Dandel.s *atermusic 4hich is a piece
of 27 minutes duration 4ith distinct variations in tempo) rh&thm and melod&. In the light
of Lehmann.s "1>82# findings) it is 3uite possible that students ma& react differentl& to
the different sections of this 4or; 4hich range in mood from a ver& solemn overture to
cheerful dancing music and in tempo from adagio to allegro. Similar variations can be
found in roc; and pop music. It is therefore important to ;no4 e*actl& 4hich piece 4as
used) since differences in rh&thm and instrumentation ma& have an effect on the outcome.
The differential effect on learning of musical pieces 4ithin the same period or st&le has
been sho4n b& Schuster "1>8!# 4ho investigated the effect of various st&les of
bac;ground music on vocabular& learning 4ith 2!$ volunteer adult sub:ects. The
different st&les of music investigated 4ere baro3ue) classical) dissonant) Aapanese) march)
meditative and roc;. The stud& used a mi*ed anal&sis of variance "A0=GA# design 4ith
bet4een sub:ect factors of t&pe of music) music selection replication) suggestion) order of
lists learned and sub:ect gender. 6ependent variables 4ere as in Schuster and +ouzon
"1>82#) the immediate recall and recognition after ( da&s of 2! vocabular& items per list
and affective ratings. =ne of the baro3ue pieces 4as identical to the one used in Schuster
and +ouzon "1>82#. Schuster reports that neither recall immediatel& after learning nor
retention scores 4ere significantl& affected b& an& of the bac;ground music 4hen
compared to the no music control groups.
Do4ever) there 4ere significant differences bet4een the individual music pieces for
recall scores. T4o selections of each st&le 4ere used) and the one topping the list for
recall performance) after scores had been ad:usted according to the pre1test performance)
4as one of the dissonant selections) 4a& ahead of the baro3ue and classical pieces. The
inconsistenc& of the findings is highlighted b& the fact) ho4ever) that the other dissonant
selection 4as in 1th place out of 1$ on the same listN In the light of Schuster and
+ouzon.s "1>82# speculations about a positive correlation bet4een affective ratings of
the condition in 4hich learning too; place and conse3uent performance) it is interesting
to note that the dissonant music 4as rated the least li;ed of all music conditions in
Schuster "1>8!#. @nfortunatel& no information is given as to the relative affective ratings
of the individual pieces 4ithin each st&le.
/h& Schuster.s "1>8!# stud& sho4ed radicall& different results in terms of the influence
of music on learning in general from the studies revie4ed above is difficult to ascertain.
The stud& 4as 4ell designed and controlled. Schuster.s main speculation 4as that
bac;ground music is probabl& most effective in the SALT or suggestopedic setting) and
4ould therefore be better investigated in the natural classroom environment. Do4ever) of
the above studies onl& Schiffler "1>8$b# investigated the effectiveness of music in this
environment. All other studies too; place in laborator& settings. And Schiffler.s findings
4ere the most conservative of all. Although he found a better performance 4ith adults in
intensive teaching settings as a result of using music in the instruction process) he
reported a reduction of this effect 4hen teaching too; place for onl& four lessons a 4ee;)
as is normal in the natural teaching environment.
Another t&pe of music 4as investigated in a stud& b& 6avidson and %o4ell "1>8$# 4ho
loo;ed at the effect of E2as&1listeningE bac;ground music on fifth1grade science students.
on1tas; performance. T4ent&1si* students 4ere observed over 2 class sessions over a
period of four months. =bservations 4ere recorded ever& three minutes. A significant
increase in on1tas; behaviour 4as found for the total class and the male sub:ects.
Although the female sub:ects also sho4ed increased on1tas; performance) the effect 4as
inhibited b& a ceiling effect since the mean pre1treatment score had alread& been >>I.
@nfortunatel& no titles of the music used 4ere given in this stud&. E2as&1listeningE
bac;ground music 4as defined as5 Ethe t&pe of music 4hich has a melodic melod& line
over non1dissonant chordal structures and is non1percussive in beat. The orchestration is
traditional in that there is a rich use of strings and 4inds. 2as&1listening music is more
lushl& orchestrated than pop music.E "p.37# Although the authors appear to refer to
contemporar& music this definition is not too far removed from Lehmann.s "1>82#
recommendations for music selections for the concert sessions in the -.6.,.
/hile Lozanov "1>(8# recommended a variet& of pieces from the baro3ue and the
classical periods) Lehmann "1>8251!#) after e*tensive research 4ith polarit& profiles)
narro4ed these selections do4n to an even more precise period5
;+ Sinne einer psychologisch har+onisierenden .ir2ung auf die %ezipienten haben sich +elodisch
gepr4gte langsa+e S4tze der ;nstru+ental+usi2 der 1r-h2lassi2 und der .iener 9lassi2 in der
suggestop4dischen Pra&is besonders be)4hrt5 d.h. eine =usi25 die sich aus einer 1olge von langsa+en
S4tzen +it >e)eils chara2teristischer =elodi2 zusa++ensetzt5 einer =elodi25 die so stru2turiert ist5 da8
sich z)ar unterschiedliche +usi2alische #he+en abl/sen5 eine einheitlich'ruhige5 gel/ste $ffe2tlage
aber st4ndig beibehalten bleibt. (ie besondere 7ignung von Streicher+usi2 der 1r-h2lassi2 und .iener
9lassi2 f-r suggestop4dische ?)ec2e f-hren die =itarbeiter der 1orschungsstelle f-r =ne+ologie unter
<er-c2sichtigung von 7r2enntnissen der =usi2therapie
vor alle+ darauf zur-c25 da8 es de+ (urchschnittsh/rer +/glich ist5 sich +it dieser =usi2 rascher und
st4r2er zu identifizieren als +it der h4ufig als distanziert und 2-hl erlebten5 in ihrer Stru2tur nicht
selten 2o+plizierten und -berdies gedan2lich star2 befrachteten =usi2 der 6egen)art. =it dieser
1eststellung soll indes 2eines)egs der 7indruc2 er)ec2t )erden5 da8 andere =usi2 als die der
1r-h2lassi2 und der .iener 9lassi2 f-r suggestop4dische ?)ec2e ungeeignet sei.
In the sense of a psychologically harmonising effect on the recipients, melodic slow movements of the
early classical period and the Vienna classical period have been shown to be most successful in the
practice of suggestopdia, i.e. music which comprises a succession of slow movements, each with a
characteristic melody, a melody so structured that although different musical themes follow each
other, an evenly calm and relaxed affective quality is constantly retained. The members of the
Research Institute for Mnemology, in the light of findings in music therapy, attribute the suitability
for suggestopedic purposes of the string music of the early classical period and the Vienna classical
period especially to the fact that it is easier for the average listener to identify more quickly and
profoundly with this music than with contemporary music which is often experienced as cool and
distant and not seldom as complicated and intellectually charged. This statement should not,
however, give the impression that other music than that of the early classical period and the Vienna
classical period, would be unsuitable for suggestopedic purposes.]
As Lehmann himself suggests) it ma& not be necessar& to adhere strictl& to prescribed
music selections since other t&pes of music ma& share characteristics 4ith the above. De
suggests that EbetterE pop music sho4s basicall& the same liguistic s&mbols as the music
of the pre1classical period) the Gienna classical period and the earl& 1>th centur&E
"Lehmann C -assner1,oberts 1>88537#. There ma& also be a difference in affective
reactions to different t&pes of music bet4een adult students and children. Lozanov "1>(8#
claims that it is unimportant 4hether or not students li;e the music used. Do4ever) this
vie4 is not shared b& the researchers in the -.6.,. "Lehmann C -assner1,oberts 1>88#
4ho do not onl& believe that li;ing the music is important) but that students. attitudes
to4ards the music can be transformed from negative to positive as a result of ta;ing part
in a suggestopedic course. Lozanov.s claim is further refuted b& a stud& on children.s
attitude to4ards music in their learning environment "<eli* 1>8$# 4hich sho4ed that
teenage students 4ould be more receptive to Accelerative Learning in their classroom if
the music 4as more to their li;ing.
/hile the ma:orit& of studies loo;ed at the effects of music during the learning tas;)
some studies have also investigated the effect of music during testing onl&. ,esults here)
ho4ever) are not as consistent as the& are 4ith music during learning. =f the t4o studies
alread& discussed above) Schuster and +ouzon "1>82# reported that baro3ue and classical
music during testing had a significant effect on immediate recall but not on retention of
vocabular&) 4hile Smith "1>8!# reported no significant effect of classical music) :azz or
4hite noise as a bac;ground during testing.
,ender) Dull and +oon "1>8#) too) found no significant effect on vocabular& recall
4hen baro3ue music 4as pla&ed during testing onl&. In this stud& four groups of
volunteer undergraduate students "0O$2# 4ere given four multiple choice tests under four
different conditions each5 "a# guided rela*ation before testing) "b# baro3ue music during
testing) "c# a combination of both "a# and "b#) and "d# neither rela*ation nor music.
=verall) findings did not sho4 a significant effect for an& of the three treatment
conditions) although the general pattern 4as for the rela*ation condition to perform high
and the control condition lo4.
The findings of ,ender) Dull C +oon "1>8# and Smith "1>8!#) ho4ever) are not
supported b& 9lanchard "1>(># 4ho reported significantl& increased e*am performance
b& students 4hen classical or roc; and roll music had been pla&ed during testing.
@nfortunatel& the author does not give further details about the music used. In this stud&
2! volunteer universit& students) ta;ing a traditional final e*amination) 4ere divided
into three groups) e3uated as to students. age) 4eight and educational bac;ground. /hile
the control group sat the 2.! hours e*am under standard e*am conditions) the t4o
remaining groups had either classical or roc; and roll music pla&ing in the bac;ground.
All sub:ects. blood1pressure and pulse1rate 4as ta;en before) during and after the e*am.
<indings 4ere that the blood1pressure of the control group rose to a much higher level
than that of either music group. The control group also sho4ed much poorer recuperative
activit& of the heart after the e*am 4hile both music groups displa&ed e*cellent
recuperation. 2*am scores 4ere 21!.> out of 377 for the control group) 2!7.> for the roc;
and roll condition and 2!3.2 for the classical condition. The difference bet4een the
control group.s performance and that of both e*perimental groups 4as statisticall&
significant.
9lanchard.s "1>(># results strongl& support the use of music during testing) both for
increasing academic performance and for the ph&siological benefits associated 4ith
bac;ground music. Do4ever) loo;ing at the findings of all studies discussed) it appears
that music during testing onl& ma& not be as effective as music either during learning or
especiall& both during learning and testing. The findings of Schuster and +ouzon "1>82#
and Smith "1>8!# indicate that the reinstatement during testing of the musical bac;ground
used during learning ma& &ield the best results in terms of retention of materials.
Conclusions ' =usic. Audging from the findings of these studies it can be said that
bac;ground music appears to have a positive effect in the learning environment. /hile
most studies found a positive effect on the recall of vocabular&) one reported better
reading performance and another better on1tas; behaviour asssociated 4ith the use of
bac;ground music. =f the ten studies 4hich investigated the effectiveness of music
during learning) nine reported significant positive effects either on short1term or on long1
term memor&. =f the eight studies 4hich loo;ed at the effects of music immediatel& after
the learning tas;) si* reported significant positive results. =f the seven studies 4hich
loo;ed at the effects of music after 8 hours or even later) si* again reported significant
positive results.
The effect of music during testing has not been as e*tensivel& investigated) and findings
are not as consistent as the above. /hile one stud& found a significant positive effect on
performance 4hen either classical or roc; and roll music 4as pla&ed during testing) t4o
studies found no significant effect 4hen classical) baro3ue or :azz music 4as pla&ed
during testing. Another stud& reported a significant positive effect of classical and
baro3ue music pla&ed during testing on vocabular& recall 4hen students 4ere tested
immediatel& after learning but not 4hen testing too; place after one 4ee;. There is an
indication) ho4ever) that best results are achieved 4hen the same music is pla&ed both
during learning and during testing. The t4o studies 4hich investigated the effect of the
reinstatement of the learning conditions during testing found this.
In terms of the effectiveness of different t&pes of music) the findings of the ma:orit& of
studies discussed here lend strong support to the special effectiveness of baro3ue and
classical pieces) as originall& suggested b& Lozanov "1>(8#. Do4ever) it must be pointed
out that this t&pe of music has also been most e*tensivel& used and tested. =ther t&pes of
music have onl& been sporadicall& tested in the same conte*t. ?et the three studies 4hich
investigated :azz or roc; music did not find these t&pes of music to be effective in
learning. =ne stud&) ho4ever) found roc; music effective during testing. A stud& 4hich
investigated the effect of eas&1listening music) 4hich shared characteristics 4ith the
classical music found most effective for suggestopedic teaching in the -6,) also found
this t&pe of music effective in improving on1tas; behaviour. /hen ma;ing statements
about the relative effectiveness of music in learning) it is important to give either e*act
titles or an accurate description of the musical piece used. It is not possible to state
categoricall& 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) 4e still ;no4
little about ho4 the reported effects of music on learning are actuall& achieved. In the
conte*t of the studies revie4ed here the effectiveness of music can be e*plained in
several 4a&s. +usic appears to create a more pleasant learning environment in terms of
affective criteria "Schuster C +ouzon 1>82# 4hich ma& improve performance. It further
appears to have the potential to affect concentration and attention rate and in turn
improve on1tas; behaviour "6avidson C %o4ell 1>8$#. +usic also appears to be
associated 4ith ph&siological effects such as a lo4ered heartrate "9lanchard 1>(># and
increased alpha brain 4aves "Lozanov 1>(8# 4hich ma& be instrumental in improved
performance. <inall&) studies 4hich included the reinstatement of music during testing
"Schuster C +ouzon 1>82) Smith 1>8!# indicate that conte*t1cuing ma& be involved.
RELA%ATION


Take rest;
A field that rested
gives a beautiful crop.
Ovid
/hile Lozanov "1>(852$># argues that the suggestive environment itself is enough to
produce concentrative psychorela(ation 4ithout special emphasis on ph&sical or mental
e*ercises) /estern users of all versions of Accelerative Learning tend to include some
form of rela*ation e*ercise in almost ever& class. Is there an& evidence in the research
that students actuall& benefit from this rather unorthodo* addition to their learning
environmentJ
%ositive effects of rela*ation on ps&chological) ph&siological and academic measures
have not onl& been sho4n 4ithin the field of Accelerative Learning "-amble et al 1>82)
9arber 1>82) Aohnson 1>82) 9aur 1>82) +oon 1>8!#) but also independent of
Accelerative Learning "+atthe4s 1>83) Setterlind 1>83#. There are also some studies
4hich sho4 rela*ation as having no effect "Stricherz C Stein 1>87# or even a negative
effect "9iggers C Stricherz 1>($# on simple recognition tas;s. Studies in the field of
an*iet& research "Sinclair 1>(1# suggest that the effectiveness of rela*ation training ma&
be related to the difficult& of the tas; and to the level of ego involvement. =ther studies
indicate that not all students are e3uall& affected b& rela*ation training. /hile Straughan
and 6uford "1>$># report a positive effect on high an*iet& sub:ects) /ilson and /ilson
"1>(7#) +artin and Schuster "1>((# and Schuster and +artin "1>87# found rela*ation to
be most effective 4ith lo4 an*iet& sub:ects. /e 4ill no4 loo; at the research in detail.
/ithin the field of Accelerative Learning research suggests that rela*ation ma& improve
performance. 9arber "1>82# reported that modified "rela*ation onl&# suggestopedic
sessions in a college management class led to some academic acceleration) improved
morale and application to other areas of the students. lives. Aohnson "1>82# found that
short term rela*ation training "> sessions# had a beneficial effect on $th grade children.s
spelling scores. -amble et al "1>82# studied the effect of rela*ation and music upon
creativit& in adults. The& found that music plus rela*ation sho4ed the greatest positive
effect favouring the e*perimental group over the control group) 4ith the music onl&
group being ne*t.
A stud& "+atthe4s 1>83#) outside the Accelerative Learning research) 4hich loo;ed at
rela*ation training alone) found positive changes in elementar& children.s self1concept)
discipline and achievement. In this stud& !32 grade seven students in 17 elementar&
schools received 1! minutes of rela*ation training ever& da& for a period of nine months.
Setterlind "1>83# investigated the ph&siological and ps&chological benefits of rela*ation
training independent of Accelerative Learning in S4edish middle and high schools over a
period of three &ears. !81 children bet4een the ages of 12 and 1( too; part in the main
stud&. The 2> e*perimental children received rela*ation training) consisting of
progressive rela*ation) autogenic e*ercises and simple meditation techni3ues) t4o or
three times a 4ee; over a si* 4ee; period. The rela*ation e*ercises) tape recorded) 4ere
administered at the end of ph&sical education lessons. The main findings of the stud&
4ere that Eover half of the e*perimental children said that the& managed their school
4or; better) one third slept better) $7I felt less stressed) I less irritated and $I more
rested and alert than earlier.E "p.1!# The e*perimental children also sho4ed a
significantl& better recover& rate from strenuous activit& in a second stud&.
+oon "1>8!# conducted a meta1anal&sis of 27 studies on the effects of rela*ation
training. Ten studies had college students as their sub:ects) the other ten involved
elementar& students. The main finding of the meta1anal&sis 4as that rela*ation training)
especiall& progressive rela*ation) had a small positive effect on cognitive academic
variables. +oon points out) ho4ever) that more care needs to be ta;en in the design and
implementation of such studies.
This latter observation) supported b& Setterlind "1>83#) is an important consideration in
evaluating studies on the effect of rela*ation. 2speciall& in short term studies it is
sometimes difficult to ;no4 ho4 4ell rela*ation 4as administered and controlled as a
variable for investigation. Since rela*ation tends to be most effective after a period of
practice) caution must therefore be ta;en 4ith interpreting or generalising results of short1
term studies in 4hich rela*ation 4as tested as an independent variable but no information
has been given on ho4 rela*ation 4as taught) administered and practised. Studies
revie4ed in this chapter have given most of this information.
9aur "1>82# provides a good e*ample of controlling that rela*ation did in fact occur and
could be measured as a variable to be tested. 2leven volunteer adult students 4ho had
been learning ,ussian for one semester 4ere the sub:ects in this e*periment. Te*ts
consisted of !7 le*ical items in ,ussian of 4hich 71!7 items 4ere ne4 to the learners.
Items 4ere presented to the students as a coherent 4hole using the presentation sessions
of Lozanov.s first model of Suggestopedia. The& consisted of a first and second decoding
of the materials) follo4ed b& intonated reading and a concert session. 6uring the concert
session the follo4ing treatment conditions 4ere instated5
"a# The students remained in the normal 4a;ing condition concentrating on the te*t being
read.
"b# The te*t 4as read after students had been s&stematicall& rela*ed using the Aacobson
"1>38# progressive rela*ation techni3ue. Students had been given five introductor&
sessions to this techni3ue prior to the e*periment. ,ela*ation levels before and during the
e*periment 4ere chec;ed via ps&cho1galvanic refle* "%-,# monitors. If students did not
reach the desired level of rela*ation) their data 4as e*cluded from the statistical anal&sis.
c# The te*t 4as read 4hile students listened to the music pla&ing.
About 2 le*ical items per te*t 4ere tested b& means of translations both from the mother
tongue to ,ussian and vice versa. The most interesting findings 4ere the production
abilit& of le*ical items after one 4ee;. The mean rate of production in the neutral
condition 4as 2>.!I. /ith rela*ation it rose to 3>.(I and 4ith music it rose to 3.8I. A
chi1s3uare anal&sis sho4ed the differences bet4een conditions to be statisticall&
significant. If these figures sound lo4) it must be remembered that onl& the presentation
phases had been used. In the complete Psychopdie c&cle students 4ould then spend 8112
hours 4ith activation e*ercises of these materials.
/hile there appears to be a positive trend to4ards improvement of academic)
ps&chological or ph&siological variables 4hen rela*ation is used) there are also studies
sho4ing that rela*ation has no effect or even a negative effect on similar variables 4hich
must be considered.
Stricherz and Stein "1>87#) for e*ample) investigated the effect of rela*ation) rela*ation
and musical bac;ground) a bod& a4areness techni3ue "open focus# and a guided fantas&
techni3ue "h&perempiria# on a recognition tas;. The& found that none of these conditions
4as more effective than the control condition 4hen students 4ere tested after a period of
8 hours. The h&perempiria condition) ho4ever) produced significantl& better results than
the control condition 4hen students 4ere tested immediatel& after the presentation of the
t4o1s&llable rare 2nglish 4ords. Sub:ects in this stud& 4ere 112 volunteer graduate and
undergraduate students 4ho remained in intact classes 4hich 4ere assigned at random to
one of the four treatment conditions and to the control condition.
Standardised introductor& instructions 4ere given to all groups. In the control class
students 4ere then as;ed to attend to the learning tas;. In the h&perempiria condition
students 4ere given an h&perempiric induction based on -ibbons "1>(# 4hich is
described b& the authors as a Eguided fantas& induction based on suggestions of increased
alertness) mind e*pansion and enhanced a4areness and sensitivit&.E "p.171# The open
focus condition combined Eimagination and a4areness of the bod& for deep rela*ation
"<ehmi 1>(!#. The sub:ect is as;ed to imagine the spaces bet4een points in the bod& or
4ithin specified bod& regions.E "p.171# In the rela*ation conditions students received
suggestions for deep breathing and direct suggestions for rela*ation. The& 4ere also
given visualisation e*ercises changing colours from &ello4 to blac;. The rela*ation and
music condition used the same e*ercises as in the rela*ation condition 4ith the addition
of a musical bac;ground.
It is interesting to note that the rela*ation plus music condition in this stud& 4as not
sho4n to be effective 4hen both -amble et al "1>82# and 9aur "1>82# found significantl&
positive effects 4hen music and rela*ation 4ere combined. =ne possible e*planation for
the difference in outcomes ma& be the t&pe of the rela*ation and music used. /hile both
9aur "1>82# and -amble et al "1>82# used progressive rela*ation "Aacobson 1>38#
techni3ues and baro3ue music) Sticherz and Stein "1>87# used deep breathing and
imager& techni3ues and unspecified bac;ground music. Since Stricherz and Stein "1>87#
sho4s differences in effectiveness bet4een rela*ation techni3ues) at least on short1term
memor&) it is perhaps possible that progressive rela*ation is more effective than other
techni3ues. This is supported b& +oon.s "1>8!# meta1anal&sis discussed above. An earlier
stud& b& Stricherz "1>(># sho4ed that progressive rela*ation 4as more effective in
lo4ering bod& rh&thms for rela*ation than mind e*pansion techni3ues 4hich ma& e*plain
its possible superiorit&. +ohr "1>((51!#) ho4ever) points out that Eprogressive rela*ation
ma& be most efficient 4ith people 4ho are more inclined to attend to ph&siological cues)
4here other techni3ues ma& be more effective for those 4ho are not inclined to focus on
ph&siological cuesE.
Another e*planation for the difference in outcomes could be the difficult& or comple*it&
of the tas; involved. /hile 9aur "1>82# loo;ed at the production of ,ussian 4ords and
-amble et al "1>82# at creativit&) both fairl& comple* tas;s) Stricherz and Stein "1>87#
loo;ed at a simple recognition tas;. It ma& be that rela*ation and music are more
effective in more difficult tas;s. The findings of another stud& in 4hich the tas; under
investigation 4as simple recognition "9iggers C Stricherz 1>($# support this notion.
<indings of this stud& further suggest that rela*ation in this conte*t ma& be detrimental to
learning. This e*periment investigated the effect of suggestion and different t&pes of
rela*ation) ph&sical) mental) and a combination of both on the recognition of rare 2nglish
4ords as in Stricherz and Stein "1>87#.
The suggestion condition received a five minute e*ercise E4hich concentrated on the
suggestion that the procedure resulted in higher level mental functioning.E "p.172# The
ph&sical rela*ation condition received 12 minutes of progressive rela*ation e*ercises.
The mental rela*ation condition received visualisation e*ercises. The combination
condition received both muscle rela*ation and visualisation e*ercises in a 151 ratio. Time
used for the e*ercises in all rela*ation conditions 4as identical. In the control group
Estudents 4ere as;ed to attend to the 4ords 4hen the& 4ere presented and to remember
as man& as possible.E "p.172# The stud& 4hich included 21$ volunteer adult students
assigned at random in a factorial design) sho4ed that the control group performed
significantl& better on the recognition test for long1term memor& "after 8 hours# than all
rela*ation conditions.
The relationship bet4een the difficult& or comple*it& of the tas; and the possible
effectiveness of rela*ation has best been demonstrated b& the research on an*iet&. The
effects of an*iet& on achievement in controlled laborator& conditions have been
summarised b& Sinclair "1>(15>$#5
Anxiety appears to facilitate performance on simple, straightforward tasks where there is little
response competition and to interfere with performance on more complex tasks where response
competition is likely. This has been shown by Taylor (1951), Spence & Taylor (1951), Montague
(1953), Standish & Champion (1960) and Spielberger et al. (1971).
In conditions where ego-involvement is low, a number of studies (Lucas 1952, Deese et al. 1953,
Sarason 1957, Kalish et al. 1958, Nicholson 1958, Feshbach & Loeb 1959) have found anxiety to be
unrelated to performance, although some studies have found that anxiety facilitates performance
(Sarason 1956, 1957, Longnecker 1962). In conditions of high ego-involvement, anxiety has typically
been found to interfere with performance (Sarason 1956, 1957, Nicholson 1958, Harleston 1962).
6oes it follo4 from this that in language learning 4hich can be decribed as a comple*
tas; 4ith a high content of ego1invovement) all students 4ould benefit from rela*ationJ
A fe4 studies 4hich have investigated the relationship bet4een an*iet& level and
rela*ation in a learning tas; do not support this notion but sho4 that rela*ation ma& be
beneficial onl& to some students. Straughan and 6ufort "1>$>#) for e*ample) found that
rela*ation 4as associated 4ith significantl& faster reaction time on a paired associates
tas; for high an*iet& sub:ects but 4ith poorer reaction time for lo4 an*iet& sub:ects. The
112 college students ta;ing part in this stud& 4ere divided into lo4 and high an*iet&
sub:ects on the basis of their responses on the An*iet& Scale of the +innesota
+ultiphasic %ersonalit& Inventor& "++%I#. Sub:ects 4ere presented either 17 eas& or 17
difficult paired associates in different conditions5 a# rela*ation before learning) b#
rela*ation before dela&ed recall "after 8 hours#) c# rela*ation before both learning and
dela&ed recall) and d# no rela*ation. The five minute rela*ation instructions re3uired the
sub:ects Eto concentrate on ma:or muscle groups and to coordinate rela*ation 4ith
e*halationE. "p.$23# 6ependent variables 4ere reaction time and number of correct
responses measured immediatel& after learning and 8 hours later.
The findings concerning reaction time 4ere that the effect of rela*ation 4as greater for
the hard tas; than for the eas& tas; "4hen tested immediatel& after learning onl&#) that
rela*ation before learning 4as more effective than before recall) and that rela*ation made
the lo4 an*iet& sub:ects slo4er in their reaction time 4hile ma;ing the high an*iet&
sub:ects faster. Concerning the number of correct responses all sub:ects performed so
4ell on the eas& tas; that no effects of the rela*ation training could be seen. =n the hard
tas; the effects of the rela*ation instructions 4ere in the same direction as for the reaction
time) 4ith the high an*iet& sub:ects performing better and the lo4 an*iet& sub:ects 4orse.
Do4ever) these results 4ere not statisticall& significant.
These findings are not supported b& /ilson and /ilson "1>(7# 4ho found that sub:ects
4ith high an*iet& performed better on a paired1associates tas; in a state of induced
muscle tension 4hile lo4 an*iet& students performed better in a rela*ed state. Sub:ects in
this stud& 4ere $3 male convalescent hospital patients. The& 4ere pre1tested for general
verbal intelligence and for an*iet& level "lo4) medium and high#. Treatment conditions
4ere "a# muscle rela*ation) "b# muscle tension) and "c# normal tension.
,esults 4ere that regardless of an*iet& level) sub:ects in the muscle tension condition
performed significantl& better than those in the rela*ation condition. Sub:ects in the
rela*ation condition) in turn) performed significantl& better than the sub:ects in the
normal tension condition. ,egarding an*iet& level) sub:ects 4ith high an*iet& performed
better in a state of induced muscle tension) 4hile sub:ects 4ith lo4 an*iet& performed
better in a state of induced muscle rela*ation.
The latter findings are supported b& +artin and Schuster "1>((# 4ho in a similar design
investigated the interaction of an*iet& and muscle tension in learning a list of rare 2nglish
4ords 4ith !$ volunteer ps&cholog& students. ,esponding to /ilson and /ilson.s
"1>(75$# concern that in studies of this nature sub:ects ma& have too little time to get
rela*ed or tense) +artin and Schuster "1>((# used an analog electrom&ogram "2+-#
feedbac; mechanism b& 4hich sub:ects 4ere given feedbac; during both the learning and
the testing periods in order to chec; 4hether rela*ation or tension levels had been
ade3uatel& maintained. Sub:ects also had 3 training periods of 17 minutes each prior to
the e*periment in 4hich desired levels of rela*ation and tension 4ere reached. The
findings of this stud& also sho4ed that high an*iet& sub:ects performed better 4hen
tensed in the learning situation 4hile lo4 an*iet& sub:ects performed better 4hen rela*ed.
These findings are further supported b& Schuster and +artin "1>87#) again using a similar
design) but putting even more emphasis on longer training periods "$7 minutes# for
rela*ation and tension conditions and including sub:ects 4ith medium an*iet& levels.
Sub:ects 4ere 8 volunteer undergraduate ps&cholog& students) selected from a pool of
178 students on the basis of their responses on the State1Trait An*iet& Inde* "STAI#. The
findings 4ere that medium an*iet& sub:ects did not perform differentl& 4hether rela*ed
or tensed) but that high an*iet& students did significantl& better 4hen tensed in the
learning situation 4ith the converse being true for lo4 an*iet& sub:ects. <or higher order
interactions the results significantl& favoured rela*ation overall. 2ven high an*iet&
sub:ects performed better 4hen given suggestion 4ith an eas& test and 4hen rela*ed prior
to learning) during learning and during testing.
2ach of the four studies above sho4s in its particular environment that 4hile rela*ation
ma& be effective in learning) it appears not to affect all students in the same 4a&) and ma&
even hinder some students. performance. Straughan and 6ufort.s findings "1>$># suggest
that rela*ation ma& be more effective 4ith high an*iet& students) especiall& in terms of
reaction time. Although a trend in the same direction 4as observed in this stud&
concerning the number of correct responses) the findings of the ma:orit& of studies
"/ilson C /ilson 1>(7) +artin C Schuster 1>(( and Schuster C +artin 1>87# 4hich
investigated the number of correct responses onl&) suggest that rela*ation ma& be more
effective 4ith lo4 an*iet& students. 6oes this mean that Accelerative Learning does some
students a disservice b& rela*ing themJ /ould high an*iet& students perform better in a
state of tensionJ
Dere 4e must not forget t4o important aspects of an*iet& and learning. The first is the
difficult& of the tas; 1 the bul; of the research suggests that 4ith increased difficult&
an*iet& interferes 4ith performance. The second is the nature of the testing. -audr& and
Spielberger "1>(1532# point out that the ma:orit& of studies on the sub:ect support that the
Ereduction of the test1li;e characteristics of e*amination situations 4ill facilitate the
performance of high1an*ious students.E
In Accelerative Learning the learning tas;) although in conventional terms ver&
demanding because of the large chun;s of materials presented in one session) is seen as
relativel& eas& b& the students. <or e*ample) in a primar& school stud&) reported in
chapter () 4here on the first da& of teaching the e*perimental children had to deal 4ith
the materials in about half the time than the control children because much time had been
spent on e*plaining the method) the children 4ere overheard to sa& after the class5 E/e
didn.t do an&thing toda&NE /hether this is the result of the rela*ation) the suggestion) a
combination of both) the music or the entire suggestive environment) is impossible to sa&.
/hat seems to be evident) though) from the research) at least on a naturalistic basis
"Schuster C -ritton 1>8!# is that students are less stressed) an*ious or fatigued than in
conventional learning situations.
<urther) testing in Accelerative Learning tends to be handled on a progressive basis in a
non1threatening environment. This does not mean that tests are especiall& eas&. =n the
contrar&) tests need to be as demanding as the material that 4as presented. 2ven in
environments) 4here for research purposes) students sit the normal e*am at the end of the
&ear) students taught 4ith Accelerative Learning have reported fe4er feelings of an*iet&
than their counterparts in traditional courses. Although there is not &et an& s&stematic
evidence for this) anecdotal reports from studies support this "<eli* 1>8(#.
Conclusions ' %ela&ation. Although 4e cannot sa& at this stage ho4 great an effect
rela*ation alone has in Accelerative Learning) the findings of the ma:orit& of studies
conducted 4ithin) as 4ell as outside) this field give support to the retention of rela*ation
as an important element in the approach. +ost studies report positive effects being
associated 4ith the use of rela*ation. This is true for short term studies conducted in
laborator& settings and for long term studies carried out in the natural learning
environment. <indings include positive effects on achievement as 4ell as on students.
ps&chological and ph&siological states and creativit&. Do4ever) one stud& reports no
effect and another reports a negative effect of various forms of rela*ation on long1term
memor&. In contrast to the bul; of studies revie4ed here) both these studies investigated
the effect of rela*ation on a fairl& simple tas;) namel& recognition of vocabular& items.
,esearch into the relationship bet4een an*iet& and performance suggests that rela*ation
training ma& be most beneficial 4hen the learning tas; is difficult or comple* and ego1
involvement is high. 2as& tas;s appear to be facilitated b& an*iet& 4hile tas;s 4ith lo4
ego1involvement appear to be either uninfluenced b& an*iet& or facilitated. Although the
learning tas; in Accelerative Learning is not necessaril& perceived as being difficult) it is
nevertheless a comple* tas; 4ith a high content of ego1involvement) especiall& in
language learning) and it appears therefore) that students are li;el& to benefit from
rela*ation in this conte*t. There is some evidence that progressive muscle rela*ation ma&
be more effective than other t&pes of rela*ation.
There is also some evidence that the effect of rela*ation ma& be related to the level of
measured an*iet&. Although results are not entirel& consistent) a strong trend can be
obvserved to4ards lo4 an*iet& students being more positivel& affected b& rela*ation
during learning than high an*iet& sub:ects. Since in Accelerative Learning, at least after a
period of time) students appear to displa& more lo4 an*iet& characteristics to4ards
learning and testing than high an*iet& characteristics) this research further supports the
retention of rela*ation training in Accelerative Learning.
SUGGESTION


They can
because they think they can.
Virgil

Suggestion has e*isted in one form or another as long as human communication itself. Its
effectiveness has best been demonstrated in h&pnosis from the classical approach of
9ernheim "1887# to the recent naturalistic 4or; of 2ric;son "1>87#. It has further been
demonstrated in Autogenic Training "Schultz 1>!>#) in Progressive )ela(ation "Aacobson
1>38#) in Psychosynthesis "Assagioli 1>$!#) in >io"eedac$ "-reen C -reen 1>((# and in
Suliminal Learning "9udz&ns;i 1>($#. 6etailed reports on the effects of suggestion on
learning as a result of e*perimental investigations are scarce) ho4ever) and the findings
of different studies "9iggers C Stricherz 1>($) 9ordon C Schuster 1>($) Schuster C
+artin 1>87 and ,enigers 1>81# are conflicting.
23uall& as important as establishing the effects of suggestion on learning is deciding
4hether or not is is ethical to use suggestion in the learning environment. =ne of the
problems in Accelerative Learning is that the term suggestion ma& be seen as
s&non&mous 4ith h&pnosis and the approach therefore dismissed b& educators and
administrators as unsuitable or dangerous in the learning environment. /hat is the
evidence in the literature for such reasoningJ
Darrison and +usial "1>(8#) 4ho revie4ed the literature on h&pnosis in education) report
inconclusive and confusing results) &et a trend to4ards positive outcomes. Some
e*amples given "p.(2# are that Darle& and Darle& "1>!8# claim that h&pnosis actuall&
inhibits learning 4hile Brippner "1>$$#) +ut;e "1>$(# and +cCord "1>$2# all report
success in using h&pnosis to increase reading speed and comprehension. Dilgard "in
Darrison and +usial 1>(85(3# points to the benefits of h&pnosis in education5
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 h&pnosis cannot be disputed on the basis of a large
bod& of studies. Do4ever) ver& fe4 studies e*ist on the effectiveness of suggestion as a
single variable and unrelated to h&pnosis. Three studies) apart fom 9iggers and Stricherz
"1>($#) discussed in the rela*ation section above) could be located in the field of
Accelerative Learning 4hich investigated the effects of elements including suggestion on
recall or recognition of vocabular& in laborator& settings. 6uring the earl& &ears 4hen
s&nchronisation 4as still used) 9ordon and Schuster "1>($# conducted a stud& using a
factorial design in 4hich the& isolated suggestion) 4ords s&nchronised 4ith students.
breathing and 4ords s&nchronised 4ith bac;ground music. Thirt&1t4o volunteer adult
sub:ects) per treatment cell) too; part in the e*periment. <indings 4ere that all three
elements separatel& had been effective in significantl& improved recall) and that the
variables interacted cumulativel& such that learning 4as best 4hen all three variables
4ere present.
These findings concerning suggestion are supported b& ,enigers "1>81# 4ho in a similar
design e*amined the effects of music) and suggestion coupled 4ith rela*ation. The
rationale for coupling suggestion 4ith rela*ation 4as the belief that suggestion 4ould be
more effective 4hen the sub:ects 4ere in a rela*ed state. S&nchronised breathing 4as also
used but not isolated as a separate variable for investigation. 0inet& volunteer adult
sub:ects) 1! per treatment cell) too; part in this e*periment. ,enigers "1>81# found that
suggestion coupled 4ith rela*ation 4as effective in significantl& improving vocabular&
recall 4hen compared to the control group.
These findings) ho4ever) are not supported b& 9iggers and Stricherz "1>($#) 4ho did not
find a significant difference in performance bet4een the control and the suggestion
condition in a recognition tas;. The& are also not supported b& Schuster and +artin
"1>87#) discussed above) 4ho included suggestion in a stud& on the effects of rela*ation
training on vocabular& recall. Although a positive influence of rela*ation on recall 4as
reported in this stud&) suggestion 4as not found to have a significant influence in the
same conte*t.
The conflicting findings of these studies in terms of suggestion highlight the difficult& of
accuratel& investigating variables of this ;ind. All four studies 4ere 4ell designed and
controlled. Do4ever) there is considerable variation in the manner in 4hich suggestion is
administered in different studies. As a conse3uence) findings are not readil& comparable.
In ,enigers. "1>81# stud&) for e*ample) the sub:ects in the suggestion condition received
one verbal suggestion relating to the ease 4ith 4hich sub:ects 4ould learn the material)
coupled 4ith muscle rela*ation "no time given# and four minutes of Pen breathing. In
9iggers and Stricherz "1>($# the suggestion condition involved a five minute
concentration e*ercise focussing on the suggestion that this e*ercise 4ould result in
higher level mental functioning. In 9ordon and Schuster "1>($# the suggestion treatment
consisted of a one hour preparation including a lecture on Suggestopedia) verbal
suggestions and instructions in the use of imager&) and meditation procedures in order to
establish an e*pectation that learning 4ould ta;e place. In Schuster and +artin "1>87# the
suggestion treatment consisted of an Eearl& pleasant learning restimulationE "no time
given# described as a techni3ue 4hich Efocuses on the bodil& feelings) sensations)
emotions and thoughts associated 4ith an earl& pleasant learning situationE "p.2((#.
Although it can be said that in all four studies sub:ects in the suggestion condition also
received some form of rela*ation) the t&pe of rela*ation differed considerabl& bet4een
studies) and the time involved in administering this variable varied substantiall&.
Several other studies alread& discussed in previous sections of this chapter included
suggestion "e.g. /ilson and /ilson 1>(7) Schuster and +ouzon 1>82 and Schuster
1>8!#. Do4ever) this variable 4as either not separatel& anal&sed as in /ilson and /ilson
"1>(7#) or the suggestion treatment 4as restricted to 4ritten suggestions relating to either
the ease or the difficult& of learning the materials as in Schuster and +ouzon "1>82# and
Schuster "1>8!#. Since 4e cannot be certain 4hether sub:ects in these studies actuall&
read the suggestions) their findings 4ere not included in the discussion here.
Studies 4hich involve verbal suggestion might be described as having contained some
form of h&pnosis. Since the possible relationship to h&pnosis is an important issue in the
acceptance of Accelerative Learning in educational institutions) 4e 4ill no4 loo; at the
relevant literature in order to present distinguishing factors bet4een Accelerative
Learning and h&pnosis) or bet4een suggestion in the 4a;ing state and suggestion in
h&pnosis.
Lozanov.s earl& 4or; in suggestolog& led him to claim that h&pnosis is not involved in
suggestopedia because suggestions are e*clusivel& administered in the 4a;ing state. ?et
little information is available on the differences or similarities bet4een suggestion in the
4a;ing state and suggestion under h&pnosis) chiefl& because of the difficult& of finding a
4idel& accepted definition of suggestion or h&pnosis. As +arcuse "1>$$51># put it5 EThat
h&pnosis e*ists has become generall& acceptedF 4hat it is) ho4ever) is generall&
disputed.E De offered a tentative definition of h&pnosis as an Ealtered state of the
organism originall& and usuall& produced b& a repetition of stimuli in 4hich suggestion
"no matter ho4 defined# is more effective than usual.E "p.21# In the literature on h&pnosis
this altered state is often referred to as a form of sleep) 4hich is in accordance 4ith the
et&mological origin of the 4ord h&pnosis.
In the latest versions o" 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 generall&
conceded) instead) that the students e*perience a state of alert rela*ation 4hich is at all
times defined as 4a;efulness. Do4ever) Tart "1>$>51$(# defines light h&pnosis as Ea state
of rela*ed 4a;efulness) accompanied b& receptivit& to suggestion) 4ith alpha brain
4aves as the dominant pattern.E 9a&u; "1>83# believes that his stud& establishes a direct
relationship bet4een the light h&pnotic state and the intellective alertness 4hich
characterises Suggestopedia. 9a&u; claims that descriptions of the suggestopedic state
found throughout Lozanov.s 4or; "she has had access to the original 9ulgarian te*ts#
closel& parallel Tart.s observations in his studies of light h&pnosis.
+arcuse "1>$$#) too) spea;s of /a$ing hypnosis as a modification of h&pnosis for
patients 4ho are overl& an*ious about the loss of conscious a4areness as a conse3uence
of being in a sleep1li;e state. Dere) the verbal patterns of h&pnosis are emplo&ed) but
4ithout an& mention of sleep or dro4siness. Instead) the term rela(ation is used.
9ernheim "in 9audouin 1>2351!# also points out the presence of suggestion in the 4a;ing
state5 ETo define h&pnosis as induced sleep) is to give a too narro4 meaning to the 4ord 1
to overloo; the man& phenomena 4hich suggestion can bring about independentl& of
sleep.E The bul; of 2ric;son.s "1>87# 4or; reflects this statement.
Stanton "1>(8# claims that the onl& difference bet4een Suggestopedia and h&pnosis is in
the name. This vie4 is supported b& Darrison and +usial "1>(8#. Stanton compares
h&pnotherap& procedures 4ith the three phases of the suggestopedic c&cle5
1. The preparation phase. The student/patient is being prepared for positive expectancy with mental
and physical relaxation, rhythmic breathing and visualisation of pleasant experiences.
2. The presentation phase. This is characterised by concentration of the student/patient on non-
related objects such as music in suggestopedia and backward counting in hypnotherapy.
3. The practice phase. Lozanov's sociodramas are similar in their effect to that produced by group
therapy encounters. (p.250)
/hile this comparison is perhaps a little ambiguous and oversimplified) Lozanov "1>(8#
himself is highl& conscious of the similarities bet4een suggestion in the 4a;ing state and
h&pnosis) and he has made some effort to isolate distinguishing factors. De maintains that
a person in a trul& h&pnotic state is no longer critical and able to describe 4hat is
e*perienced) 4hile the same person under the influence of suggestion in a 4a;ing state
remains perfectl& a4are and critical. /hile claiming that Esuggestion in a 4a;ing state in
a surgical operation is e3ual in po4er to suggestion under h&pnosisE "p.127#) he believes
that Ethis ;ind of control has considerable advantage over h&pnosisF it permits not onl& a
safer operation) but creates conditions under 4hich the d&namics of suggestive
anaesthetization can be observed in the various stages of the operationE "p.118#. In
contrast) +arcuse "1>$$# 3uotes the findings of a surgeon 4ho used h&pnotic anaesthesia
in more than 377 patients before the discover& of chemical anaesthesia. The patients 4ho
under4ent the h&pnosis 4ere described as either El&ing li;e a corpse throughout or as
having disturbed trancesE "p.13#.
In Lozanov.s "1>(8# suggestopedic teaching several changes 4ere made) not least
because of the unsatisfactor& lin; 4ith h&pnosis5
The active session was dropped because it didn't produce the same satisfactory results as the concert
session. At the same time it constituted a danger of insufficiently trained teachers intoning unsuitable
material and creating external conditions similar to those for inducing a light form of hypnosis,
something which has to be altogether avoided in suggestopedy. For the same reasons, all monotonous
sounds and utterances were eliminated from the sessions, as well as the shading of light in the rooms
with curtains. (p.269)
Schuster and -ritton "1>8!# maintain that suggestion used in suggestopedia is closer to
suggestion used in commercial advertising than it is to h&pnosis5
The difference is that suggestion in advertising attempts to persuade you to do something that you
might ordinarily do anyhow; suggestion in hypnosis attempts to compel you to do something that you
ordinarily couldn't do. Carrying this to the extreme, if suggestopedia is "hypnosis", then so is
commercial advertising. (p.54)
/hile Schuster.s definition might be seen as an oversimplification in the opposite
direction from Stanton "1>(8# above) he nevertheless points out the fact that suggestion is
4idel& and po4erfull& present in the 4a;ing state of our ever&da& life. Schuster further
claims that h&pnosis in the classroom does not generall& 4or;) and that suggestopedia
lac;s the formal trance induction to h&pnosis) and the usual sub:ective e*periences
observed in h&pnotic sub:ects.
<rom the evidence presented so far it 4ould be nave to claim that Suggestopedia has
nothing in common 4ith h&pnosis) and it 4ould be e3uall& nave to claim that
Suggestopedia is h&pnosis. To define the altered states of consciousness attained b&
sub:ects of either approach is as difficult as defining an& transition state accuratel&. Do4
do 4e define t4ilight) for e*ampleJ And ho4 it is related to da4n) da&light and nightJ
The onl& scientific means 4e have for measuring the profoundness of states of altered
consciousness are 2.2.-. machines 4hich measure brain 4ave patterns. ,esearch in
Accelerative Learning "Lozanov 1>(8# has sho4n that during the passive states) alpha
4aves are dominant) 4hich suggests a state of consciousness that can at best be compared
to ver& light h&pnosis. =n the other hand) this state can be attained b& an&one) b& simpl&
closing their e&es and rela*ing.
/hen 4e loo; at the rela*ation or mind1calming sessions as the& are used in the /est) 4e
can indeed find similarities to h&pnosis as it is used b& contemporar& therapists. The
follo4ing induction scenario given to children in an e*periment on the use of h&pnosis in
a summer reading clinic b& Brippner "1>$$# is not all that different from the rela*ation
scenarios that ma& be given at the beginning of an Accelerative Learning class5
For the next few moments, let us pause and relax our bodies. We can do this at any time of the day no
matter where we are. All we need to do is stop and tell our bodies what to do. First let's close our eyes
and take a deep breath Now concentrate on your eyelids. They are controlled by the smallest
muscles in your body. Concentrate on these tiny eyelid muscles. Tell them to relax. Let your eyelid
muscles become so soft, so relaxed that they seem to melt like a dish of ice cream in the sun In fact
they are now so relaxed that they refuse to work. Your eyes want to stay so relaxed that they refuse to
open. Now relax the rest of your body. Tell your face to relax Tell your neck to relax. Tell your
chest and shoulders to relax. Tell 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 Aacobson.s "1>38# Progressive )ela(ation as it is of
@nesthl.s "1>8$# Systematic Approach to )ela(ation "or <ouths and Schultz.s "1>!>#
Autogenic Training. 0one of these approaches is immediatel& associated 4ith h&pnosis.
+a&be the difference reall& is onl& in the name. And ma&be it is h&pnosis 4hich is
incongruous. According to Darrison and +usial "1>(8# even 9raid 4ho coined the term
hypnosis realised that the e3uation 4ith sleep 4as probabl& erroneous) since a state of
heightened a4areness is not reall& s&non&mous 4ith sleep.
Suggestion as used in the approaches above) as in medicine and dentistr&) is usuall& seen
as beneficial. /h& then should 4e assume that suggestion used in education is not
beneficial or even dangerousJ It could be argued that teachers) in contrast to therapists
and dentists) are not 3ualified to use suggestion. Do4ever) is suggestion not a constant
part of their interaction 4ith studentsJ As -inott " in Schuster C -ritton 1>8!# put it5
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 humor, 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. (p.80)
-inott spea;s neither of h&pnosis nor of suggestion but of the teacher.s ever&da&
behaviour in the classroom. De is pointing out that a mood1setting is part of an& teaching)
that the teacher sets up some mood conte*t for an& lesson) and that this can be negative as
4ell as positive. /hat Lozanov has done is ma;e teachers a4are of the po4er of the
suggestions transmitted through ever&da& behaviour. These suggestions are not
e*clusivel& verbal) but more often found in gestures) mimicr&) posture and tone of voice.
Lozanov "1>(85271# defines suggestion as Ea constant communicative factorE and does
not advocate bombarding students 4ith obvious direct verbal suggestions such as
Learning 6erman /ill e "un. /hile this ma& be effective 4ith volunteer adult students) a
statement li;e this given to less motivated students in a secondar& school) some of 4hom
do the language onl& because it is a compulsor& sub:ect) ma& produce a counter1
productive reaction such as 0h, no it /on&t.
If teachers believe that learning should be fun) eas& and 4ithout stress and fatigue) then
the& have to demonstrate this to the students and let them e*perience it so that students in
fact believe it as a result of their personal success) not as a result of a verbal suggestion
4hich could not possibl& have the same effect.
+a&be Lozanov.s decision to call his method Suggestopedia 4as un4ise in the light of
the fact that suggestion ma& be regarded 4ith suspicion in the education process.
Do4ever) if educators are able to see suggestion 4ith the same clinical neutralit&
demonstrated b& Lozanov) the& ma& agree 4ith -alisson "1>83517#5
>e ne vois pas co++ent la pdagogie *en gnral: pourrait se passer de la suggestion5 @uand il est
avr @ue celle'ci constitue un fer+ent dAinteraction essentiel entre les tres5 et @uAelle est ce
titre o+niprsente lAcole5 lieu de socialit5 donc dAinteraction par e&cellence. 7n brefB la
suggestion en pdagogieB oui ncessaire+ent0 rien @ue la suggestion en pdagogieB sre+ent pasC
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 e&cellence 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. /e do not ;no4 from the research available e*actl& ho4
effective suggestion is in Accelerative Learning. /hen efforts 4ere made to isolate this
element for investigation) studies sho4ed conflicting results. ,esearch in this area ma& be
hampered b& the fact that suggestion is difficult to isolate and administer in an
environment 4hich involves human communicaton. =ther approaches in 4hich
suggestion is used) most noteabl& h&pnosis) indicate that suggestion ma& indeed be
effective in the learning process. Although findings concerning the effect of h&pnosis on
learning tas;s are mi*ed) there appears to be a trend to4ards a positive effect of h&pnosis
in the learning environment. Do4ever) h&pnosis is still largel& regarded 4ith
apprehension and suspicion b& educators and administrators in schools.
Since Accelerative Learning is often associated 4ith h&pnosis) it is fre3uentl& dismissed
as a viable teaching method for the same reasons. /hile it cannot categoricall& be stated
that Accelerative Learning has nothing in common 4ith h&pnosis) especiall& not 4hen
compared to recent naturalistic techni3ues) it can also not be claimed that Accelerative
Learning is h&pnosis. The difficult& 4ith finding a clear distinction bet4een the t4o is
the fact that no 4idel& accepted definition of h&pnosis e*ists. D&pnosis ma& range from
e*tremel& light states) 4hich are similar to the rela*ed states reached in Accelerative
Learning, to deep somnambulism) a state 4hich cannot even remotel& be associated 4ith
the state of rela*ed alertness in 4hich students in Accelerative Learning courses find
themselves. /hile suggestion in h&pnosis ma& be used for man& forms of treatments)
ranging from attitude changes to painless tooth e*tractions) suggestions in Accelerative
Learning are confined to addressing the facilitation of the learning tas;.
This is done using suggestive means such as music and positive teacher behaviour) rather
than b& means of direct verbal suggestions. If students. attitudes to4ards learning are
changed for the better in the process "see chapters ! and $#) then this is most li;el& the
result of a combination of variables present in Accelerative Learning, one of 4hich is
suggestion. Suggestion per se is alread& constantl& present in an& learning environment)
and teachers ma;e use of it both consciousl& and unconsciousl&. Lozanov has simpl&
dra4n attention to this fact and developed a method into 4hich suggestion is integrated as
an e*clusivel& positive means. There is therefore no reason to e*clude its s&stematic and
positive application in Accelerative Learning.
Ge#e&al C"#clusi"#s
Although findings are not completel& consistent) it can be said that the bul; of the research on
music and rela*ation suggests that these elements are effective in learning. In music this
applies especiall& to pieces from the baro3ue and classical period) although bac;ground music
4hich shares characteristics 4ith these has also been found to be effective. In rela*ation there
is some evidence that progressive rela*ation ma& be more effective than other forms of
ph&sical and mental rela*ation. Suggestion) as a variable) has not been e*tensivel& researched)
and the limited results are not consistent. Do4ever) results from research in related fields
indicate that suggestion ma& have a beneficial effect in learning.
/hat are the benefits) though) of isolating one element for investigationJ Although 4e 4ill
;no4 something about the effectiveness of that particular variable) 4e do not ;no4 an&thing
about its relationship 4ith the other variables used in Accelerative Learning. The most
obvious 3uestion) of course) 4ould be to as; 4hich is the most important of all the common
variables. 0o stud& has &et ans4ered this 3uestion) although some have thro4n light on the
relationship bet4een some variables) suggesting a cumulative effect. Stein et al. "1>82#
sho4ed that music together 4ith visualisation appeared more effective than music alone for
long1term retention. -amble et al "1>82# found rela*ation together 4ith music more effective
than music alone. 9aur "1>82# reports that rela*ation plus music 4as more effective than
rela*ation alone) and 9ordon and Schuster "1>($# sho4ed that the elements suggestion)
s&nchronisation and music interacted cumulativel& 4ith each other so that learning 4as best
4hen all elements 4ere part of the treatment.
Although there are some conflicting findings in these studies) especiall& regarding the
variables suggestion and rela*ation) it appears that the findings for the variable music are
consistent throughout) suggesting that music ma& 4ell be the most important 4hen more than
one element is investigated. This conclusion must be treated 4ith caution) ho4ever) bearing in
mind the difficulties involved in isolating and measuring variables such as suggestion and
rela*ation. <urthermore) the bul; of these studies 4ere short1term and conducted in a
laborator& setting) their findings can therefore not be generalised to the natural learning
environment. Although it is interesting to ;no4 about the contribution of individual elements
in Accelerative Learning, the most important interest) ho4ever) is ho4 effective the method
ma& be in the natural learning environment. Chapter 4ill therefore investigate the claims
made for Accelerative Learning as a complete teaching method in this conte*t.

Chapter 4

A Critical Analysis of the Claims Made for
Accelerative Learning

INTRODUCTION
,esearchers have gathered much naturalistic and e*perimental data on the effects of the
use of Accelerative Learning through empirical) case and laborator& studies. Sub:ects
under investigation have been predominantl& language students) &et man& other fields as
far ranging as ph&sical science "-ritton C 9enitez19ordon 1>($#) naval science "%eterson
1>((# and vocational agriculture "/alters 1>((# have been studied using Suggestopedia
and SALT.
<indings have varied greatl&) depending on the particular aspect under investigation) the
particular setting and the soundness of the research design. 0one of the controlled
/estern studies 4as ever able to replicate the dramatic findings of the original 9ulgarian
studies) on the basis of 4hich =strander and Schroeder "1>(># claim that results can be
improved b& fift& times. There are some /estern studies "Schuster 1>($b) %eterson 1>(()
/alters 1>((# 4hich claim that learning can be speeded up b& t4o to three times 4ithout
loss in achievement.
A large bod& of studies carried out in non1e*perimental conditions in the universit&)
secondar& and primar& school environment "Derr 1>(8) 9eer 1>(8) -assner1,oberts
1>82) Stoc;4ell 1>8!) /agner 1>8!# report larger amounts of material taught) higher
achievement) better classroom atmosphere and more confident students. These studies
4ere not conducted onl& in the favourable conditions for 4hich the method 4as
developed that is) 4ith small classes "1211! students#) pleasant surroundings and bloc;
teaching "Derr 1>(8)1>(>) -assner1,oberts 1>82) Stoc;4ell 1>8!# but also in natural
conditions "9eer 1>(8) /agner 1>8!#.
Controlled e*perimental and 3uasi1e*perimental studies in natural conditions) such as
normal universit& or school classes ",obinett 1>(!) %richard) Schuster C -ensch 1>87)
9otha 1>8$#) also report significant gains in achievement. Their findings are supported b&
+oon et al. "1>8$# 4ho conducted a meta1anal&sis of 1 of the most controlled studies
chosen from an overall 7 published in the ?ournal "or the Society o" Accelerative
Learning and Teaching "Aournal of SALT#. Treatments 4ere not identical in all 1
studies) but each had a viable control group 4ith 4hich to compare results. <indings 4ere
that Ethe distribution of effect sizes over all categories and outcomes 4as lepto;urtic and
positivel& s;e4edE in favour of the e*perimental groups. +oon et al. concluded that the
treatments 4ere effective Erelative to foreign language ac3uisition) foreign language
retention) affective attributes) and cognitive achievement and creativit&.E "p. 8#
A number of studies mention other benefits being associated 4ith Accelerative Learning)
such as improved self1concept "2d4ards C Thomas 1>82) %ortes C <oster 1>8$#) attitude
"Schuster C -inn 1>(8) -assner1,oberts C 9rislan 1>8#) behaviour "9ro4n 1>8$#)
health "Lozanov C 9alevs;i 1>(!#) reduced stress "Lozanov 1>(8) -assner1,oberts C
9rislan 1>8) Schuster C -ritton 1>8!#) and improved motivation for continuing
language stud& "Bnibbler 1>82#.
The purpose of this chapter is to ta;e a critical loo; at the claims made for the
effectiveness of Accelerative Learning in the literature from the earl& Lozanov studies to
the present da&. /e 4ill attempt to give a vie4 of the general trends in the results and
dra4 some conclusions about their general magnitude in the /est. /e 4ill finall& dra4
attention to important areas 4hich have not been covered b& the research so far.
LOZANOV'S RESEARCH
Lozanov.s research in the 1>$7s and 1>(7s 4as conducted predominantl& at the Institute
of Suggestolog& at Sofia) 9ulgaria. +ost of his studies 4ere carried out 4ithin
Suggestopedia, that is to sa& that he loo;ed for effects that the method ma& have on
memor& and on ph&siological and ps&chological measures. De also conducted a small
number of comparative studies in order to determine the effectiveness of Suggestopedia
4hen compared to other teaching methods. Although Lozanov is not a linguist) the
ma:orit& of studies 4ere conducted 4ith language students) since Lozanov "1>(8#
believed that results in language learning 4ere more easil& measurable than in other
fields of learning. Language teachers 4ere e*tensivel& trained in the use of the method)
and teaching 4as carried out in the favourable environment described above. Some
e*perimentation) ho4ever) 4as carried out in natural teaching environments) most
notabl& a t4o1&ear e*periment in primar& schools.
<indings of Lozanov.s research are reported in Suggestology and 0utlines o"
Suggestopedy "1>(8#) the onl& ma:or publication on Lozanov.s empirical 4or; 4hich is
available in 2nglish in the /est. "De also published a scientific magazine entitled
Suggestologi!a 4hich is not readil& available in the /est and has not officiall& been
translated#. =n the basis of his findings) Lozanov made a series of claims for the
effectiveness of Suggestopedia. These) ho4ever) need to be e*amined criticall& since
Lozanov.s research procedures and the st&le in 4hich e*periments are reported have been
the sub:ect of severe criticism b& a number of notable linguists "Scovel 1>(>) +ans 1>81)
Schiffler 1>8$a#. The credibilit& of Lozanov.s research is further threatened b& the fact
that claims of a highl& dramatic nature have been falsel& attributed to Lozanov or to
Suggestopedia) and have been generalised and promulgated b& the popular press and b&
some commercial language teaching enterprises.
The ob:ective of this section is to present the claims that Lozanov himself ma;es for
Suggestopedia, to e*amine their validit& in the light of the evidence that he provides) to
e*amine the soundness of his research procedures) and to point out distortions of his
claims b& other sources.
<ive broad categories of claims for Suggestopedia can be identified in Lozanov "1>(8#5
1. 2*ceptionall& large amounts of materials are assimilated b& the students.
2. <unctional use of these materials is e*ceptionall& high.
3. ,etention of these materials is e*ceptionall& high over long periods of
time.
. Students. ph&siological and ps&chological state is influenced positivel&.
!. Digher achievement can be produced in suggestopedic courses as
compared to traditionall& taught courses.
/e 4ill no4 loo; at each of these claims in detail.
1. Volume of material. =ne of the most dramatic claims 4hich can be attributed to
Lozanov "1>(85322# is that an average of four times more ne4 4ords can be given and
assimilated in suggestopedic instruction than in instruction b& other methods of language
teaching such as audio1visual) audio1lingual and conventional "presumabl& grammar1
translation# methods. In a basic suggestopedic course appro*imatel& 2777 items of
vocabular& are taught in >$ lessons of instruction. This means that an average of 27.8
4ords are given per lesson. According to Lozanov "1>(85322# the corresponding figures
for traditionall& taught courses are (.7 4ords per lesson for audio1lingual courses) !.!!
for audio1visual courses) and !.3! for conventional courses.
This data is simpl& given in a table "p.322# 4ithout further e*planation) e*cept that the
figures 4ere obtained from Eofficial dataE. It appears therefore that this claim is not based
on sound e*perimental research) but on observational data from an un;no4n source.
There is also no further description of the nature of the courses used in the comparison.
Lozanov.s teaching 4as conducted under such favourable conditions that a comparison
4ith traditionall& taught courses can hardl& be valid. 0ot onl& did the teaching ta;e place
in small groups) in pleasant surroundings and for several hours at a time) but students
4ere also e*ceptionall& motivated. According to Schiffler "1>8$a# suggestopedicall&
taught students 4ere selected from e*tensive 4aiting lists. Lozanov.s o4n "1>88#
description of selection procedures suggests that students 4ere also chosen according to
ps&chological characteristics) in order to ma;e groups as homogeneous as possible.
Lozanov provides no basis on 4hich a valid comparison can be made about the volume
of material assimilated b& students taught at the Institute of Suggestolog& and that of
students taught else4here. The term EassimilateE) used b& Lozanov to describe the
learning process and possibl& the learning outcome) is also difficult to interpret. 6oes this
mean that students are able to use these materials in a meaningful 4a&) or do the& simpl&
recognise or recall themJ <rom the 4a& that Lozanov describes the various tests given
either the da& after a suggestopedic session or at the end of the course "p.1$$) 273) 217#)
it is clear that these 4ere translation tests) predominantl& from the foreign language into
the mother tongue. This form of testing gives information on students. recall onl&. 9oth
+ans "1>81# and 9aur "1>82# interpret this as a serious limitation of Lozanov.s research.
Lozanov refers to hundreds of suggestopedic sessions in 4hich bet4een 177 and 1777
le*ical items 4ere presented to the students) and after 4hich students 4ere able to recall
an average of >7I and more "p.1$$#. Do4ever) 4e are onl& given sporadic information
about the nature of the courses) the number and bac;ground of students involved or the
length of the individual sessions. 6uring the decade of e*perimentation at the Institute)
Lozanov clearl& 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
unsatisfactor& manner. Scovel "1>(>52$1# is 3uite :ustified 4hen he points out Lozanov.s
inabilit& to substantiate his speculations 4ith empirical proof. =n the basis of the
evidence 4hich Lozanov provides in his 1>(8 publication) therefore) the above claim
4ould be more soundl& based 4ere it rephrased in these terms5 'ighly motivated
students, taught suggestopedically in small classes and in a pleasant environment, are
ale to recall e(ceptionally large amounts o" materials.
2. Functional use of materials. Although language tests as described b& Lozanov
"1>(851$$) 273) 217# appear to be chiefl& related to memor& s;ills and passive
;no4ledge of the language) he ma;es the follo4ing claims concerning the students.
abilit& to handle the le*ical items 4ith 4hich the& have been presented in a suggestopedic
course "1>(853211322#5
"a# Students assimilate on average >7I of the 2777 le*ical units presented.
"b# +ore than $7I of the vocabular& can be used activel& and fluentl& in
ever&da& conversationF the rest of the vocabular& is ;no4n at translation
level.
"c# Students spea; 4ithin the frame4or; of the 4hole essential grammar.
"d# An& te*t can be read.
"e# Students can 4rite 4ith some mista;es.
"f# Students ma;e some mista;es in spea;ing but this does not hinder
communication.
"g# %ronunciation is satisfactor&.
"h# Students are not afraid to tal; to native spea;ers.
"i# Students are eager to continue stud&ing the same language) if possible
in the same 4a&.
As discussed above) onl& the first and the second half of the second claim have been
supported) at least on a limited basis) b& Lozanov.s e*perimental research. The other
claims can onl& have been arrived at b& means of the assessment of naturalistic data.
/ith the e*ception of the third and fourth claim) these claims are not reall& dramatic or
sensational from an applied linguist.s point of vie4) considering again that highl&
motivated students in small groups had almost 177 hours of intensive teaching 4ith the
addition of music and suggestion) 4hich have been sho4n to be instrumental in improved
learning. Do4ever) Lozanov provides insufficient bac;ground detail to allo4 a
satisfactor& evaluation of these claims. It ma& be that such claims are indeed valid) but on
the basis of Lozanov.s "1>(8# reports) the& must be treated 4ith caution. The& can at best
be considered as items of anecdotal evidence.
3. Retention of materials. =ne of Lozanov.s ma:or interests 4as to test the retention rate
of materials EassimilatedE b& the students over various periods of time. As a results of
e*tensive tests) he claims that forgetting is minimal in Suggestopedia, and that retention
is still e*ceptionall& high after as long as 2 &ears after the original learning. Again)
ho4ever) most results are simpl& listed in tables 4ith no precise information on ho4 tests
4ere conducted. The initial assessment appears to have been based on the results of
4ritten translations of le*ical items presented at random the da& after the suggestopedic
sessions "p. 273#) 4hile the dela&ed assessment 4as ta;en at various intervals after an
entire course had finished "p.213#.There is no precise information) ho4ever) on 4hich
basis students 4ere selected for the dela&ed tests or on the nature and conditions of this
testing.
,esults are provided in t4o formats. 2ither individual students are referred to) or the
results of a group of students are given. Lozanov usuall& states the students. initial recall
rate) their dela&ed recall rate) the time elapsed bet4een the t4o tests and 4hether or not
the students had revie4ed the materials in the meantime. The tables do not give
information about ho4 man& 4ords had been taught or tested in each instance. Lozanov
lists results) 4hich tend to be inconsistent) at random) and) 4ithout providing sufficient
evidence of standard statistical anal&ses) ma;es claims regarding the statistical reliabilit&
of results. An e*ample of this can be found on pages 213121!.
Table 21 "p.213# sho4s the E%ercentage of <orgetting in Suggestopedic +emorizationE.
The results of 21 sub:ects are referred to. The data for 12 students) ho4ever) is
incomplete. =f the rest) five students recalled ($.3I initiall&) $(.2I after 12 months
4ithout reading the materials and (>.$I after having read it again. The other four
students recalled >3.!I initiall&) !(.7I after 22 months 4ithout reading and 81.7I 4ith
reading. The selection of data in this table is surprising) considering that Lozanov had
access to the initial recall of 1$ sub:ects "p.27!# 4hose average recall 4as given as
>3.2I "p.27#. A more interesting selection 4ould have been to re1test as man& sub:ects
as possible from that sample at random after several intervals of time each.
Lozanov) ho4ever) refers to individual results instead) such as that of 9.A. 4ho too; part
in an e*periment in 4hich students 4ere presented 1777 4ords in a single session
"p.213#. 9.A. recalled >8I initiall&) !3.3I after 27 months 4ithout reading and (3I
4ith reading. /ithout providing an& evidence of relevant statistical anal&ses) Lozanov
then goes on to sa&5 EThe large number of 4ords on 4hich the e*periment 4ith 9.A. 4as
based) as 4ell as the great differences bet4een the percentages in the comparisons 4e
made) ensures 3uite high statistical reliabilit&E "p.21#. Do4 this claim is to be
interpreted cannot be ascertained from the data provided.
Lozanov then gives a graphic representation of the E,eproduction of suggestopedicall&
memorised materialE "p.21#) 4hich sho4s that initial recall is around >7I and dela&ed
recall after 2 months around !(I. The source for this data) ho4ever) is not discussed.
Lozanov also provides e*amples of sub:ects 4ho obtained an average of 8!I on
dela&ed tests up to 1$ months after the initial learning "p.21!#) and goes on to sa& that
Ethe tendenc& 4as al4a&s to4ards a dela&ed deterioration in the retention of materialE
"p.21!#. Immediatel& follo4ing this statement) ho4ever) he provides a table 4ith the
results of 17 students 4hose average initial recall 4as >>.I and 4hose dela&ed recall
after 3 &ears 4ith either little or no revie4 of materials 4as >>.2I. This last figure
appears to be substantiall& inflated 4hen compared to all the other figures Lozanov
reports for the dela&ed recall tests.
As a result of his e*perimentation) Lozanov observed a radical deviation from the
classical curve of forgetting provided b& 2bbinghaus "p.21#) in 4hich one hour after the
memorisation onl& 8I of material is recalled 4hich deteriorates to 28I after 8 hours.
Since 2bbinghaus e*perimented 4ith nonsense s&llables) Lozanov carried out an
e*periment 4ith 133 sub:ects learning nonsense s&llables in order to provide a more valid
comparison. The e*periment 4as conducted in three conditions) each var&ing according
to lists learnt) testing procedures and sub:ect numbers. The stud& is again poorl&
described "pp.21$121(# and results are given in <igure 37 "p.21(#. The average recall of
the first condition "1! sub:ects# is given as >7I immediatel& after memorisation) 87I
after hours) 8!I after 2 hours and 8!I after 8 hours. The corresponding figures for
the second condition "7 sub:ects# 4ere !!I) !I) !I and !I) and for the third "3
groups of 2$ sub:ects) not tested after 8 hours#) !8I) 2I and !8I. It is interesting to
note that the difference in results bet4een conditions 1 and 2 is more dramatic than the
difference bet4een condition 2 and the 2bbinghaus results. Lozanov does not refer to
these differences but concludes rather obscurel&5
In the three variants of this experiment, a tendency to form a reminiscent type reproductiveness
curve was noticeable, i.e., in subsequent checks students tended to reproduce more and more of the
material presented, and delayed reproduction approached reproduction in the immediate check.
(p.218)
Although it is impossible to ascertain the validit& of Lozanov.s results on the basis of the
data provided here) the radical deviation from the 2bbinghaus curve is often referred to in
advertising for commercial language courses.
Again) it is unfortunate that Lozanov made such poor use of large amounts of data
regarding dela&ed recall. Although there is some indication in his reports that recall ma&
be e*ceptionall& high) both 2 hours after presentation of materials and in some cases
even after 2 to 3 &ears) it is impossible to ma;e definite claims about the e*tent of
students. recall abilit& over time on the basis of the data provided. The most consistentl&
supported finding appears to be that the mean recall rate of suggestopedicall& taught
students after 2 hours is indeed around >7I 4hich ma& decline to around !(I after a
period of t4o &ears. Again) this finding is not as dramatic as it ma& appear at first 4hen
4e consider that highl& motivated adult students 4ere re3uired to translate language
items predominantl& from the foreign language into their mother tongue. There is also no
precise information about 4hat use students made of the language in the period bet4een
testing.
4. Physiological and psychological benefits. In order to test 4hether the high results
reported in Suggestopedia 4ere obtained at the e*pense of students. health) Lozanov
carried out some investigations on the ph&siological and ps&chological effects of the
method. These led to the follo4ing claims5
It can be claimed with certainty that suggestopedic instruction has no unfavourable effect on the
health of students.
In a comparatively small percentage of students (17.4), suggestopedic instruction had a favourable
effect on some functional disorders.
A number of complaints of a neurotic nature disappeared during instruction, giving grounds for the
elaboration of methods for group psychotherapy for neurotic patients, by means of suggestopedic
instruction. (p.223)
It was established that in the suggestopedic schools neurotic disorders in children have decreased by
half compared with those of the control schools. (p.226)
These claims are based on the data of 3>$ 3uestionnaires in the case of the adults and on
the reports of 12 ps&chotherapists and universit& professors in the case of the children.
/e are not given an& precise information on ho4 3uestionnaires 4ere evaluated) and no
further descriptions of the nature of the t4o1&ear e*aminations and reports in the schools
are provided. Lozanov goes on to sa& that Ethe ps&chotherapeutic) ps&choh&gienic and
ps&choproph&lactic sides of suggestoped& 4ere e*perimentall& studied and corroborated
b& I.P. Gelovs;i "1>(1)1>(!# and b& other authors tooE "p.22$#. These authors) ho4ever)
are not identified) and Gelovs;i does not appear in the 2nglish bibliograph&. Instead)
Lozanov provides e*cerpts of letters received from students "p.22# 4hich support his
claims on a naturalistic basis. The onl& claims 4hich appear reasonabl& 4ell supported
b& the data from the 3uestionnaires "p.223# are that suggestopedic teaching has no
negative effects on the health of adult students) and that in some cases positive effects on
functional disorders are observed b& the students. In the absence of e*perimental data) the
other claims can be considered on a naturalistic basis onl&.
5. Achievement as compared to other methods. Lozanov "1>(8# reports t4o large
comparative studies in 4hich the results of e*perimental classes receiving suggestopedic
teaching 4ere compared to those of control classes receiving conventional teaching. The
first e*periment 4as a three14ee; stud& 4ith (! adults) assigned to 3 e*perimental and 3
control classes) being taught 2nglish and <rench. The second 4as a t4o1&ear e*periment
in t4o primar& schools. =ne school 4as assigned to the e*perimental condition 4hile the
other served as a control condition. In both studies achievement 4as found to be around
27I higher in the e*perimental classes. In the primar& school e*periment) ho4ever)
Lozanov ma;es further more dramatic claims regarding achievement) 4hich need to be
discussed since the& ma& have been the basis for e*aggerated claims about the
effectiveness of Suggestopedia b& other sources. A misinterpreted result of the adult
e*periment b& the research committee 4or;ing on the pro:ect also needs to be discussed)
since it resulted in a highl& e*aggerated claim being falsel& attributed to Lozanov.
Since the serious fla4s of the e*perimental procedures of the adult stud& have alread&
been discussed at length b& Scovel "1>(>#) 4e 4ill refer to them onl& briefl&. Lozanov.s
e*perimental procedures are poorl& described) especiall& 4ith regard to the assignments
of groups) to the method used in the control groups) and to the tests given. 2*perimental
data is poorl& presented and sometimes even inaccuratel& calculated5 the result of the
27.!I higher achievement of the e*perimental groups) for instance) is given as 21.!I
"p.1(#.
A more serious misinterpretation appears in the claim "p.2(# that results in the
e*perimental groups 4ere 2! times higher than in the controls "Lozanov.s boo;) ho4ever)
is so poorl& organised) and 4ith such large gaps in information) that it ma& be possible
that a different e*periment is being referred to#. Scovel "1>(>52!$# attributes this claim to
Lozanov5
The strong claims made about the potential benefits of suggestopedy do not come solely from his
publishers or disciples, however, they emanate, in fact, from Lozanov himself. In Chapter 2 of the
book under review, the claim is made that "As seen from the results obtained in experimental groups,
memorisation in learning by the suggestopedic method is accelerated 25 times over that in learning
by conventional methods."
This attribution is surprising) not merel& because this highl& dramatic claim is so far
removed from all the others that Lozanov ma;es) but because it is clear from the te*t that
it is not Lozanov himself 4ho ma;es the claim but the research committee 4or;ing on
the pro:ect.
0aturall& the author of a boo; must be responsible for its contentsF in Lozanov.s case)
ho4ever) it is possible that he did not have a chance to proofread the boo; before its
publication in the @nited States. If 9ancroft.s "1>($# observations are accurate) then it is
possible that sections of the boo; 4ere cut and rearranged 4ithout Lozanov.s ;no4ledge
or approval. This 4ould e*plain the poor organisation of the boo; and the missing
information. An error such as the above ma& also have been produced in the translation.
/e are here not tr&ing to ma;e e*cuses for the unscientific nature of Lozanov.s
presentation 4hich cannot be denied) 4e are simpl& tr&ing to establish 4hich claims have
been made about the effects of Suggestopedia and to attribute these to the proper sources.
<urther dramatic claims in the literature ma& be based on another 3uite uncharacteristic
finding 4hich Lozanov himself reports in relation to the primar& school e*periment. T4o
schools in t4o different villages 4ere chosen for this e*periment. Some information
about the children.s reading abilities 4as given) but no information about the teaching
method used in the control school. =ne school 4as designated as the e*perimental school
4hile the other became the control school. =ne serious fla4 in the research design 4as
that the e*perimental children 4ere taught in homogeneous groups 4hile the control
children remained in heterogeneous groups. The e*periment 4as conducted over t4o
&ears.
<or the first &ear achievement 4as generall& around 27I better "p.32!# in the
e*perimental school. The most dramatic finding 4as reported at the beginning of the
second &ear 4hen children in the e*perimental group solved ((.3>I of problems
presented 4hile the control children solved onl& !.28I "p.328#. This means that results in
the e*perimental group 4ere 1 times higher than those of the control group. Do4ever)
this result related to the testing of the second &ear material in mathematics 4hich had
alread& been covered in the e*perimental school in the first &ear) but 4hich could onl&
:ust have begun to be taught in the control school.
This constitutes an unfair comparison) and it 4ould have been more valid to conclude
that materials 4ere covered in half the time and compare results at the end of the second
&ear.
Instead Lozanov reports the results of t4o other schools) not hitherto mentioned) 4hich
appear to refer to similar tests under similar conditions. Dere results are $3 times higher
for the e*perimental students. Table ( "p.337# sho4s $!.83I for the e*perimental group
and 1.7I for the control group. These findings are so far removed from all others in the
boo;) that the research procedures) especiall& the basis on 4hich the testing 4as
conducted) must be seriousl& 3uestioned.
Lozanov "p.32(# claims that the above results 4ere corroborated b& a large scale
e*periment 4hich follo4ed) including a total of 1!77 pupils and 1$ researchers. 0o
further information on the design) procedure or sub:ect matter for testing is provided for
this e*periment. The results 4ere that the e*perimental children 4ho had been taught in a
five da& 4ee; 4ith no home4or;) assimilated 87.3I of the materials for the first grade
and 81I of the materials for the second grade. The control children 4ho had been taught
in normal teaching time "presumabl& one da& more per 4ee; 4ith the addition of
home4or;# assimilated $3.3I and $$.I respectivel&. /e do not ;no4 at 4hat stage the
second &ear materials 4ere tested) but it seems more li;el& this time that tests 4ere given
to the control group at the end of the second &ear. These results hardl& support the
dramatic result 3uoted above. Instead the& appear to corroborate the consistent findings
of the e*perimental group performing about 27I better than the control group throughout
the comparative e*periments reported in Lozanov "1>(8#.
?et the report of the dramatic results together 4ith the sensational claim made b& the
research committee above) ma& have been the basis of =strander and Schroeder.s
"1>(>522# claim that Elearning can be speeded up b& five to fift& timesE as an e*ample of
4hat can be achieved b& Suggestopedia. Another e*periment ma& have contributed to
this claim. This 4as an e*periment "Lozanov 1>(8537# in 4hich 1777 un;no4n 4ords
4ere presented to a group of highl& educated professionals and academics in a one da&
suggestopedic session. Sources 3uoting this e*periment fail to mention that it included 17
da&s of elaboration on the 4ords and 4as a one1off e*periment) even though Schuster
"1>(8# points this out in his revie4 of Lozanov.s 1>(8 publication. The claim that can
therefore be made for this e*periment is that 1777 4ords 4ere learnt in 11 da&s of
intensive teaching. The American publicit& release "Scovel 1>(>52!$# for Lozanov.s
boo;) ho4ever) claimed that 1777 4ords could be learnt Edail&E) and according to
"=strander C Schroeder 1>(>53# this achievement could even be improved5
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 was charted. In 1977, Lozanov reported, some tests
showed people capable of absorbing even 3000 words per day.
0o e*periments 4ith more than 1777 4ords are ;no4n to this author and at no stage does
Lozanov claim that even !77 4ords 4ere being learnt .per da&. 4hich implies that 3!77
4ords could be learnt in a 4ee;. -ross distortions of this nature did not enhance the
credibilit& of Suggestopedia as a viable teaching method. Since the boo; Superlearning
4as more readil& available to the general public than Lozanov.s "1>(8# publication) this
claim became falsel& associated 4ith Lozanov and 4ith suggestopedic language teaching.
9oth -assner1,oberts "1>8(# and Schiffler "1>8(# 3uote commercial language enterprises
4hich still advertise their courses on the basis of this and similarl& e*aggerated claims.
This practice has become so 4idel& spread that some language teaching enterprises
believe that the& have to dissociate themselves from such claims. Din;elmann "1>8851#
4rites5
3eider )erden -ber die Superlearning'=ethode i++er )ieder unsinnige <ehauptungen aufgestellt und
da+it Dorurteile ge)ec2t. So )ird +anch+al behauptet5 +an 2/nne da+it 5E +al schneller oder FEEE
Do2abeln pro #ag lernen. 1-r derartige <ehauptungen gibt es >edoch 2eine )ir2lichen <e)eise.
Unfortunately there are always nonsensical claims being made about the Superlearning method
which evoke prejudices. Sometimes it is claimed that one can learn 50 times faster or 1000 words per
day. However, there is no real proof to support such claims.]
Conclusions ' 3ozanovAs research. Lozanov carried out a great deal of research over a
long period of time 4ith a large number of sub:ects loo;ing at man& aspects of
suggestopedic instruction. @nfortunatel& his data is so poorl& reported that it is difficult
to chec; the validit& of man& findings. In general) Lozanov.s o4n claims about the effects
of Suggestopedia are not highl& dramatic) especiall& if 4e ta;e into consideration the
favourable conditions in 4hich his e*perimentation too; place. De does) ho4ever report
isolated and highl& uncharacteristic findings in a school e*periment 4hich can be
interpreted as achievement having been $3 times higher in the e*perimental group. The
onl& other dramatic claim) that results 4ere 2! times higher in the e*perimental groups)
appears to have been falsel& attributed to Lozanov. 0either finding is corroborated
an&4here else in Lozanov.s research or b& other sources. ?et claims of a similarl&
dramatic nature have appeared in the popular press and in the advertising of some
commercial language courses "see -assner1,oberts 1>8() Schiffler 1>8(#.
Daving e*amined Lozanov.s research in detail) it can be said 4ith certaint& that there is
no support 4hatsoever for claims that learning can be improved b& ! to !7 times or that
1777 4ords can be learnt dail&. There is some indication that achievement ma& be
improved b& about 27I) that large amounts of materials ma& be given) that retention
rates and functional use of materials are high) that materials ma& be learnt in half the
normal time in primar& schools and that there ma& be positive effects on the students.
ps&chological and ph&siological state. These indications are interesting enough to merit
further investigation.
2*tensive research has alread& been carried out in the /est follo4ing Lozanov.s "1>(8#
and =strander and Schroeder.s "1>(># publications. /e 4ill no4 e*amine these studies in
detail. In the light of the limitations of Lozanov.s research resulting from unsatisfactor&
research procedures and poorl& reported data) an effort 4ill be made to describe studies in
as much detail as possible.
(ESTERN RESEARCH

/hen Accelerative Learning 4as introduced in the /est in the 1>(7s) researchers began
to test the claims that had been made for the method. T4o broad categories of studies can
be identified5 those that used controlled e*perimental and 3uasi1e*perimental designs)
and those that 4ere carried out in a non1e*perimental environment. The latter 4ill be
discussed first.
NON - EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES
The first courses reported in the literature 4ere language courses) but other sub:ects 4ere
also taught 4ith either Suggestopedia, Superlearning or SALT on a non1e*perimental
basis. ,esults 4ere not compared 4ith a control group) but reported naturalisticall& as
the& had been observed. Teaching 4as generall& carried out in favourable conditions.
2*amples of such studies are Derr "1>(8) 1>(># 4ho taught -erman to college students
in the @.S.A.) -assner1,oberts "1>82# 4ho taught -erman to a mi*ed group including
teenagers) students and 4or;ing adults in Australia) Landhal "1>82# 4ho reports on
,ussian being taught to teachers in S4eden) and Daines "1>82# 4ho taught mathematics
to gifted fourth grade children in the @.S.A. All these studies used the SALT model) and
the observations reported support Derr.s "1>(851>(# conclusions5
SALT offers the teaching profession in total not just language teachers the opportunity of
accelerating student learning, of increasing the quantity and quality of learning, and leading to
greater student satisfaction and self-esteem.
A further stud& 4hich supports Derr.s "1>(8# findings 4as reported b& Bloc;ner "1>8#.
In this stud& Indochinese refugees in the @.S.A. 4ere taught 2nglish suggestopedicall&. It
is interesting to note that the students li;ed the baro3ue music used) Eand that it
contributed to a rela*ed atmosphere in the class) even though it did not carr& the peaceful
connotations 4hich /esterners associate 4ith it.E "p.(#
Daines "1>82# and -assner1,oberts "1>82# also report that students displa&ed a more
positive attitude to4ards the sub:ect than is usuall& observed.
These findings are supported b& Cooter "1>8$# 4ho reports on a five1&ear stud& using
various forms of SALT adaptations in the teaching of 2nglish grammar and punctuation
rules at a communit& college in the @.S.A.. 0ot onl& does he report consistentl& higher
achievement than can normall& be e*pected in these classes) 4ith scores being 4ithin the
range 87I to >1I) but he also mentions consistentl& better attitudes to4ards the sub:ect
than usual. It is interesting to note that student numbers in the 13 classes taught over five
&ears ranged from 1> to $> 4ithout significant differences in achievement. This suggests
that classes do not need to be small for the method to be effective. There 4ere also large
differences in drop1out rates over the &ears in the SALT classes ranging from 7I to >I
and not related to achievement) 4hich suggests that Accelerative Learning does not effect
drop1out rates in this environment.
There are also a small number of studies 4hich support Derr.s "1>(8# findings in the
secondar& school environment. Stoc;4ell "1>8!# taught 2nglish in Liechtenstein using
Suggestopedia) /agner "1>8!# 2nglish in /est -erman& using Superlearning and
Cureau "1>83# 2nglish in <rance using his o4n adaptation of Suggestopedia. 0o control
groups 4ere available in an& of these e*periments. Stoc;4ell taught in favourable
conditions 4ith small classes) pleasant surroundings and intensive teaching) 4hile the
other t4o studies 4ere carried out in the natural school environment. The ages of sub:ects
ranged from 12 to 18. It is interesting to note that although these studies 4ere conducted
in three different countries 4ith three different versions of Accelerative Learning and in
different environments) the observations made b& the researchers here) too) focussed on
the same elements mentioned b& Derr "1>(8# above. These observations again suggest
that favourable conditions are not necessar& for the method to be effective.
This is partl& supported b& Schiffler "1>8$b# 4ho found that the ph&sical environment in
suggestopedic teaching has little effect compared to the facilitative effect of music.
Intensive conditions) ho4ever) 4ere found to be important. Schiffler "1>8$b5128#
concluded that the Epositive influence of baro3ue music is essentiall& reduced in
e*tensive teaching of lessons a 4ee; as is usual in schoolsE.
The effect of Accelerative Learning has also been investigated in the primar& school
environment. The longest continuous stud& carried out in a primar& school in 2urope 4as
conducted in Austria over t4o and one half &ears "9eer 1>82#. T4o first grades and t4o
trained teachers) originall& under the supervision of Lozanov) too; part in the e*periment.
The ma:or advantages of Suggestopedia reported b& 9eer "1>(853(# 4ere that Ea
considerabl& larger amount of materials 4as covered) that achievement 4as 3uantitativel&
and 3ualitativel& better) that children became increasingl& more creative and that
aggressiveness occurred less fre3uentl& and in a reduced formE. 9eer goes on to report
some disadvantages of the method. These are that Ethe approach is still at an e*perimental
stage) 4hich means uncertaint& and e*tra 4or; for teachers. The& are re3uired to produce
their o4n materials and mobilise all their resources in order to do :ustice to the
programmeE. The most important 3uestion 4hich 9eer "1>(853(# raises is E4hether this
3uic;l& ac3uired material 4ill be retained over long periods of time or 4ill soon be
forgottenE.
Another long1term stud& in the primar& school environment 4as carried out in the @.S.A.
b& %richard and Ta&lor "1>87# over five &ears. Sub:ects participating 4ere at least one
&ear behind grade level on the Stanford 6iagnostic ,eading Comprehension Subtest and
had Intelligence Quotient "I.Q.# scores of at least (7. The& 4ere chosen from 7
elementar& schools in -eorgia and grade levels ranged from grade 2 to grade (.
Treatment consisted of an adapted Superlearning model. %richard and Ta&lor "1>875(8#
report that the treatment 4as Emost effective 4ith students 4ho 4ere near average in I.Q.)
had alread& ac3uired considerable vocabular& and 4ere old enough to consider
rela*ation) imager& and drama a pleasant diversion from .regular. instructionE. The&
report the treatment as least effective E4ith &oung "2nd grade# lo4er I.Q. students) some
of 4hom never 3uite seemed to catch on to 4hat 4as e*pected of them in the rela*ation
sessions or to participate full& in the dramaE. The average gain in reading comprehension
per month 4as reported as 51 for the &ounger children 4hich suggests that the gain in
reading comprehension score for the e*perimental children 4as four times higher than
that of the children taught in normal classes. <or the older children a ratio of 1$51 4as
reported. Although the authors 4ere encouraged b& the large gain scores recorded) the&
claim that the gains achieved b& the lo4 I.Q. students 4ere still not enough to bring them
up to grade level and to maintain them there. It is interesting to note that other teachers at
the school commented that three 3uarters of the children did not read as 4ell in other
classes as the& did in Ethe concentrated positive1suggestive atmosphereE in 4hich the&
4ere taught. "p.(>#
Although the above studies lend some support to some of the claims made b& Lozanov)
real comparisons 4ith traditionall& taught courses cannot be made because of the absence
of a viable control group in all these studies. There are some studies) ho4ever) in 4hich
such comparisons are made. 6rMbner "1>8$#) for e*ample taught <rench to a group of 1!
volunteer students at a 2achhochschule KInstitute of Technolog&L in /est -erman&.
Superlearning 4as used as the method of instruction and the stud& 4as carried out over
four 4ee;ends and 7 hours. ,esults 4ere compared 4ith a group 4ith the same number
of students 4hich had been taught over the same amount of time but in the normal t4o
hours per 4ee;. 0o other information is given about this .control group. e*cept that a
different te*t 4as used. 6rMbner reports that the e*perimental group learnt three times as
man& le*ical items "1277# as the .control group. and on the basis of these results further
calculations are performed 4hich sho4 that up to 12 times as much material could be
taught per semester if Superlearning 4ere used as a method of instruction. The 4a& in
4hich such a claim is to be interpreted is unclear. 0o information about the functional use
of those items b& the students is given. It is 3uite possible that 4hile the .control group.
learnt onl& one third of the amount of le*ical items) students in this group functioned
more ade3uatel& across the four language s;ills5 spea;ing) reading) 4riting and listening.
6rMbner.s stud& gives information onl& about recall abilit& 4hich) although important in
language learning) can be considered as the least difficult tas;.
An even more surprising comparison 4as made b& %hilipov "1>(8#. In this stud& the
achievement of a group of si* volunteer students taught 9ulgarian suggestopedicall& for
127 hours 4as compared 4ith a group of ten students selected at random from a group
4hich had been taught ,ussian traditionall& and in the normal universit& programme for
3$7 hours. Although it can be argued that at a beginning level language courses tend to
have similar ob:ectives) and that proficienc& in closel& related languages ma& be
comparable through standardised tests) this stud& still has the flavour of comparing
apples to oranges since 4e have no information about the .control group.. %roficienc& 4as
rated independentl& b& t4o native spea;ers of the respective languages on a 118 scale
especiall& designed for the purpose. /hile the 9ulgarian :udges gave identical ratings)
resulting in a median of !.(!) the ,ussian :udges did not give a single identical rating)
resulting in medians of .! and . The consistent discrepanc& in the ,ussian ratings poses
a 3uestion about the reliabilit& of the rating instrument.
Conclusions ' Gon'e&peri+ental studies. Studies conducted on a non1e*perimental basis
appear to support Lozanov.s ma:or claims. The ma:orit& of studies here claim that large
volumes of materials 4ere being taught) higher achievement than usual 4as attained and
affective variables 4ere being positivel& influenced as a result of the use of Accelerative
Learning. Do4ever) :ust as in Lozanov.s case) comparisons 4ith traditionall& taught
courses cannot be made since viable control groups 4ere not established in these studies.
Although the studies of both %hilipov "1>(8# and 6rMbner "1>8$# are interesting in terms
of the data 4hich is reported on a naturalistic basis) caution has to be ta;en about
interpreting claims made in such studies related to achievement and time saving) since the
control groups used in both cases 4ere convenient samples rather than viable groups of
comparison. /e do not ;no4 ho4 the control group 4ould have performed had it been
set up as part of the e*periment. In both cases it ma& have been more conservative to
conclude that large amounts of materials "1277 and1877 le*ical items respectivel&# ma&
be taught in a relativel& short time in intensive conditions. In the light of Schiffler.s
"1>8$b# observations) an important variable in these studies ma& have been the
condensed intensive teaching conditions. It 4ould be interesting) therefore) to replicate
these studies and compare students. performance in all four language s;ills 4ith a control
group 4hich had been taught in identical conditions using a different method. A stud&
4hich does almost all of this "+ignault 1>(># 4ill be reported belo4.
0aturall& it is difficult to control the environment outside a laborator& and in studies
involving interaction bet4een human beings. @sing comparable control groups in a
comparable environment) ho4ever) is the first step to more controlled research in an
educational setting. It is most important that the e*perimental group is not made up of
speciall& selected) highl& motivated volunteer students 4hose achievement is then
compared to a group of students ta;en out of the normal teaching environment 4here
different aims and ob:ectives are set) different materials are used and teaching time is not
intensive. /e 4ill therefore no4 loo; at e*perimental and 3uasi1e*perimental studies in
4hich viable control groups 4ere used as a means of comparison.
EXPERIMENTAL AND QUASI - EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES
In e*perimental studies sub:ects have been assigned at random to e*perimental
"treatment# or control conditions. In this design pre1tests are sometimes given as an e*tra
means for chec;ing initial group e3uivalence. Sub:ects ma& also have been matched
according to various characteristics relevant to the research prior to random assignment.
This last procedure is considered to be the most reliable b& Campbell and Stanle& "1>$(#.
In natural social settings) such as schools and other educational institutions) random
assignment is often impossible. In this environment a 3uasi1e*perimental design is often
emplo&ed. Comparisons of results in studies of this nature depend on non1e3uivalent
groups 4hich differ in 4a&s other than the presence of the treatment. In this design it is
most important to establish 4hether the claimed effects are indeed attributable to the
treatment and not to the non1e3uivalence of the groups. <or such studies it is important to
consider carefull& the possible threats to internal validit& of the stud&) and to e*amine the
influence of factors other than the treatment that ma& have contributed to the obtained
outcome.
In revie4ing the literature) as much information as possible 4ill be given about each
stud& in order to ascertain its significance and reliabilit&. A summar& of this information
is given in Table .1 "Schuster 1>($b is listed in Table .2 since this 4as the onl& stud& in
this section 4hich dealt 4ith language learning#. Studies are presented in three categories
firstl&) those that report a significant time savingF secondl&) those 4hich report
significant effects in affective variablesF and thirdl&) those 4hich report a significant
improvement in achievement.
#;=7 S$D;G6
In a stud& b& Schuster "1>($b#) one of t4elve beginning college Spanish classes) selected
at random) 4as taught using SALT procedures for one semester in one third of the usual
class time. ,esults 4ere compared 4ith t4o control classes) 4hich 4ere taught b&
different teachers using the same te*tboo;. /hile the e*perimental class 4as taught in a
single t4o1hour class per 4ee;) the controls 4ere taught in the usual si* contact hours per
4ee;. The final tests 4ere devised b& the control group teachers onl&. There 4ere no
significant differences in achievement bet4een the e*perimental and the control groups
although the e*perimental group had been taught the same materials in one third of the
time. It must be noted that since no pre1tests 4ere given) the e*perimental group)
although assigned at random as a 4hole) ma& have had higher language learning abilit&
or more previous ;no4ledge of the language. This stud& is reall& onl& marginall& better
controlled than 6Mbner.s "1>8$# stud& above. Do4ever) in Schuster.s stud&) e*perimental
students 4ere not volunteers) teaching did not ta;e place in intensive conditions) and both
4ritten and oral proficienc& 4ere tested.

Ta)le *+, Su--a&. "/ N"#0La#$ua$e S!u1ies+
Author Model Design Students Time Subject Con. Results
%eterson
1>((
SALT
3uasi1e*p.
pre1post
1 e*p
1 cntrl.
37 A 1 3uarter 0aval
Science
0 material taught in half the time
/alters
1>((
SALT
3uasi1e*p.
pre1post
1 e*p
1 cntrl.
S 1 term Gocat.
Agri1
culture
0 sign. Rhigher attitude
materials taught in one half time
Schuster
C %richard
1>((
SALT
3uasi1e*p.
pre1post
17 e*p
17 cntrl.
J %
S
1 &ear Garious 0 sign. Rhigher achievement in ( out
of 17 classes
other 3 ns
Schuster
C -inn
1>(8
SALT
3uasi1e*p.
pre1post
1 e*p
1 cntrl.
$ S 1 &ear 2arth
Science
0 sign. Rbetter attitude
sign. Rhigher achievement
S
* O T3.1!
%richard
Schuster
C /alters
1>(>
SALT
3uasi1e*p.
pre1post
2 e*p
2 cntrl.
J S J Agri1
business
0 sign. Rhigher achievement
%richard
Schuster
C -ensch
1>87
SALT
3uasi1e*p.
pre1post
1 e*p
1 cntrl.
31 % 1&ear ,eading 0 sign.RRhigher achievement
S
* O T.38
2d4ards
1>87
SALT
2*2*2*2
non1e3u.
controls
1(! % 1H2&ear Creativit& 0 sign.Rincreased creativit& on
! of 11 variables
2d4ards
CThomas
1>82
S@%
e*p.
pre1post
1 e*p
2 cntrl.
37 A 13uarter Self1
Concept
< sign.Rhigher overall self1concept
Applegate
1>83
S@%
3uasi1e*p.
pre1post
27 e*p
12 cntrl.
17!2 % 2&ears %rim.
S&llabus
0 sign.RRhigher achievement overall
after one &ear)
S
* O T13.$
similar results after second &ear)
no details available
better student behaviour
improved student time on tas;
teachers less stressed) more
confident.
Shrum
1>8!
Sugg
rel.
e*p.
pre1post
3 e*p
3 cntrl.
(2 A $4ee;s Arith1
metic
0 sign. Rhigher achievement
%ortes
1>8$
SALT
e*p.
pre1post
2 e*p
127 % 1sem %rim.
S&llabus
0 sign.Rhigher self1concept for first
grade) ns for fourth grade
2 cntrl.
Le$e#1 /"& Ta)le *+, a#1 *+2
Students. AOAdults SOsecondar& students %Oprimar& students

Con. O Conditions in 4hich e*periemntals 4ere taught.
0O0ormal teaching environment
<Ofavourable conditions "small classes) speciall& e3uipped room)
bloc; teaching#

Statistical signi"icance.
ROsignificant at pU.7!
RROsignificant at pU.71
RRROsignificant at pU.771
VOsignificant at pU.17
nsOnot significant

.esign@6roups
e*p.Oe*perimental
3uasi1e*p.O3uasi1e*perimental
cntrl.Ocontrol

Tests. pre1post. O pre1 and post1tests administered)

Time. hOhours mOminutes semOsemester

TLOtarget language

/alters "1>((# reports similar findings in teaching ninth grade students vocational
agriculture. In a 3uasi1e*perimental non1e3uivalent group design :unior high school
students) pre1tested for achievement and school attitude) 4ere taught in t4o classes b&
t4o different teachers. The e*perimental teacher used SALT procedures 4hile the control
teacher taught 4ith a conventional teaching method. 0o significant difference in
achievement 4as found after one term of teaching) but the e*perimental class had been
taught in less than half the time. /alters also reports significantl& better student1teacher
relations) better attitude to4ards school learning and better internal locus of control score
for the e*perimental students.
%eterson "1>((# taught t4o sections of the same universit& naval science class. <or the
first three 4ee;s he taught both halves identicall&) using a conventional teaching method.
+id1term results sho4ed that the t4o groups 4ere evenl& matched in terms of
achievement. After this the control group continued to be taught 4ith this method 4hile
the e*perimental group 4as taught using SALT procedures. 9oth groups 4ere taught b&
the same teacher. %eterson reports that the e*perimental group learnt the same materials
in half the time.
Conclusions ' #i+e saving. /hat is most noticeabl& missing in these studies is an
accurate description of the conventional teaching method) and in the first t4o cases a
profile of the teachers. 9oth variables on their o4n ma& have been po4erful influences in
the outcome of the studies. It is also argued b& some critics that the same teacherH
researcher cannot teach 4ith t4o different methods) 4ithout being influenced b& the
nature of the investigation. "The teacher variable in e*perimental educational studies 4ill
be more full& discussed later#. Although all these criticisms are valid and need to be
considered in evaluating studies of this ;ind) it is interesting to note that the above three
studies) completel& independent of each other) on completel& different sub:ects) and 4ith
three different designs) &ielded ver& similar results. There are other studies 4hich report
that the e*perimental group covered up to 177I more material in the same amount of
time "Bur;ov 1>((#) that the e*perimental group learnt materials that are usuall& covered
in the (( hours of t4o trimesters in 3$ hours "-assner1,oberts 1>82#) or that the
e3uivalent of a first &ear college course 4as covered in three 4ee;s of intensive
instruction corresponding to si* and one half 4ee;s of college instruction "Derr 1>(8#.
These findings lend support to Lozanov.s claim for time saving in Suggestopedia. The
magnitude of the time saving fluctuates bet4een one half and t4o thirds in the studies
cited here. Since /alters "1>((# and %eterson "1>((# represent the most tightl& controlled
design in this set) 4e can conclude that a time saving of one half ma& be possible 4hen
Accelerative Learning techni3ues are used in the instruction process.
;=P%HD7=7G# ;G $117C#;D7 D$%;$<37S
%ositive changes in affective variables as a results of Accelerative Learning are most
often mentioned on a naturalistic basis in studies 4hich are either non1e*perimental) such
as the report of improved self1esteem b& Derr "1>(8# above) or in studies 4hich set out to
investigate other dependent variables) such as achievement. 2*amples of the latter are
9otha "1>8$# 4ho reports improved attitude to4ards language and culture) and 9ro4n
"1>8$# 4ho reports improved behaviour 4ith moderatel& retarded sub:ects. There is)
ho4ever) a small bod& of studies 4hich investigated the effect of Accelerative Learning
on variables such as self1concept and school attitude using recognised instruments in an
e*perimental procedure. These 4ill be discussed here.
The most 3uoted stud& on self1concept enhancement through Accelerative Learning
techni3ues 4as carried out b& 2d4ards and Thomas "1>82#. In this e*periment 37 out of
>( students from introductor& ps&cholog& classes 4ho scored lo4est on the Tennessee
Self1Concept Scale "TSCS# 4ere randoml& assigned to t4o control groups and one
e*perimental group. =ne of the control groups received no treatment 4hile the other
participated in stage 1 of the e*perimental treatment.
The treatment in the e*perimental group consisted of three stages. <irst students 4ere
given t4o one hour progressive rela*ation sessions) one per 4ee;. This 4as follo4ed b&
three half hour individual sessions. In the first session students prepared their o4n uni3ue
list of statements relating to 4hat the& 4ould li;e to change about themselves) such as ,
can study more. In the second and third session this list consisting of (112 statements 4as
presented to the student using the Superlearning model. This procedure 4as follo4ed b&
five half hour group sessions in 4hich students 4ere encouraged to 4or; on their o4n list
to the bac;ground of baro3ue music. This included students visualising their success in
changing their self1concept. The TSCS 4as then re1administered to all groups. The results
4ere that the Total %ositive Score on the TSCS significantl& increased for the
e*perimental group but not for the control groups. /hile this result had been anticipated)
e*pectations that grades 4ould be better for the e*perimental group during the research
3uarter 4ere not confirmed.
/hile this stud& is interesting it does not sho4 that the use of Accelerative Learning on
its o4n enhances self1concept as has been suggested b& some of the non1e*perimental
studies above. In all the studies above a sub:ect independent of self1concept had been
taught and the observed changes in self1concept 4ere attributed to the method used not
the sub:ect taught. In this stud& the aim 4as not to teach -erman or ,eading but to
enhance self1concept scores using Accelerative Learning techni3ues. Self1concept 4or;
4as therefore a much larger part of the treatment than in an& of the other studies. This
stud& is reminiscent of Stanton.s "1>81)1>82)1>8# e*periments 4hich indicate that self1
concept or achievement ma& be improved using counselling techni3ues related to
Accelerative Learning. It must be noted) ho4ever) that these studies are of short duration
4ith fe4 sub:ects. Caution must therefore be ta;en 4ith generalising their findings.
The onl& stud& 4hich loo;ed at the effect of Accelerative Learning procedures on self1
concept independent of self1concept training 4as carried out b& %ortes and <oster "1>8$#
in the school environment. Si*t& first grade and $7 fourth grade students 4ere randoml&
assigned to e*perimental and control conditions. T4o teachers 4ho had been trained in
Accelerative Learning techni3ues taught the e*perimental groups using the SALT model.
Self1concept scores 4ere obtained b& administering the %iers1Darris Self1Concept Scale
in the first 4ee;s of the fall semester and again in spring. The findings 4ere that the
effect of the treatment interacted 4ith the children.s grade level and gender. 6ifferences
bet4een e*perimental and control groups 4ere significant at the first grade level but not
at the fourth grade level. These results suggest that children.s self1concept is more
susceptible to change at an earlier age. Do4ever) %ortes and <oster "1>8$# provide data
from educationall& handicapped and middle and high school groups on the same pre1 and
post1test 4hich sho4 a significant positive gain overall 4ith the highest gain in the high
school group.
Three studies could be located 4hich loo;ed at the effect of Accelerative Learning
techni3ues on attitude. All three 4ere carried out in the school environment. The results
of /alters "1>((# have alread& been reported above. A longer stud& is reported b&
Schuster and -inn "1>(8#. In this one &ear 3uasi1e*perimental stud&) achievement and
attitudinal measures of a ninth grade class taught earth science 4ith SALT procedures
4ere compared to those for a class taught the same materials b& another teacher using her
o4n method. The SALT teacher had received 127 hours of training in the method. The
children 4ere pre1 and post1tested for achievement and for three attitudinal measures
from the 9roo;s Student Questionnaire "9SQ#. These 4ere student1teacher affective
relations) perceived school stress and school learning orientation. Treatment 4as
administered to the e*perimental students for one 3uarter of the teaching time onl&.
Anal&sis of covariance "A0C=GA# sho4ed that achievement 4as significantl& higher in
the e*perimental group at the end of the &ear. At that time the e*perimental children also
had significantl& higher scores on all three attitudinal measures.
These findings) ho4ever) are not supported b& %richard) Schuster and -ensch "1>87#. In
this stud&) 4hich used the same design as the above) the effect of SALT techni3ues on
fifth grade reading abilit& 4as investigated. /hile the SALT class gained significantl&
more in reading comprehension and vocabular& than the control class) no differences
4ere found on the above attitudinal measures using the same instrument and procedure.
These studies 4ere part of a large investigation over t4o &ears "Schuster C %richard
1>(8# using a 3uasi1e*perimental pre1posttest design. The results based on the second
&ear findings sho4ed significantl& better achievement in seven out of ten classes but
sho4ed the SALT and control treatment e3ual in effect on students. attitudes. 0o
differences 4ere found in efficac& of the method bet4een :unior high and elementar&
school classes. ,esults related to achievement 4ill be further discussed belo4.
Conclusions ' $ffective variables. Again little or no information about teachers and
methods in control groups is given in all these studies. It must be pointed out that the
teacher.s personalit&) behaviour and teaching approach ma& have an effect in influencing
affective variables in particular. /hile Accelerative Learning appears especiall& suited to
improve such variables) other teaching approaches and particularl& aspects of the
teacher.s behaviour ma& have the same or even better effects.
Another consideration in these studies is the reliabilit& of the instruments used. It is 3uite
possible that &ounger children have difficulties in filling in 3uestionnaires of this nature.
This has been pointed out b& /&lie "1>$1# concerning the Tennessee Self1Concept Scale.
/hen the same 3uestionnaire is administered to older and &ounger children as in the t4o
studies investigating attitudinal measures above) it ma& be necessar& to test the suitabilit&
of the 3uestionnaire independent of the stud& in 4hich it is used. 6ifficulties relating to
the accurate measurement of affective variables have also been pointed out b& S4art
"1>8(#.
The effect of Accelerative Learning on affective measures has not been 4idel& tested in
controlled e*perimental designs) and findings) particularl& those concerning attitudinal
measures) appear to be inconsistent in the studies 4hich could be located. Do4ever) the
evidence here) together 4ith the consistent references to improved affective measures in
non1e*perimental studies) gives some support to the notion that Accelerative Learning
ma& have a positive effect on such measures. +ore e*perimentation 4ith 4ell tested
reliable instruments is recommended) ho4ever.
;=P%HD7( $C,;7D7=7G#
The ma:orit& of studies are concerned 4ith the investigation of this claim. Dere) too) a
variet& of studies in terms of sub:ect) research design and length of stud& have been
surve&ed. These include studies carried out in favourable conditions and in natural
conditions) and studies using children and adults as sub:ects. A large range of studies
need to be investigated if Lozanov.s "1>(8# claim for the adaptabilit& of the method to
an& environment is to be tested. The non1language studies 4ill be presented first.
Non-language studies
%richard) Schuster and /alters "1>(># report on the use of SALT procedures in teaching
agribusiness to ninth grade children. T4o of four classes) taught b& the same teacher 4ere
assigned at random to the SALT treatment 4hile the other t4o 4ere taught conventionall&
serving as control groups. +id1term test results) obtained before the treatment
commenced) 4ere used as control data. The final e*am results 4ere significantl& higher
in the e*perimental groups than in the controls.
2d4ards "1>87# investigated the effect of SALT procedures on the creativit& of 1(! fifth
grade and eighth1ninth grade children in Central Io4a %ublic schools. A 2*2*2*2 non1
e3uivalent control group design 4as emplo&ed to test for differences related to eleven
verbal and figural creativit& variables on the Torrance Test of Creative Thin;ing "TTCT#.
Treatment 4as administered for $1( months in the e*perimental classes. The findings
4ere that the e*perimental children had significantl& increased creativit& 4hen compared
to the controls on five of the eleven variables. These 4ere Everbal originalit&) figural
fluenc&) fle*ibilit& and elaboration and the number of creative strengthE. "p.23!# A trend
to4ards favourable scores for the SALT groups 4as reported for 17 out of the 11 scores.
An e*tensive stud& investigating the effect of Accelerative Learning in the school
environment 4as carried out b& Applegate "1>83# in California. Since it 4as impossible
to obtain the original stud&) 4e have to rel& on the reports b& Schuster and -ritton "1>8!#
and ,ose "1>8!#. Although 4e have no e*act record of ho4 classes 4ere assigned or ho4
tests and 3uestionnaires 4ere administered) this stud& is 4orth inclusion for three
reasons5 firstl&) it is the largest reported stud& in the fieldF secondl&) results 4ere obtained
and evaluated b& an independent bod& of researchersF and thirdl&) results are consistent
4ith the smaller studies reported above.
In this federall& funded stud& !38 e*perimental students 4ere taught 4ith Superlearning
for t4o &ears. Their achievement 4as compared utilising the California Achievement Test
4ith that of !1( control students 4ho had been taught conventionall&. The end of first
&ear results sho4ed a significantl& higher mean gain score in achievement "reading)
maths) spelling and 4riting# for the e*perimental students "*O$.># 4hen compared to the
controls "*O33.#. =f all e*perimental classes onl& one did not sho4 significantl& higher
achievement than the control) though its performance 4as comparable to that of the
control. The end of second &ear results sho4ed similar results but no detailed information
is given. It 4as also reported that behavioural problems 4ere significantl& reduced in the
e*perimental classes 4hile the& increased in the control classes. Additionall&) more time
on tas; 4as recorded for the e*perimental students. 2*perimental teachers 4ere reported
as more able to self1regulate their stress and control classroom problems than the control
teachers.
A long1term stud& 4as carried out b& %richard and Schuster "1>(8# in Central Io4a
%ublic schools. In this t4o &ear 3uasi1e*perimental pre1posttest design SALT procedures
4ere compared to conventional teaching in a variet& of sub:ects from vocational
agriculture to -erman. 2lementar& and :unior high school students from grades 1 to 17
too; part in the pro:ect. 2*perimental teachers had been trained in Accelerative Learning
procedures for bet4een 7 and 127 hours. The first &ear 4hich 4as treated as a pilot &ear
sho4ed ver& mi*ed results. =ut of 1$ SALT classes 3 sho4ed significantl& higher
achievement than the respective controls. "These have been reported above.# Three
sho4ed significantl& lo4er achievement 4hile the rest sho4ed comparable achievement.
In this pilot &ear) ho4ever) the emphasis 4as put on tr&ing the method out in the
classroom for preliminar& evaluation) and data collection had not al4a&s been
satisfactor&.
In the second &ear 17 out of the 1$ classes continued the e*periment under more tightl&
controlled conditions 4ith more e*perienced teachers. The ma:or sub:ect taught 4as
elementar& school spelling. /hen results 4ere compared at the end of the &ear significant
differences in achievement favouring the e*perimental class 4ere found in ! spelling
classes "grades 3) ! and $#) in a -erman class "grade ># and in an agribusiness class
"grade >#. ,esults in the other three classes 4ere comparable to the respective control
group results. =ne of these 4as another -erman class taught b& a different teacher. The
spelling and -erman classes are cited here rather than in the language section belo4)
since the& 4ere part of a large scale stud&) and no separate detailed information about
procedures 4as available.
The most controlled stud& in terms of e*perimental design 4as carried out b& Shrum
"1>8!# in a prison environment. In this stud& the effect of a treatment approach including
elements of Suggestopedia on achievement in basic Arithmetic 4as investigated. The
research design 4as a randomised pre1posttest control group model and the stud& 4as
replicated three times. Sub:ects 4ere (2 adult male prisoners. Treatment 4as carried out
over si* 4ee;s. The Arithmetic Level II section of the standardised /ide ,ange
Achievement Test "/,AT# 4as administered to each group of 2 sub:ects prior to
treatment to test for initial group e3uivalence. The same instrument 4as administered at
the end of the treatment. Anal&sis of variance "A0=GA# sho4ed significant differences
in achievement favouring the e*perimental groups.
Conclusions ' $chieve+ent in non'language studies. Audging from these studies it can
be said that achievement ma& indeed be improved using Accelerative Learning
procedures in the teaching of non1language sub:ects. Apart from the stud& on creativit&)
achievement in most studies related to recall of factual materials or vocabular&. In this
section the achievement of 1 e*perimental classes 4ere compared to 33 control classes.
=f these classes sho4ed comparable results to the controls 4hile all others sho4ed
significantl& higher results. =nl& in the instance of a pilot &ear stud& "not included in this
count# did 3 e*perimental classes perform significantl& less 4ell than the controls. 0o
other stud& could be located 4hich reports lo4er achievement in the e*perimental class.
0aturall& several possible threats to validit& such as teacher1treatment confound and
Da4thorne and ,osenthal effects) must be considered in studies of this nature. In almost
all cases e*perimental and control conditions 4ere taught b& different teachers 4hich
ma& have influenced results. Do4ever) it is highl& unli;el& that all the superior results
reported here are due to superior teachers in the e*perimental condition. Several 4a&s of
addressing the teacher1treatment confound 4ill be sho4n in the language studies
discussed belo4.
/hether the superior performance can be attributed to other effects) such as the
e*perimental students feeling more important because of the novelt& of the approach
"Da4thorne effect#) or the e*perimental teacher.s positive e*pectations of their group.s
success ",osenthal effect#) is almost impossible to sa& since 4e do not have enough
detailed information about the nature of these studies. Aournal space is usuall& ver&
limited 4hich often results in important information being omitted from an article
describing an e*periment. Since almost all students 4ere involved in pre1 and post1
testing) it ma& be assumed that attention 4as not solel& directed to4ards the e*perimental
students) and since control teachers 4ere a4are of the nature of the e*periments) the&
ma& have made an effort to match the performance of the e*perimental groups. Although
it ma& be possible that these effects influenced the outcome of some studies) it cannot be
assumed that this 4as the case in all studies.
Language Studies
The largest number of language studies have been carried out in non1e*perimental
conditions. +an& 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 4ith language studies 4hich has been emphasised b& linguists "Scovel 1>(>)
9aur 1>82#) is that the& often test recall abilit& onl&. This is true for most of Lozanov.s
"1>(8# research as 4ell as for that of 6rMbner "1>8!#. It 4as also the ma:or variable
tested in the non1language studies above. Although recall abilit& is an important element
in language learning) it is an e*clusivel& receptive tas; since in most cases the foreign
language items need onl& be recognised and translated into the mother tongue. <unctional
use of language items involves both receptive and productive s;ills) 4ritten as 4ell as
oral and aural. /hen comparing results it 4ould therefore be most interesting to loo; at
as man& language s;ills as possible. In this section 4ell controlled studies 4hich
compared more than :ust recall abilit& are presented. As much information as possible
about materials) tests and control methods is given. Since most studies compare
Accelerative Learning to conventional methods 4hich are generall& described as
grammar1translation based) an attempt has also been made to locate studies 4hich use
non1conventional methods as a means for comparison) and studies 4hich compare
Accelerative Learning to intensive language learning. A summar& of these studies is
given in Table .2.

Ta)le *+2 Su--a&. "/ La#$ua$e S!u1ies+
Author Model Design Students Time Subject Con. Results
,obinett
1>((
Sugg
e*p.
pre1post
2 e*p.
1 cntrl.
>8 A 37*
!7m
sess.
Spanish <
0
sign. Rhigher achievement in
e*p.1 T11.>I
sign. RRhigher achievement in
e*p.2 T1.I
sign. RRfe4er absences in e*p.1
Schuster
1>($b
SALT
3uasi1e*p.
1 e*p.
1 cntrl.
!1 A 1 sem. Spanish 0 materials taught in 1H3 time
less home4or;
+ignault
1>(>
Sugg
3uasi1e*p.
pre1post
2 e*p
3 cntrl.
> A >7h <rench J materials taught in $7h less than
intensive control
beginners sign.Rhigher
ach.overall
intermediates sign.Rhigher in
reading than intensive
sign.R higher achievement
overall
compared to normal universit&
course
9ass
1>87
SALT
e*p.
pre1post
1 e*p
2 cntrl.
!8 A 13*
7m
sess.
2nglish 0 sign. Rhigher achievement than
structural anal&sis group
S
* O T!.1$
difference bet4een e*p. and
combination control ns
Bnibbler
1>82
Sugg
e*p.
! e*p
! cntrl.
>> A 7h <rench 0 higher regard for learning abilit&
higher motivation to continue
4ritten not tested
oral ns) listening comprehsnsion
ns
-assner1
,oberts
C 9rislan
1>8
SALT
e*p.
1 e*p
2 cntrl.
2 A 1acad.
&ear
-erman < overall 4ritten T 11.8I
oral T$I
not statisticall& anal&sed
4or; seen as less demanding
less home4or;
9otha
1>8!
SALT
3uasi1e*p.
pre1post
1 e*p
! cntrl.
13 A 7h Afri;aans < sign. Rbetter attitude to4ards
language and culture
4ritten proficienc& higher
overallV
oral proficienc& ns
Schiffler
1>8$
Sugg
e*p.
pre1post
2 e*p
2 cntrl.
(2 A 28h <rench <
0
4ea; e*p. sign.RRbetter
comprehension
sign.RR better translation from
TL
strong e*p.sign.Rbetter grammar
sign.R better translation into TL
Schiffler
1>8$
Sugg
e*p.
pre1post
2 e*p
2 cntrl.
J A 28h <rench J 4ea; e*p. sign.RRbetter oral
proficienc&
strong e*p. ns overall
=dendaal
1>8(
Sugg
3uasi1e*p.
pre1post
1 e*p
1 cntrl.
32 A 33h 2nglish < sign.RRRhigher oral proficienc&
sign.RRRhigher verbal I.Q.
sign.R higher non1verbal I.Q.
sign.RRRhigher total I.Q.
attitude to4ards language T
culture ns

Co+parison )ith intensive conditions.
+ignault "1>(># investigated the effect of Accelerative Learning on the learning of
<rench for beginners and intermediate students at universit& level in Canada. All students
4ere pre1tested using the International Stud& of 2ducational Achievement "I2A# test
batter&. This test is used to evaluate levels of competence in <rench after a number of
&ears of high school learning. Competence in all four language s;ills "reading) 4riting)
listening and spea;ing# 4as tested separatel&. The achievement of the intermediate
e*perimental students 4ho had been taught suggestopedicall& for >7 hours 4as compared
to that of 2 control conditions. =ne control group had been taught for the same amount of
time as the e*perimental students but in the normal universit& programme using a
conventional grammar based method) the other had been taught for 1!7 hours in intensive
conditions using the E6e Give Goi*E method. /hile no further information is given on the
method used in the intensive condition) it can be assumed from the name that this method
has a large oral content. 0o information on the number of teaching hours per da& for the
intensive or the e*perimental condition is given. Since the e*perimental treatment 4as
described as being based on the ELozanov +odelE it is assumed that teaching in the
e*perimental group too; place for hours dail&. +aterials for the e*perimental teaching
4ere especiall& designed for the course. Achievement of the beginners students 4as
compared to the intensive condition onl&.
At beginners level A0C=GA sho4ed that .overall progress. "presumabl& an average score
for measures of the four language s;ills tested# 4as significantl& better in the
e*perimental group 4ith the most significant difference being found in the listening s;ill.
At the intermediate level progress varied. In reading the e*perimental students performed
significantl& better than the control group 4hich had been taught in intensive conditions
but there 4ere no significant differences in overall progress bet4een these groups. The
e*perimental group had) ho4ever) been taught in $7 hours less time. /hen compared to
the control group from the normal universit& programme overall progress 4as
significantl& better in the e*perimental group.
2*tensive student evaluations of the e*perimental method sho4ed that a large number of
students 4ere highl& favourable to the method and the philosoph& behind it. A fe4
students reacted negativel& to the method because the& favoured a more Estrictl&
conscious and anal&ticalE "p.17(# approach. In general the students Eindicated their
appreciation of the rela*ed atmosphere of the class) the 4arm supportive attitudes of the
instructors and of their peers) and the absence of grade1oriented competitionE. "p.17(#
It is interesting to note the difference in achievement bet4een the beginners and the
intermediate students in this stud&. /hile the beginners made significantl& better progress
in all s;ills from pre1 to post1test than a control group 4hich 4as not onl& taught
intensivel& but also for an e*tra $7 hours) the intermediate students made better progress
than the intensivel& taught group in reading s;ill onl&. This appears to suggest that
Accelerative Learning is more effective 4ith beginning language students. Do4ever)
caution must be ta;en 4ith dra4ing conclusions of this nature since other variables such
as teacher behaviour or differential administration of treatment ma& have been
responsible for the difference.
It is also difficult to dra4 definite conclusions about the role of intensive teaching time
from this stud&. The fact that the intermediate students performed significantl& better
overall than the normal universit& class but not significantl& better overall than the
intensivel& taught class suggests that distribution of teaching time ma& have an effect.
Do4ever) it is not clear 4hether the difference bet4een groups should be attributed to the
intensit& of the teaching alone) for the intensive groups also received an additional $7
hours of instruction. This e*tra time ma& also have contributed to the effect.

Co+parison )ith conventional +ethods.
9ass "1>8!# investigated the effect of Accelerative Learning procedures on 2nglish
vocabular& learning 4hen compared to a structural anal&sis method and a further method
using a combination of the t4o. The e*perimental group had the full SALT treatment
including s&nchronisation of breathing and presentation of 4ords. Items 4ere not
anal&sed but presented 4holl&. The structural anal&sis group 4as taught b& anal&sing
suffi*es) prefi*es and root 4ords. The combination group had the same treatment as the
SALT group) but also anal&sed 4ord parts. Sub:ects 4ere !8 volunteers from freshman
2nglish classes at a private college in -eorgia. The& 4ere pre1tested 4ith a multiple
choice vocabular& test) ran;ed) and then assigned at random to one of the three
treatments. All three groups 4ere taught b& the same teacher. The teacher.s behaviour 4as
found to be consistent bet4een groups b& five independent raters. Items to be rated
included enthusiasm) sincerit&) demonstration of belief in method and belief that learning
4ill occur. A total of 3>7 4ords and definitions 4as presented to each group in thirteen
71minute lessons held t4ice a 4ee;. /hile all three treatments sho4ed significant gains
from pre1 to post1test) a one 4a& anal&sis of variance "A0=GA# revealed a significant
difference in mean scores on the post1test favouring the SALT group over the structural
anal&sis group.
These findings are particularl& interesting since one might h&pothesise that if the SALT
group performs significantl& better than the structural anal&sis group) then the
combination group should also do so. This 4as not the case) ho4ever) and lends support
to Lozanov.s "1>(8# claim that a global presentation of material is more effective than
anal&sis of ever& item. The addition of anal&sis of 4ords ma& 4ell have been counter
productive in the SALT c&cle b& confusing or rushing the students. Some students in this
group commented on feeling rushed or needing more time for the method to 4or; 4hich
4as not mentioned in the SALT group. Lozanov "1>(8# also states that Ean& eclectic
combination of suggestoped& 4ith other methods brings a ris; of lo4er effectiveness and
of fatigue in the studentsE. "p.333# This ma& have been demonstrated in this stud&.
=dendaal "1>8(# investigated 4hether proficienc& in 2nglish as a second language could
be increased more rapidl& b& Suggestopedia. Sub:ects 4ere 3rd &ear diploma of
education students at t4o South African teachers. colleges. Their mother tongue 4as
Afri;aans. Since random assignment 4as not possible the t4o groups) 4hich 4ere 4ell
matched for se*) age) place of residence) academic 3ualifications and professional
training) 4ere e*tensivel& pre1tested for 2nglish proficienc&) attitude to4ards the 2nglish
language and culture and I.Q. Instruments used 4ere the Carroll and Bitching 2nglish
%roficienc& tests) an adapted version of the 9otha attitude opinionnaire and the 0u4e
Suid1Afri;aanse -roeptoets I.Q. test. 0o significant differences bet4een groups 4ere
found on the pre1tests.
9oth groups 4ere taught for 33 hours. The e*perimental group received 1.! hours
instruction ever& da& for four and a half 4ee;s 4hile the control group received five 3!
minute classes per 4ee; for eleven 4ee;s. +aterials for the e*perimental group 4ere
especiall& designed 4hile the control group used standard literar& and language te*ts. The
e*perimental group 4as taught 4ith Suggestopedia in a speciall& e3uipped room 4hile
the control group 4as taught traditionall& in regular lecture rooms. 0o further
information is given about the method of instruction in the control group.
Anal&ses using t1tests sho4ed the follo4ing results. 0o significant changes 4ere found
for the control group on an& of the test scores including the attitude 3uestionnaire. <or the
e*perimental group there 4as a much larger trend to4ards improved attitude scores) but
this difference 4as not significant. Do4ever) significant changes 4ere found on all other
test scores. Dighl& significant "pU.71# changes 4ere found on both proficienc& tests) the
score on the Carroll scale) for e*ample) being raised from $.38 to (.1 4hile the score for
the controls dropped slightl& from $.3 to $.3. There 4ere also statisticall& significant
changes in verbal I.Q. "pU.771#) in non1verbal I.Q. "pU.7!#) and in total I.Q. "pU.771#.
2*perimental students 4ere also given a 3uestionnaire on their impressions of the method
used. The main conclusions 4ere summarised b& =dendaal "1>8(528#5 E =ut of a
possible ($ responses 21 4ere negative. -reat :o& 4as generated during and seemingl&
b& the course Tension during the learning situation 4as greatl& reduced. Sub:ects 4ere
conscious of increased rela*ation and loss of inhibitions. Sub:ects. perception of their
o4n command of the target language improved Sub:ects e*perienced a more positive
attitude to4ards 2nglish. The group d&namics generated in the group promoted better
social relationsE.
-assner1,oberts and 9rislan "1>8# investigated the effect of Accelerative Learning
techni3ues on the learning of beginners -erman over one academic &ear at an Australian
universit&. The achievement of t4o control groups) one taught during the da&) the other in
the evening) 4as compared to that of an e*perimental group. Students 4ere assigned at
random to the different conditions. The control students 4ere taught b& t4o different
teachers using conventional methods) largel& grammar based) 4hile the e*perimental
class 4as taught b& a third teacher using the SALT model. Identical materials 4ere used
in all three classes) but the e*perimental class dealt 4ith ! additional chapters prepared
b& the teacher and learnt > songs. /hile the control students 4ere taught in normal
classrooms) the e*perimental students 4ere taught in a speciall& e3uipped room. The
amount of teaching time 4as close to identical in the three groups but distributed
differentl& over the 4ee;. The control group taught during the da& in the normal
universit& programme met for !7 minutes ever& da&. The other t4o groups met for double
!7 minute sessions on +onda& and /ednesda& and for !7 minutes on <rida&. 9oth these
latter groups 4ere taught at the same time in the earl& evening.
Language proficienc& 4as tested a number of times throughout the &ear5 in mid1&ear
4ritten) end1of1&ear 4ritten) oral and ob:ective tests. 9oth the mid1&ear 4ritten and the
end1of1&ear ob:ective test 4ere unannounced. The 4ritten tests included grammar)
translation) coversational 3uestions and ans4ers related to the te*tboo;) and creative
4riting. The ob:ective test consisted of grammar and comprehension 3uestions in a
multiple choice format. In the oral test students 4ere e*amined on the content of t4o
literar& te*ts. Compared to the t4o control groups as a 4hole the e*perimental group
performed 1!I better in the mid1&ear 4ritten test) (.8I better in the end1of1&ear 4ritten
test) 12.!I better in the ob:ective test and $I better in the oral test. Compared to the
control group 4hich 4as taught in identical teaching time) the results for the e*perimental
group 4ere 1$.(I) (.(I) 1$I and >I higher for the respective tests. 0o anal&ses 4ere
carried out to test 4hether an& of these differences 4ere statisticall& significant.
6espite this) the results are of interest 4ith respect to consideration of teaching time)
especiall& in the light of +ignault.s "1>(># findings 4hich suggested that intensive
teaching time ma& have a positive effect on achievement. The relativel& small difference
found b& -assner1,oberts and 9rislan "1>8# bet4een the e*perimental group) and the
control group 4hich did not have intensive teaching) indicates that this feature is not
crucial. It must be pointed out) ho4ever) that this latter group had lost $I of the original
students 4hereas the other control group had lost 1(I and the e*perimental group had
lost 33I. The significant difference in drop1out rates ma& have influenced the outcome.
Students 4ere also administered a 3uestionnaire on the -erman course in general. In this
most students from the control groups described their course as far more demanding than
an& other first &ear course in 4hich the& 4ere enrolled. This vie4 4as onl& shared b& one
of the e*perimental students. Another difference related to the hours spent on home4or;.
/hile the control students spent an average of 17.! hours per 4ee; on home4or;) the
e*perimental students averaged hours.
A separate 3uestionnaire on aspects of the treatment 4as given to the e*perimental
students. All ans4ers here 4ere in favour of the method used. EStudents e*pressed their
appreciation of the rela*ed atmosphere in the class) the group humour) the opportunit& for
personal participation) the enthusiasm of teacher and fello4 students) the social aspects)
etc. =n the critical side a fe4 students suggested that more formal grammar should be
incorporated into the lessons and fe4er tests should be givenE. "p.2#
,obinett "1>(!# investigated the effect of Accelerative Learning on the learning of
second semester Spanish at an American College. Students 4ere randoml& assigned b&
enrolment to 2 e*perimental and 1 control class. 2*tensive measures 4ere ta;en before
treatment began to chec; for the groups. compatibilit&. <irst semester Spanish scores)
high school -rade %oint Average "-%A#) and Scholastic Aptitude Test "SAT# verbal
scores and percentiles 4ere calculated for all groups and no significant differences 4ere
found. Teaching too; place over si* 4ee;s in thirt& !7 minute sessions. Treatment in the
e*perimental classes consisted of an adapted version of Suggestopedia. The first
e*perimental group "0O$$# had t4o of the five 4ee;l& classes taught suggestopedicall&
and the second e*perimental class "0O1# four of five so taught. The control group
"0O18# had all classes taught conventionall&. 0o further information on the control
method is given. Three teachers shared the teaching. =n +onda&s all groups 4ere given a
test b& teacher A. The control group 4as taught b& teachers A and 9. 9oth e*perimental
groups 4ere taught b& teachers A and C 4ith both teachers administering the treatment.
Achievement after teaching 4as measured b& a 4ritten ob:ective test. =ral proficienc&
4as not tested. ,esults 4ere significantl& higher for both e*perimental classes. The mean
scores 4ere $1.77 for the control group) (2.>2 for the first and (!.38 for the second
e*perimental group. This is a ver& interesting result since the first e*perimental class had
about four times as man& students as both the other e*perimental class and the control
class and onl& t4o treatment sessions per 4ee;. ?et it performed onl& marginall& less
4ell than the small e*perimental class 4hich had four treatment sessions a 4ee; and
significantl& better than the control class. This appears to support Cooter.s "1>8$#
findings that high achievement can e3uall& be attained b& small and large classes) at least
as far as 4riting s;ills are concerned.
Students. attitudes to4ards Suggestopedia in ,obinett.s "1>(!# stud& 4ere not as positive
as the ones reported in -assner1,oberts and 9rislan "1>8# and in +ignault "1>(>#
above. Students. evaluations 4ere not over4helmingl& positive) some 4ere negative and
man& 4ere neutral. The teachers. evaluation of the method 4as generall& positive but also
not over4helming in terms of its facilitative effect on retention. The differences in
attitudes in these studies ma& have several causes the difference in the length of the
studies) differences in the administration of the treatment) more comparable control
treatment) teacher personalit&) 3uestionnaire design) and man& more. Comparing the
results of ,obinett.s "1>(!# stud& 4ith those reported b& -assner1,oberts and 9rislan
"1>8# above) it appears that students. attitudes to4ards the method do not have a
determining effect on achievement since results 4ere ver& similar in both studies despite
a substantial difference in students. attitudes.

Co+parison )ith non'conventional +ethods.
9otha "1>8$# investigated the effect of Accelerative Learning on the learning of
Afri;aans as a second language b& 2nglish spea;ing first and second &ear students at a
South African teachers. college 4hen compared 4ith communicative language teaching.
A ver& complicated design) described as a calculated groups design 4as used in this
stud&. =n the basis of calculated pre1tests the 1 lo4est scorers 4ere selected to form the
e*perimental group. The 12> control students 4ere divided into four groups but not
taught in these groups. Control group 1 contained all first &ear students e*cluding the 1
e*perimental students. Control group 2 contained the ne*t 1 4ea;est students from the
first &ear. Control group 3 contained all second &ear students. Control group contained
the 4ea;est second &ear students. Control groups 2 and 4ere given as the most
comparable groups to the e*perimental group. All control students together formed
control group !. 0one of the students ;ne4 that the& 4ere involved in an e*periment.
Control groups 1 and 2 and the e*perimental group had 8> hours of teaching) of 4hich
onl& 7 hours 4ere taught using the SALT model in the e*perimental group. Control
groups 3 and had 1$ hours instruction. The controls 4ere taught b& different teachers
using a ne4 communicative course 4hile the e*perimental class 4as taught b& the
researcher for the SALT classes but not for the other classes. A speciall& e3uipped room
4as used for the SALT classes 4hile all other classes 4ere taught in regular lecture
rooms.
9oth 4ritten "L%T# and oral language proficienc& "=%T# 4ere tested before and after
teaching. L%T 4as tested 4ith a multiple choice test 4hich had been e*tensivel& used in
previous studies. =T% 4as measured more e*tensivel&. The <oreign Service Institute
"<SI# proficienc& test 4as used together 4ith the Carroll proficienc& test in the
assessment of students. oral performance. T4o or more students 4ere placed in
communicative situations 4here the& had to perform in the target language on a chosen
topic for appro*imatel& the same length of time. Gideos 4ere then 4atched b& all three
Afri;aans lecturers and assessed individuall&.
<or L%T the differences in achievement "apparentl& gain scores# 4ere significantl& higher
in the e*perimental group than in the controls 1 and 3 and overall. 0o significant
differences 4ere found bet4een the e*perimental group and controls 2 and ) 4hich is
interesting since the& 4ere described as the t4o most comparable groups to the
e*perimental group since the&) too) 4ere made up of 4ea; students. It is surprising that
the e*perimental group achieved significantl& higher results than a group "control 3#
4hich 4as not onl& tested to be more able but 4hich had also been taught for almost
t4ice as long. <or =%T no significant differences 4ere found bet4een the e*perimental
and an& of the controls. It is interesting to note that this result is not discussed in 9otha.s
conclusions. Considering that the e*perimental group 4as the lo4est scoring group on
the pre1tests) the fact that it did not achieve significantl& less than the controls) some of
4hich 4ere taught for much longer and 4ith a method 4hich possibl& places more
emphasis on oral production s;ills than Suggestopedia, is an interesting result. It must be
pointed out) ho4ever) that the level of significance for all these t1test anal&ses 4as set at
pU.17 4hich is much higher than the usual .7! level observed in all other studies reported
here.
Students 4ere also pre1 and post1tested on attitudes to4ards the Afri;aans language and
culture. <or this an opinionnaire developed b& the author 4as used. Its internal validit&
had been tested in a previous stud&. The differences found here bet4een the e*perimental
group and the controls 4ere significant in all cases but one "control # at pU.7!. This can
therefore be interpreted as the most significant result of this stud&. This result is
especiall& interesting since =dendaal "1>8(# found no significant differences in attitude
bet4een e*perimentals and controls using the same instrument adapted to 2nglish.
Another stud& 4hich compared Accelerative Learning to a non1conventional teaching
method 4as conducted b& Bnibbler "1>82#. In this stud& suggestopedic teaching of
<rench 4as compared 4ith the Silent /a&) a language teaching method 4hich is
predominantl& student centered. In this method) in contrast to Suggestopedia, students do
most of the tal;ing 4hile the teacher remains largel& silent. =n the basis of pre1tests
students 4ere divided into beginners and intermediates and then randoml& assigned to
one of ten groups. Seven teachers taught either 4ith Suggestopedia or 4ith the Silent
/a& method) 4hile three teachers taught 4ith both. Teachers had been trained in both
methods. Teaching too; place for 7 hours. 0o information about materials is given.
Students 4ere post1tested for listening comprehension) correctness in spea;ing and
spea;ing fluenc&. Although there 4as a tendenc& for beginning Suggestopedia students to
perform better overall than beginning Silent /a& students) and for intermediate Silent
/a& students to perform better on the oral tests than intermediate Suggestopedia students)
no significant differences 4ere found on an& of these variables bet4een the t4o methods.
Do4ever) there 4ere significant differences on t4o tests bet4een the Silent /a& groups)
and on one bet4een the Suggestopedia groups. This is an interesting result since it sho4s
that) despite random assignment) different groups ma& perform significantl& differentl&
even 4hen an identical treatment is administered. This could be due to teacher related
variables) to the size of the group "var&ing from 3 to 21#) to students. receptiveness
to4ards the methods) and man& more. A large number of Suggestopedia students 4ere
reported not to li;e the concert session 4hich is 3uite unusual :udging b& reports of other
studies. This points to another problem in this t&pe of research. ,evie4ing studies on the
basis of :ournal articles) 4e can never be sure ho4 4ell the treatment 4as administered.
/ritten proficienc& 4as not tested but affective variables 4ere investigated. Bnibbler
reports that motivation for continuing language classes 4as higher in the Suggestopedia
groups. In general) students li;ed both methods) but beginning students preferred
Suggestopedia. 4hich ma& e*plain 4h& the& performed better than the intermediate
students. In addition) students taught 4ith Suggestopedia had a higher regard for their
learning abilit& than before.
The most controlled stud& in the investigation of Accelerative Learning in language
teaching 4as conducted b& Schiffler "1>8$b# at a /est -erman universit&. A total of 128
students from non1language courses volunteered to ta;e part in this e*periment. As a pre1
test the& 4ere given the 2remdspracheneignungstest 2T9 3A, a test similar to the one
used b& +ignault above) in order to determine their ;no4ledge of <rench. According to
these scores and the results of a personal surve&) (2 students 4ith little ;no4ledge in
<rench 4ere selected. Students 4ere assigned to control and e*perimental conditions at
random) and each condition 4as divided into 4ea; and strong students according to the
scores on the pre1test. The t4o control groups and the 4ea;er e*perimental students 4ere
taught in an identical environment. The stronger e*perimental students 4ere taught in a
suggestopedicall& designed room 4ith comfortable chairs) posters and plants.
Since Schiffler "1>8$b5127# believes that Ethe onl& thing that is ne4 in the suggestopedic
method is the rela*ed presentation of the e*tensive te*ts due to musicE) he attempted to
;eep all other variables in this stud& constant. Apart from the concert sessions in the
e*perimental groups the teaching approach 4as identical in all groups. In order to ensure
this) the teachers) trained in Suggestopedia, taught all groups in e3ual time proportion
on a rotating s&stem. Teaching too; place for four ! minute sessions dail& over 3 4ee;s.
+aterials taught 4ere identical for both conditions and about t4ice as much material than
usual 4as given to all groups. Si* final tests 4ere administered comprising vocabular&)
grammar) comprehension) oral communication) translation from target language into
mother tongue) and translation from mother tongue into target language.
The 4ea;er e*perimental students performed significantl& better than their respective
controls in the comprehension test and in the translation test 4hen translating from the
foreign language. There 4as a tendenc& for better performance in translating into the
foreign language for the e*perimental group but this difference 4as not significant.
6ifferences in performance in all other tests bet4een groups 4ere not significant.
The stronger e*perimental students performed significantl& better than their respective
controls in grammar and in translating into the target language. There 4as a tendenc&
to4ards better performance for the e*perimental group in three other categories but these
differences 4ere not significant. /hile the differences bet4een e*perimentals and
controls in the 4ea;er group had been highl& significant "pU.71# the differences here
4ere significant at the .7! level 4hich appears to suggest again that Accelerative
Learning techni3ues are more effective 4ith beginning students. 0o significant
differences 4ere found in achievement bet4een the t4o e*perimental groups) suggesting
that suggestopedic room design did not affect achievement in this stud&. The fact that the
4ea;er students performed as 4ell as the stronger students lends further support to the
notion of beginning students benefiting more from this approach.
A surve& of students. attitudes to4ards the e*periment sho4ed that t4o thirds of the
e*perimental students li;ed the music) that one third of all students li;ed the intensive
teaching and that one third disapproved of the change in teachers. The last factor ma&
have influenced the performance of those students negativel&) but since this comment
4as made in e3ual proportion b& e*perimental and control students) the change of
teachers is unli;el& to have influenced performance differentiall& bet4een groups.
The entire e*periment 4as then repeated in reverse order) e*perimental students
becoming controls and vice versa. In order to test 4hether intensive conditions 4ere
effective in achievement) the groups 4ere no4 taught for t4o lessons t4ice 4ee;l& over
three and one half months 4hich corresponds to the normal universit& timetable. All other
conditions 4ere as before e*cept that some attrition in student numbers had ta;en place
for reasons unrelated to the e*periment. 0o e*act numbers are given. 0o mention is made
4hether the t4o e*perimental groups 4ere still taught in different environments.
,esults 4ere 3uite different this time. /hile no significant differences 4ere found
bet4een the stronger e*perimental students and their respective controls) onl& oral
communication 4as found to be significantl& higher for the 4ea;er e*perimental students
4hen compared 4ith their respective controls.
=n the student surve& onl& !>I of the e*perimental students li;ed the music 4hile 18I
re:ected it. %reviousl& 3I had re:ected the music. 0o mention 4as made about the
change of teachers) and almost 7I of all students disli;ed the e*tensive teaching time.
+ost interesting 4as that (8I of the control students found the progress too fast 4hile
onl& 18I of the e*perimental students found this. This had not been mentioned
previousl& and supports -assner1,oberts and 9rislan.s "1>8# findings above.
Schiffler attributes the differences in results bet4een the t4o studies solel& to the
intensive teaching time in the first stud&. Do4ever) other factors ma& have contributed to
the decreased significance in results bet4een the first and the second stud&. Students ma&
have ob:ected to the 4ithdra4al of a condition 4hich the& had en:o&ed. Teachers.
enthusiasm for administering the concert sessions ma& have decreased) former
e*perimental students ma& have had higher motivation for continuing 4ith the language
"as has been sho4n b& Bnibbler) 1>82) above#) the fact that one third less students li;ed
the music ma& have influenced the e*perimental students. performance) and the fact that
students had !$ hours more e*perience in learning <rench ma& have been important in
the outcome. In the light of +ignault.s "1>(># results above it is possible that
suggestopedic teaching is indeed less effective 4ith more advanced students. All this does
not e*plain) ho4ever) 4h& there 4as a shift in s;ills 4hich 4ere found to be significantl&
higher in the e*perimental group. /hile in the first stud& oral communication 4as not
found to be significantl& better in either e*perimental class 4hen compared to their
respective controls) this 4as the onl& significant difference found bet4een e*perimentals
and controls in the second stud&. It is regrettable that Schiffler altered the conditions for
the replication stud&. Since more replications 4ere planned) it ma& have been more
illuminating to repeat the stud& in identical conditions first and then change the teaching
time. In this 4a& more ma& have been discovered about the role of teaching time
allocation.
Conclusions ' $chieve+ent in 3anguage studies. Audging from the studies reported here
it can be said that the achievement of the e*perimental groups overall 4as significantl&
higher than that of the control groups) although results of the language studies 4ere not as
consistent as those of the non1language studies. The reason for this ma& have been that in
the non1language studies the focus of interest 4as fre3uentl& recall abilit&) 4hile a variet&
of s;ills 4as tested in the language studies.
In the language section the achievement of 18 e*perimental groups 4as compared to that
of 2 control groups. A summar& of the results is given in Table 2. Again no e*perimental
group performed significantl& less 4ell than the controls. Seven e*perimental groups
performed significantl& "pU.7!# higher than their respective controls on all variables
investigated including 4ritten) oral and aural s;ills and time saving. An eighth
e*perimental group performed consistentl& higher than the respective t4o control groups
on all variables investigated but the differences 4ere not anal&sed for statistical
significance "-assner1,oberts C 9rislan 1>8#. <our e*perimental groups performed
significantl& "pU.7!# higher than their respective controls on one or more variables
investigated including 4ritten) oral and aural s;ills. The remaining si* e*perimental
groups performed as 4ell as their respective controls on all variables investigated.
=n the basis of these results it is not possible to dra4 definite conclusions about 4hich
language s;ills are most affected b& the use of Accelerative Learning since different s;ills
4ere tested in almost ever& stud&) 4ith both beginners and intermediate students being
investigated) and different methods used as a means of comparison in the control groups.
-enerall& it can be said that both receptive and productive s;ills ma& be positivel&
affected b& the use of Accelerative Learning. Audging from the studies 4hich reported the
results of both 4ritten and oral tests in detail "-assner1,oberts C 9rislan 1>8) 9otha
1>8$) Schiffler 1>8$b#) it appears that 4ritten language s;ills are more affected than oral
s;ills. This is particularl& interesting since 4ritten s;ills are generall& less emphasised in
Accelerative Learning than oral s;ills.
In the three studies 4hich investigated both beginning and intermediate students
"+ignault 1>(>) Bnibbler 1>82) Schiffler 1>8$b#) a definite trend to4ards better
performance b& the beginning students can be observed. It cannot be assumed from this)
ho4ever) that Accelerative Learning is not suitable for more advanced students. About
half of the intermediate students in the above three studies still performed significantl&
higher than their respective controls) and =dendaal "1>8(# found positive effects in a
stud& involving advanced students.
/ith the e*ception of +ignault.s "1>(># beginning course) the best results are reported
4hen Accelerative Learning is compared to conventional teaching methods. Although not
al4a&s described in detail) these methods are usuall& defined as being largel& grammar
oriented) 4ith little oral communication b& the students) and 4ith emphasis on 4ritten
s;ills. Less favourable results in terms of achievement are reported in the studies "9otha
1>8$) Bnibbler 1>8$# 4hich compared Accelerative Learning to other non1conventional
teaching methods such as the communicative approach or the Silent /a& method. 9oth
these latter methods are oriented to4ards oral communication) as is Accelerative
Learning. In both studies no significant differences 4ere found bet4een e*perimentals
and controls in oral communication. It must be pointed out) ho4ever) that the
e*perimental students in 9otha "1>8$# had the lo4est scores on the pre1tests.
The difficult& of dra4ing conclusions 4hich can be generalised from this sample of
studies can be illustrated b& comparing the results of 9otha "1>8$# 4ith =dendaal "1>8(#.
9oth studies 4ere carried out in a comparable environment) 4ith comparable students)
comparable teaching time) and for oral proficienc& used identical instruments and tested
identical s;ills. ?et the results 4ere radicall& different. /hile 9otha found no significant
differences in oral s;ills) =dendaal found highl& significant differences. The opposite 4as
true for the students. attitude to4ards the language and the culture. <ive elements can be
identified as radicall& different in the t4o studies. The research design) the method and
materials used in the control group) the students. mother tongue) the language taught and
the post1test procedures. Apart from this) the fact that the treatment 4as administered b&
t4o different teachers ma& or ma& not have affected the outcome.
The three studies 4hich 4ere most comparable in terms of research design and procedure
",obinett 1>(!) 9ass 1>8!) -assner1,oberts C 9rislan 1>8#) produced almost identical
results) fluctuating bet4een 17 and 1! per cent higher achievement for the e*perimental
students. Dere three different languages 4ere taught over different lengths of time 4ith
three variations in addressing the teacher1treatment confound problem. In ,obinett "1>(!#
teachers shared the administration of the e*perimental treatment) 4hile in 9ass "1>87# the
same teacher provided both e*perimental and control teaching) and in -assner1,oberts
and 9rislan "1>8# e*perimental and control groups 4ere taught b& different teachers.
,esearch design and testing procedures 4ere more similar in the non1language studies
4hich tested achievement 4hich ma& have contributed to the fact that results in these
studies 4ere more consistent than in the language studies. Less detailed information)
ho4ever) 4as available about control methods. In some studies little is said about the
method and materials used in the control group) and even more importantl& 4hether the
ob:ectives of the teaching 4ere the same as those in the e*perimental group. If the latter
is not the case) a comparison of teaching methods is hardl& valid.
It is interesting that the ma:orit& of non1language studies in a controlled environment
4ere carried out 4ith children 4hile almost all controlled language studies 4ere carried
out 4ith adults. Although 4e have information about t4o -erman studies conducted as
part of the t4o1&ear evaluation stud& b& Schuster and %richard "1>(8# above) one of
4hich sho4ed significantl& higher achievement) no detailed information on these studies
4as reported.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 0 RESEARCH CLAIMS
It can be said 4ith certaint& that sensationalist claims such as being able to learn 1777
4ords a da& or speeding up learning b& fift& times are the domain of the popular press
and some commercial language courses) based on misreported results of Lozanov.s
research. There is no indication of such claims in the controlled /estern research. 9&
contrast) Lozanov.s more realistic claims for higher achievement on average) coverage of
large amounts of content) time saving) and positive influence on affective variables) have
largel& been supported b& this research revie4.
SALT appears to be the predominant model of Accelerative Learning in the /estern
literature. <rom the results reported here 4e cannot ascertain) ho4ever) 4hether or not
this model is more efficacious than either Suggestopedia or Superlearning. 0o studies
e*ist 4hich compare one model 4ith another.
The general trends in controlled research in the /est sho4 a possible time saving of
around one half and consistentl& higher achievement in the e*perimental classes. In non1
language studies achievement has generall& been tested in terms of recall abilit& 4ith
some indication of a positive effect on verbal and figural creativit&. ,esults in language
studies) although generall& higher in the e*perimental groups) are less consistent since
more variables have been investigated. There appears to be a trend for beginning students
to do better than intermediates) for 4ritten s;ills to be more affected than oral s;ills) and
for best results 4hen Accelerative Learning is compared to traditional teaching methods.
There does not seem to be a noticeable difference in effectiveness of Accelerative
Learning 4hen used 4ith adults) secondar& or primar& school children) at least not in
areas 4here all three groups have been investigated. 0or does there appear to be a trend
to4ards better performance 4hen teaching ta;es place in favourable conditions. 9oth
these observations support Lozanov.s claim for the adaptabilit& of Suggestopedia to an&
educational environment. Although some studies report better results in intensive
teaching conditions) no definite conclusions about the effect of allocation of teaching
time can be arrived at on the basis of these studies.
The most noticeable lac; in the research literature is of language studies in schools.
Although there have been some investigations of the effects of Accelerative Learning on
both cognitive and affective factors in the conte*t of language learning) almost all these
studies have been carried out in non1controlled conditions) and their findings can
therefore not be considered as e*perimental evidence. Do4ever) although these studies
have been conducted under different conditions and in different countries) reported
findings are ver& similar and largel& reflect the findings of the controlled studies in other
sub:ects. The most important claims are for higher achievement) better attitudes to4ards
learning) higher self1concept) and improved behaviour. /hile the claims for higher
achievement have been consistentl& supported b& controlled non1language studies) both
4ith children and 4ith adults) the claims for improved affective variables and behaviour
have been supported onl& sporadicall&.
The most important fla4 in the research on Accelerative Learning has been the lac; of
concern for the teaching method used in the control conditions. Apart from fe4
e*ceptions) the control method 4as either not described at all) or referred to simpl& as
conventional or traditional. /hile results of these studies are illuminating) it ma& be
more important to investigate the effects of Accelerative Learning 4hen compared to a
teaching method 4hich has similar ob:ectives) materials and strategies. In this 4a&
elements) e*cept for those 4hich are uni3ue to Accelerative Learning, ma& be held as
constant as is possible in a natural classroom setting. The elements uni3ue to
Accelerative Learning 4ould then be regarded as the treatment. =nl& 9otha "1>8$# and
Schiffler "1>8$b# attempted this to an e*tent 4ith adult students. Although results 4ere
not identical in these studies) their findings suggest that Accelerative Learning ma& still
have an effect on cognitive or affective variables even 4hen compared to a teaching
environment 4hich shares ever&thing 4ith the e*ception of the treatment.
Since this research has not &et been carried out in a controlled fashion in the conte*t of
language teaching in schools) one important tas;) therefore) is to investigate the
follo4ing5
Does the use of $ccelerative 3earning in the natural school environment have a positive effect on
students' attitude, behaviour, self-concept and achievement when tested against a language teaching
method with similar strategies and objectives?
This 3uestion 4ill be addressed in the first empirical stud&.
Chapter 5

A quasi-eperimental investigation of the
effects of Accelerative Learning
on !ehaviour" self-concept" attitude and
achievement in the natural secondary school
language class


INTRODUCTION

An noted at the beginning of this thesis) language teaching in the secondar& school
environment in Australia can be difficult for a variet& of reasons) relating on the one hand
to students. affective reactions to the tas;) and on the other to the process of teaching
itself. Accelerative Learning 4hich claims to improve affective measures as 4ell as
increase the effectiveness of teaching and learning) 4ould therefore seem to be an
attractive teaching method in this environment. The literature revie4 in the previous
chapter) ho4ever) has sho4n that these claims are largel& based on findings of studies
4hich investigated adult sub:ects) 4ere conducted in favourable conditons) or 4ere
related to sub:ects other than language learning. In the conte*t of language learning in
schools) these claims have not &et been supported b& rigorous e*perimental research.
The present stud& 4as designed to test these claims in a controlled manner in the natural
secondar& school language class. If Accelerative Learning is to be recommended for
language teaching in this environment) it is necessar& to test it in the natural classroom.
There is a great difference bet4een teaching a small number of highl& motivated adult
students) 4ho generall& en:o& classical music and rela*ation) in intensive courses and
pleasant surroundings) and teaching less co1operative students in three or four classes a
4ee; over a longer period of time.
The purpose of this stud&) therefore) 4as to test 4hether benefits such as improved self1
concept) attitude) behaviour and achievement are associated 4ith use of Accelerative
Learning in a range of secondar& school language classes 4hen teaching ta;es place in
the natural school environment. 2mphasis 4as given to the investigation of affective
variables since claims concerning these measures have been the least 4ell supported in
the literature. 9ecause of the large number of sub:ects involved) achievement in terms of
language use 4as tested b& means of gross measures onl&. The main reason for including
achievement as a dependent variable) 4as to test 4hether a possible improvement in
affective variables ma& have been obtained at the e*pense of achievement.
In the light of our conclusions follo4ing the literature revie4) careful attention 4as given
to the method of comparison. The stud& 4as not designed to prove that Accelerative
Learning is in itself the best teaching method to be used for language teaching) but to find
out 4hether elements e*clusivel& found in Accelerative Learning) such as the
combination of music) rela*ation and suggestion) ma& create a teaching and learning
environment that has the potential to enhance alread& good language teaching. It 4as
therefore necessar& to compare Accelerative Learning 4ith a teaching method 4hich has
similar ob:ectives and strategies.
The language teachinh method most similar to Accelerative Learning appears to be
Communicative Teaching as e*emplified b& /iddo4son "1>(8# and 9rumfit "1>(>#. The
main ob:ective in both methods is to reach communicative competence in the target
language. 9oth approaches create a positive environment 4ith emphasis on continuous
positive re1inforcement and de1emphasis on overt corrections. 9oth methods emphasise
the consistent use of the target language b& both teacher and students and) although
4ritten s;ills are included) oral s;ills are more fre3uentl& practised in e*ercises 4hich
constitute a communication challenge for the students. In both approaches the language
learning activit& is made intrinsicall& 4orth4hile in order to stimulate and retain students.
interest. Communicative Teaching 4as therefore used as the method of comparison in this
stud& investigating some of the effects of Accelerative Learning.
METHOD
Subjects and setting. 27! &ear 8 students "average age 12 &ears# in eight classes at three
Adelaide high schools too; part in the e*periment. The schools dra4 students from a
similar socio1economic profile 4ithin suburban Adelaide. School 1 is co1educational 4ith
no special interests) School 2 is co1educational 4ith a special interest in music) School 3
is a girls. school 4ith no special interests. School 1 is a ne4 school 4ith e*cellent
facilities and pleasant surroundingsF Schools 2 and 3 are older schools 4ith cramped
conditions and less attractive buildings.
2ight teachers provided the teaching for ! e*perimental and 3 control classes. An effort
4as made to match e*perimental and control teachers in terms of e*perience) abilit& and
enthusiasm. All eight teachers are highl& regarded as language teachers. The
e*perimenter had ample opportunit& during class observations to chec; that both
Accelerative Learning and Communicative Teaching procedures 4ere used appropriatel&.
6ifferences detected in teaching st&le 4ere first) more emphasis on discipline b& both
teachers at School 1 and the control teacher at School 2) and second) more emphasis on
the use of the foreign language in class) even for instructions) b& the control teachers at
schools 2 and 3. Since the teaching too; place in natural conditions) and since not all
teachers 4ere trained in the use of Accelerative Learning procedures) rotating of teachers)
a good measure for addressing possible teacher1treatment confounding) demonstrated b&
Schiffler "1>8$b#) 4as not possible.
School 1 had one e*perimental and one control class taught b& different teachers. Schools
2 and 3 had t4o e*perimental classes taught b& the same teacher and one control class
taught b& a different teacher. All e*cept one 4ere -erman classes. The reason for this 4as
that at School 3 onl& t4o &ear 8 -erman classes e*ist and the teacher did not feel that she
could teach an e*perimental and a control class 4ith the same amount of enthusiasm "an
attitude shared b& the other e*perimental teachers#. A &ear 8 Italian class 4as therefore
used as a control at this school. This might limit the generalisabilit& of the results)
ho4ever) since most variables to be compared 4ere non1language specific) and the
features of language achievement tested 4ere at a ver& basic level 4hich is 3uite similar
across 2uropean languages) this 4as not seen as a ma:or limitation. In the light of the
criticisms made of the %hilipov "1>(8# stud&) revie4ed in the previous chapter) ho4ever)
it 4as decided to e*clude the achievement results of the Italian students should the& be
dramaticall& different from those of the -erman students.
Although the e*perimental teachers 4ere trained in the use of Accelerative Learning)
the& had var&ing degrees of e*perience. The teacher at School 1 had used the method for
several &ears and had researched and presented some of his findings. The teacher at
School 2 4as using the method successfull& for the second &ear 4hile the teacher at
School 3 4as using the method for the first time.
Teaching too; place for appro*imatel& the same amount of time in each school5 At
Schools 1 and 3 for *7 minute sessions a 4ee; "a total of !$ hours#F at School 2 for
3*!7 minute sessions a 4ee; "a total of !2.! hours#.
Procedure. The e*perimental treatment 4as introduced in the fourth 4ee; of term. It
consisted of an adapted SALT version 4hich the e*perimental teachers felt comfortable
using. It e*cluded the active concert sessions since the teachers found t4o concert
sessions too time consuming for one lesson. The t4o teachers 4ho had alread& been
e*perimenting 4ith the use of Accelerative Learning for some time) found that the
children responded best to the follo4ing procedure5
=ind cal+ing at the start of each class. A variet& of music ranging from classical "e.g.
9eethoven.s 4oonlight Sonata# to environmental "e.g.Dalpern.s Spectrum# 4as pla&ed
4hile the students 4ere encouraged to visualise 4hile responding to guided imager&
"appro*imatel& ! min.#. The follo4ing is one of the scenarios used5
Sit com"ortaly in your chair Close your eyes >reathe deeply 9mpty your mind o"
all thoughts ," a thought "orms drop it ," a picture "orms dissolve it ?ust let
go... and ecome completely calm and rela(ed ,magine that you are in a "ilm See
yoursel" getting up "rom your chair See yoursel" /al$ out o" the room do/n the
stairs across the school yard right to your "avorite place and there see yoursel" do
your "avorite thing maye a sport maye reading a story studying your "avorite
su!ect . anything at all 2or the ne(t "e/ minutes !ust stay there doing !ust that
notice ho/ good you "eel ho/ happy . ho/ con"ident ho/ easy it is "or you to do
this ho/ much you en!oy it -o/ see yoursel" come ac$ to the classroom across
the school yard up the stairs right into this room >ring /ith you all those lovely
"eelings *hen the music ends open your eyes <ou&ll notice that you are nice and
calm ut that your mind is "ully alert ready to ta$e in all /e are going to do today
and you&ll "ind that you can have !ust as much "un and that learning 6erman can e
!ust as easy.
Passive concert session after the introduction of ne4 material) appro*imatel& once a
4ee;. Suitable passages from the baro3ue repertoire "e.g. the first half of Dandel.s
*atermusic# 4ere pla&ed 4hile the teacher read the ne4 material aloud "appro*imatel&
17 min.#.
Positive learning suggestions given during the mind calming sessions or 4henever
necessar&. These related chiefl& to the ease of retaining the material. The follo4ing are
some e*amples5
The music /ill help you rememer this dialogue very easily.
<ou /ill "ind it easy to rememer the /ords "or the tests.
The rela(ation /ill help you concentrate and learn much "aster.
The rest of the teaching did not differ from the communicative approach emplo&ed b& the
control teachers. This 4as characterised b& reduced emphasis on linguistic accurac& and
greater emphasis on active language use through the use of games) songs) and other
creative language e*ercises.
Since random assignment 4as not possible for administrative reasons 4ithin the schools)
a 3uasi1e*perimental non1e3uivalent control group design "Coo; C Campbell 1>(># 4as
emplo&ed to test for differences) both 4ithin groups and bet4een groups.
A number of variables 4hich might directl& influence achievement 4ere recorded before
the treatment 4as introduced to the e*perimental classes. These 4ere5
$ptitudeB +easured b& the %imsleur <oreign Language Aptitude 9atter& "%imsleur
1>$$#.
=usic studiesB Involvement in special music studies) outside the normal school
programme in 4hich all students ta;e part. "1O&es) 7Ono#
Previous language e&perienceB +ore than one term of language learning at primar&
school or else4here. "1O&es) 7Ono#
$ttitudeB +easured b& the Illinois <oreign Language Attitude Questionnaire
"Aacobovits 1>(7#. "Appendi* 1#
Self'conceptB 9oth overall and -erman self1concept 4ere measured b& the +arsh Self
6escription Questionnaire "+arsh) 1>83#. "Appendi* 2#
The first three variables 4ere recorded onl& once. Self1concept and attitude
3uestionnaires 4ere administered at the start and the end of the stud&. Student behaviour
4as observed three times using a coding schedule developed for the stud& "Appendi* 3#.
Three categories of behaviour 4ere observed5
Hn'#as2 <ehaviour 1 appropriate verbalisation) appropriate see;ing of teacher.s
attention) attentive) out of room 4ith permission) an& other appropriate behaviour not
categorised.
Hff'#as2 <ehaviour + disruptive) inattentive) inappropriate see;ing of teacher.s
attention) out of room 4ithout permission) an& other inappropriate behaviour not
categorised.
7+otional State + appropriatel& rela*ed) inappropriatel& rela*ed) stressed.
=ne complete round of behaviour observations ",1# 4as carried out b& the researcher in
the second and third 4ee; of the school term) before the treatment 4as introduced. T4o
further rounds 4ere completed) one in the 12th and 13th 4ee; ",2#) the other in the 21st
and 22nd 4ee; ",3#. 2ach round consisted of eight observations per child obtained over
t4o class sessions. The observations 4ere ta;en 4ith the e*perimenter observing for 17
seconds and recording for ! seconds. Correct timing 4as ensured b& using a tape
recorded message to signal coding times. ,eliabilit& 4as chec;ed b& using a second
observer once in each school. Coding consistenc& as measured b& percentage agreement
bet4een independent raters 4as >!I.
%ost1treatment achievement 4as measured once using an ob:ective test. "Appendi* #.
The test 4as designed b& the author for this stud&. Its content 4as discussed 4ith all the
teachers in order to ensure that a fair test of students. achievement 4as produced.
Although t4o different course te*ts 4ere used in the -erman classes) children had been
e*posed to appro*imatel& the same materials for appro*imatel& the same amount of time.
Since all schools devote bet4een (!18!I of the teaching time to oral s;ills) phonetic
appro*imations to correct spellings 4ere accepted. Do4ever) complete sentences in
-erman 4ere re3uired. The test for the Italian students 4as almost identical in content)
testing the same basic language items in the same format.