SUPERLEARNING
To describe
Superlearning accurately as a method is not easy. There are problems
in organising the material since Superlearning is often used simply
as a synonym for either Suggestopedia or SALT or for a combination
of both. Hinkelmann (1986) deplores the fact that the only attempt made
at a distinction between the two is the labelling of Superlearning
as the commercial product of the more scientifically valid and serious
Suggestopedia. While this distinction may hold true when comparing
Superlearning courses which boldly advertise their product with
the help of unsubstantiated claims (such as those pointed out by Gassner-Roberts
1987 and Schiffler 1987), this is not always the case with well researched
Suggestopedia courses. Undoubtedly there are good and bad examples
of all versions of Accelerative Learning. The concern in this chapter
is not to compare the different versions in terms of their efficacy, but
to identify distinguishing features between each version in order to clarify
what has so far been a confused situation for users and researchers alike.
The term Superlearning
was introduced by two American researchers (Ostrander & Schroeder
1979). They define it thus:
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 was designed using some elements of
Suggestopedia and some elements of the American version
which became SALT. Superlearning differs from Lozanov's Suggestopedia
in several ways.
Relaxation.
Although Ostrander and Schroeder were aware of the fact that Lozanov
had dropped specific relaxation from his programme, they were in agreement
with the Western rationale for retaining relaxation and for using special
visualisation techniques, and therefore included both in Superlearning.
Since these elements were introduced by the American researchers responsible
for SALT, they will be discussed in the relevant section below.
Synchronisation.
Following Bancroft's (1976) observations, Ostrander and Schroeder
(1979) interpreted Lozanov's method as including synchronisation of the
students' breathing and the presentation of materials. There is no evidence
of this in any of Lozanov's publications, yet Bancroft (1976) felt that
this was the vital element withheld from explanations about the method
when visiting Bulgaria.
It is possible
that Bancroft observed classes during the period when Lozanov was experimenting
with presenting materials at different intervals. Jänicke (1982) and Baur
(1980) report such experiments, although no exact data is given. Apparently
Lozanov experimented with presenting words via tape recordings
in one second, five second and ten second intervals and found significant
differences in retention rate. Reports of the magnitude of these differences
vary, however. Ostrander and Schroeder (1979) report that in the one second
condition students learnt about 20% of the words, in the five second condition
30%, and in the ten second condition 40%, while Baur (1980) writes that
the ten second condition increased retention rate by 10% when compared
to the other two. Jänicke (1982) reports that twice as many words were
retained in the five second condition and three times as many in the ten
second condition when compared to the control groups. Ostrander and Schroeder
and Baur do not mention control groups; it is therefore possible that
either different experiments were quoted or that the one second condition
functioned as the control. Only Baur gives an exact source for the study,
Lozanov's Suggestologija, 1971:244, which is not officially available
in English. This is just a small example of the inconsistency of reports
about research on Suggestopedia. More will be discussed in chapter
4.
On the basis
of Bancroft's observations in Bulgaria, Ostrander and Schroeder (1979:115)
placed a great deal of importance on correct rhythmical presentation of
materials in Superlearning. They suggest the following cycle for
the presentation of materials and the students' breathing: "All the
materials spoken are precisely timed on an 8-second cycle so breathing
will naturally fall into a rhythmic pattern of: hold 4; out 2; in 2."
This means that the material to be learnt is presented in small chunks
during the four seconds in which the students hold their breath.
Students are
extensively coached in the correct breathing procedure and encouraged
to practise several cadences of this breathing before a concert session.
Ostrander and Schroeder point out that some students, especially children,
have difficulties learning or sustaining the rhythmical breathing; they
suggest therefore that taped material could contain a metronome 'tick'
to aid with timing. It is not clear why materials are presented in an
eight second cycle. Ostrander and Schroeder claim that this was the precise
cycle observed by Bancroft in Bulgaria. However, if Lozanov had found
the best results with presenting words every ten seconds, why would he
have used a rhythm in which words are presented every four seconds? Bancroft
(1978a) speculates that he may have switched to this presentation because
of the rhythms of the baroque music but does not give any further explanation.
Research on
synchronisation is minimal and does not consistently show that it is beneficial
to the students' learning. Bordon and Schuster (1976) found a significantly
positive effect on retention of vocabulary, while Renigers (1981) speculates
in his conclusions that the students' efforts to concentrate on synchronisation
may have hampered their relaxation and consequently their performance.
For similar reasons almost all practitioners have now dropped synchronisation
from their programmes. Renigers' (1981) speculations are supported by
Fassihiyan (1981) who reports unfavourable results in Iranian experiments
based on Yoga exercises and rhythmic breathing when comparing these to
experiments based on music in Canada (Racle 1975). Ostrander and Schroeder
(1979) give Shaffer (1979) as one of their sources for the efficacy of
breathing techniques in Superlearning. Shaffer claims that the
Yoga breathing techniques are the most responsible for rapid learning.
He asserts that Lozanov himself was "totally unaware of the key mechanisms
responsible for accelerated learning in his method" (p.180) and offers
the following scientific explanation of the 'Lozanov Effect':
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)
No empirical
evidence of how this effect is achieved in Suggestopedia or Superlearning
is given. The assertion that breathing is the single most important
element in improved learning is strongly refuted by the fact that the
majority of studies which report such improvement (see chapter 4) do not
use synchronised breathing. Schiffler (1986b) indicates his intentions
to investigate the effectiveness of synchronisation following his findings
of a positive effect of music as a variable in the intensive language
learning environment.
Self-instruction.
Superlearning is presented as a self-study procedure where
materials can be prepared on audio tapes. This is the greatest element
of distinction between Lozanov's Suggestopedia and Superlearning.
Three very important aspects of Suggestopedia are ignored:
the vital role of the teacher, the extensive review and elaboration periods
and group dynamics. In Superlearning students are being told that
all they need is a tape-recording and a set of instructions in order to
accelerate their learning by astounding rates. (Claims made are discussed
in chapter 4). The focal part of the method is the supermemory session,
which 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 while the active state is largely ignored. Emphasis is given
to lowering body rhythms through relaxation and breathing, yet little
consideration is given to the fact that, especially 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 by Ostrander and Schroeder
(1979) is as follows:
SUPERLEARNING
STRUCTURE
1. P R E P
A R A T I O N. In order to prepare for the supermemory
session, students are encouraged to practise relaxation, either in
the form of Jacobson's (1938) progressive relaxation exercises or through
visualisation. Many examples are given. They are further instructed to
practise the correct breathing procedure and to give themselves affirmations
such as Learning and remembering are easy for me.
2. P R E S
E N T A T I O N. Before beginning the supermemory
session students are instructed to 'review' the materials they wish
to learn as vividly as possible. It is suggested that they try to do this
in the form of a game, a play or a dialogue. It is difficult to work out
how this is done when the materials are completely unknown to the students
but no further suggestions are given.
Then follows
the supermemory session. In the first part, students are instructed
to read silently through the materials while the materials are recited
either by a person present or on tape. (Extensive instructions for the
preparation of tapes are given). In the second part, students are asked
to close their eyes and listen to the materials again, this time with
the slow baroque movements playing in the background. In contrast to Lozanov's
instructions above, students are told to pay attention to what is being
said, to breathe in synchronisation with the presentation of the materials,
and to visualise the materials. The combination of attention on three
complex processes is far removed from Lozanov's original intentions of
'concert pseudo-passivity'. How effective imagery would be in this context,
when students are already concentrating on their breathing, is also questionable.
Schuster and Wardel (1978) found that imagery as a variable of instruction
for vocabulary learning was very effective on its own, but less effective
when coupled with other variables.
3. R E V I
E W A N D E L A B O R A T I O N. This
is the part that is conspicuously missing from Superlearning. Students
are simply instructed to give themselves a quiz after the supermemory
session and to 'use' the materials they have studied within the next
few days.
From the point
of view of language learning Superlearning in this form has more
in common with audio-lingual courses than with Suggestopedia. The
addition of music, relaxation and imagery may produce a more efficient
and enjoyable audio-lingual course, although no comparative studies are
known to this author. The addition of synchronised breathing, however,
may hamper students' learning. Superlearning in this form cannot
be compared to Suggestopedia which can in essence be described
as creative communicative teaching with the addition of music and suggestion.
Linguists,
notably Baur (1984:292) have criticised Superlearning for the following:
1. Sprachenlernen
wird mit dem Lernen von Vokabeln und/oder idiomatischen Redewendungen
gleichgesetzt; die produktiv-kreativen und pragmatischen Aspekte von
Sprache und Sprechen bleiben unberücksichtigt.
2.
Die Sprachbeherrschung wird durch die Übersetzung (meist Herübersetzung
von einzelnen Wörtern überprüft; über welche sprachlichen Fertigkeiten
die Lerner tatsächlich verfügen, bleibt völlig unklar.
3.
Den Lernenden wird suggeriert, sie bräuchten sich nur zu entspannen
und könnten den produktiven Gebrauch der Fremdsprache rein passiv erlernen.
Es wird ignoriert, daß Sprechenlernen an Kommunikation gebunden ist
und ein aktiver Prozeß sein muß; andernfalls werden nur rezeptive Fähigkeiten
trainiert (falls das Sprachmaterial dazu geeignet ist).
[1. Language learning is
characterised by the learning of vocabulary and/or idiomatic phrases;
the productive-creative and practical aspects of language and speaking
are not considered.
2. Language competence is
tested through translation (mostly from foreign to mother tongue) of
single words; which language skills the learners have actually mastered,
remains completely unclear.
3. It is suggested to the
learners that all they have to do is relax and that they will be able
to acquire the productive use of the foreign language by simply remaining
passive. It is completely ignored that language learning is coupled
with communication and has to be an active process; otherwise only receptive
skills are trained (provided that the language materials are suitable).]
While Baur's
criticism is perfectly valid when referring to Superlearning as
described above, it does not hold true when referring to Suggestopedia,
although some linguists (Scovel 1979, Brown 1987) appear not to distinguish
between the two. Scovel (1979), reviewing Lozanov's Suggestology and
Outlines of Suggestopedy, believes that "suggestopedy ...is an
attempt to teach memorisation techniques and is not devoted to the far
more comprehensive enterprise of language acquisition". (p.260) Given
the nature of Lozanov's presentation of Suggestopedia in this book,
it is not surprising that Scovel came to this conclusion. Lozanov does
speak predominantly of hypermnesia, and he does not describe in detail
the entire suggestopedic cycle which includes the extensive review and
elaboration session described above. Lozanov is not a linguist, and in
this publication he was concerned with the effect of suggestion as related
to hypermnesia. To make a valid criticism of Suggestopedia used
for language teaching, it is more appropriate to look at courses designed
by linguists. The Lozanov cycle described above was designed in collaboration
with Novakov and Gateva, both notable linguists, and it includes elements
that specifically address the complexity of language learning, long before
the advent of Communicative Teaching and the Natural Approach
which are generally well received by linguists and with which Suggestopedia
has much in common.
Following
the publication of Superlearning, two things happened. Teachers
began using Superlearning in the classroom, and commercial courses,
largely following the structure above, were offered. For the former, the
model had to be expanded and tended to include Lozanov's review and elaboration
sessions. In this form, the method became a combination of Suggestopedia,
Superlearning and SALT. A typical example of this is Dröbner
(1986). From now on labels were used almost at random, and if the treatment
in experimental studies was not described in detail, it was impossible
to know which elements had been included. It followed from this that Suggestopedia
was sometimes judged by courses which had little in common with Lozanov's
model.
The appearance
of high profile commercial Superlearning courses contributed to
the confusion. Furthermore, many courses of this nature use sensationalist
research reports for advertising — such as the claim that language learning
can be increased 50 times and more (a claim that Lozanov himself never
made but that is attributed to him as a consequence of the confusion)
— even though sound scientific data on Accelerative Learning which
disputes such claims has become available. This practice did not enhance
the credibility of Suggestopedia in the eyes of applied linguists.
These courses are generally self-study courses produced on cassettes accompanied
by a textbook. They enjoy varying degrees of success depending on how
well they are designed and produced. While some courses are very poor
in terms of content and structure, there are also some good ones.
An example
of the latter is a course produced by a psychologist and a linguist in
West Germany (Kelly & Hinkelmann 1986). An attempt has been made to
include the entire suggestopedic cycle, synchronisation has been dropped
and students' arousal level is monitored by alternating active and passive
states guided by the appropriate musical backing. Materials are organised
in dialogue form, with vocabulary lists and exercises following every
chapter. A brief grammatical overview and a small dictionary for travelling
purposes are also provided in the textbook. Students are informed about
the nature of Superlearning in the introduction. It is suggested
that students will learn in a relaxed atmosphere in which learning blocks
are impossible. Research in which Superlearning students learnt
three times as much as students in traditional courses (Dröbner 1986)
is referred to. The term Superlearning is used as a synonym for
both Suggestopedia and SALT. The course follows this
structure:
COMMERCIAL
SUPERLEARNING STRUCTURE
1. P R E P
A R A T I O N. An audio cassette with relaxation exercises is provided.
These range from systematic muscle relaxation to visualisation exercises
such as mind-calming described below in the SALT section. They
are accompanied by music such as the second movement from Beethoven's
Emperor Concerto and Pachelbel's Canon finishing with a
short piece of the faster third movement from the Emperor Concerto
accompanied by wake-up suggestions.
2. P R E S
E N T A T I O N. Materials are presented in two concert sessions. For
the first concert the students are instructed to remain relaxed but to
follow the text in their book. No translations are given during the reading
and the target language is read rather slowly. This session is accompanied
by the slow movement of Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony. Before the
next session begins the visualisation exercise given on the preparation
tape is repeated.
For the second
concert students are instructed to remain completely passive and to enjoy
the simultaneous presentation of music and language as if they were at
a concert or at the opera. This session is accompanied by Bach's Air
and the reading this time includes the translation of the materials
which are now presented in short phrases and at normal speed. This session
finishes with the same piece of music and wake-up suggestions that were
given at the end of the preparation tape. In an accompanying brochure
the suggestion is given that during these learning concerts a passive
knowledge of the materials is acquired (Hinkelmann 1988:6).
3. R E V I
E W A N D E L A B O R A T I O N. The students
are now encouraged to practise these materials in a communicative fashion,
presumably with a partner.
A variety
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 was suggested by Ostrander and Schroeder
(1979). How effective these practice sessions are, however, when students
are left to their own devices, cannot be ascertained. Although this course
may well be more effective and more interesting than a traditional audio-lingual
course, it is far removed from Lozanov's Suggestopedia. The main
difference between the two is still the physical presence of the teacher
in Suggestopedia. It is the teacher who provides the suggestive
atmosphere, creates positive group dynamics, guides the direction of the
elaboration exercises and provides constant positive feedback. And even
if students were able to conduct their own review and elaboration periods
adequately, the cassette course still lacks the coherence of the Lozanov
cycle and the positive reinforcement that is gained by the students witnessing
each other's progress.
The main difference
between Suggestopedia and Superlearning when used in the
classroom is the latter's use of relaxation and visualisation exercises
and the inclusion of synchronisation of students' breathing with the presentation
of materials. It does not appear from the research that synchronisation
is a beneficial addition to Suggestopedia, which is reflected in
the fact that most practitioners of Superlearning and SALT have
excluded this element from their teaching. The supposed benefits of visualisation
will be discussed in the SALT section below. Since all Western
versions of Suggestopedia include some form of relaxation, the
effect of relaxation will be explored in chapter 3.
|