PSYCHOPÄDIE

This version of Suggestopedia was developed in West Germany by Baur (1984) who looked at the method as an applied linguist. While previous versions had been used for teaching various subjects, Psychopädie was specifically designed for language teaching.

Baur rejects the long periods of purely receptive states in which students taught with Superlearning, SALT and Suggestopedia find themselves. He believes, in sharp contrast to Krashen (1982), that language learning has to be an active process right from the start. With suggestopedic teaching students may remain passive for the entire first day of an intensive language course, which would correspond to Krashen's (1982) 'silent period'. Baur has his students reproducing materials after the first twenty minutes of the course. He argues that if active periods are included in the presentation sessions, students will find the transition to the activation periods more natural. He further points out that during the long passive periods, rational-analytical learning strategies may be activated which could hinder communication considerably (Baur 1984:295).

While these observations may be justified from a linguistic point of view, the following criticism of Suggestopedia by Baur (1984:294) seems surprising:

Der sprachliche Input erfolgt nur über hören, lesen und musikalisch-emotionale Anreicherung. - Da Sprachwahrnehmung in der Kommunikation sehr stark mit nonverbalen Elementen wie Blickkontakt, Mimik, Gestik, Proxemik sowie weiteren Faktoren der Situationswahrnehmung und propriozeptiven Prozessen verknüpft ist, läßt die Suggestopädie (wie auch andere Methoden der Fremdsprachenvermittlung) wichtige Faktoren des Erwerbs unberücksichtigt.

[The language input is exclusively conducted via listening, reading and musical-emotional backing. Because language perception in communication is very strongly related to non-verbal elements such as eye contact, mimicry, gestures, proximity, as well as other factors of situational perception and proprioceptive processes, Suggestopedia (as well as other methods of language teaching) does not take into account important factors of acquisition.]

Baur speaks of the students' Wahrnehmung [perception] rather than of the production of language items. Even though the students in Suggestopedia remain physically passive during the presentation stages, they do not exclusively perceive and receive the language via reading and listening. Lozanov (1978) makes it abundantly clear that communication takes place on more than one level, namely verbal and non-verbal and that the teacher needs to use every possible device, such as mimicry and gestures, in order to make materials more accessible to the students. Baur's criticism, therefore, is more appropriate regarding the Superlearning courses produced on cassettes where such elements cannot be included.

Baur is, however, justified in claiming that the students are not physically involved in what he terms Gestik during the long receptive periods in intensive suggestopedic courses. He not only believes that the students need to practise the materials earlier than Lozanov suggests, but that they also need to reproduce the non-verbal elements included in the presentation of the materials. He emphasises (Baur & Grzybek 1984:70) that the term Gestik has to be broad since gestures are inevitably linked with other non-verbal and/or paraverbal communication. In order to investigate the efficacy of Gestik in the suggestopedic presentation phases, Baur and Grzybek (1984) carried out a study in which 60 lexical items of Russian were presented to 203 volunteer adult students who knew no Russian. The presentation phases were largely based on Lozanov's first model:

1. First decoding — (bilingual text) with the help of mimicry, gestures and movements.
2. Second decoding — as above, but students imitate words and non-verbal elements.
3. Intoned reading of the material (neutral, loud,whispering) — without music.
4. Musical séance — materials read to the playing of baroque music.

Presentation of materials took place in three different conditions as follows:

1. Teacher presents materials with Gestik during the first phase.
   Students reproduce materials with Gestik during the second phase.
2. Teacher presents materials with Gestik during the first phase.
   Students repeat materials verbally without Gestik during the second phase.
3. Teacher presents materials audio-visually.
   Students repeat materials verbally.

Phases three and four of the presentation cycle remained as above and were identical for all groups. Subjects were given a 20 item multiple choice test immediately after the sessions and one week later. Students did not know that they were going to be re-tested. Baur and Grzybek were particularly interested in the results after one week since items had to be recalled from long-term memory. The results showed the following:

1. An increase in retention rate after one week in the first condition.
2. An unchanged retention rate after one week in the second condition.
3. A decrease in retention rate after one week in the third condition.

These trends were highly significant for all within-group tests. Between groups the difference between the first and second condition, as well as between the second and third condition was significant. The difference between the first and third condition was highly significant.

In order to integrate these findings and to provide a more balanced model in terms of the alternation of active and passive states in Suggestopedia, Baur (1984) developed the following structure for his Psychopädie cycle (information is included to give some idea about the distribution of time for the individual phases in an intensive language course):

PSYCHOPÄDIE    STRUCTURE

1. P R E P A R A T I O N.  Before the course begins students are informed about the nature of the course and introduced to the relaxation techniques used. Baur does not specify the time involved.

2. P R E S E N T A T I O N

(a) Introduction Phase. The first 20 minutes of the course are spent decoding the new materials in a lively manner integrating non-verbal elements to bring the text alive. This part is identical to the beginning of Lozanov's presentation session, although the short duration suggests that fewer lexical items are introduced here. Baur (1984:309) stresses that the role of the teacher's use of Kinesik, Gestik and Mimik is not to convey the meaning of the text, since its translation is given, but to activate the interest of the learner and to superimpose on the text characteristics which are perceived via a multitude of channels and are stored as secondary associations which aids in the retention of the materials.

(b) Reproduction Phase. The next 90 minutes are spent with active reproduction of the text by the students through interactive exercises. This phase does not exist in this position in any other model of Accelerative Learning; the exercises described here, such as role play and introductions, are part of the review and elaboration sessions in all the above models. In a sense Baur distributes the activities for review and elaboration over two sessions. In this session the learners are to be made familiar with the text so that items used in the activation session are easily recognised. They are given the opportunity to develop their playful-creative fantasy, to lose their fear of speaking, to realise that it can be fun to operate in the target language, and with the integration of physical activities overcome their passive involvement in the learning process.

(c) Analytical Phase. This 40 minute session is largely based on the second model of Lozanov's active concert session. Baur (1984:313) points out that here the cognitive-analytical abilities of the learners are activated through the reading of the text, the recognition of word and syllable divisions, the comparison of mother tongue and target language structures, and the comparison of phonetics and spelling.

(d) Associative Phase. This session of 30 minutes is largely based on the first model of Lozanov's passive concert session. Before this session the students have a relaxation period with physical exercises and visualisation exercises. The placement of a relaxation session here, although different from the models discussed above (except Lozanov's first model), is supported by some other practitioners of Accelerative Learning. Stockwell (1985), for instance, feels that students, especially in intensive courses, do not need relaxation at the beginning of the course but at this stage. Baur (1984:315) points out that here the logical-analytical processes of the left hemisphere, which were predominant in the phase before, give way to right hemisphere dominated processes. Now the materials are again perceived globally with the superimposition of the musical structures.

3. A C T I V A T I O N.    Baur stresses that before this session at least one night of rest should be given to consolidate the materials. The next four to six hours are spent with the activation of materials in playful communicative situations. Emphasis is put on the development of spontaneous speaking, although writing skills and grammar are also included. Baur (1984:319) believes that because materials were already presented in a playful fashion during the reproduction phase, the transfer from input to activation and functional use is more natural than in Suggestopedia.

Psychopädie appears to be a well designed adaptation of Suggestopedia for intensive language teaching. Baur, too, points out that his model can be adapted for different learning environments, provided that the relationship of time and phases is held constant. The main difference between this model and Lozanov's model is the inclusion of a reproduction phase before the concert sessions. In the Lozanov model as in Superlearning and SALT the students remain in a receptive state right up to the review and elaboration sessions. Baur's model by contrast provides a more even alternation between receptive and active states which may well be more attractive to the students. However, the receptive phases in Suggestopedia are generally not seen as unpleasant, especially by adult students. Baur's model may also be attractive from the teachers' point of view. Intensive courses, in particular, tend to be very demanding on teachers in these prolonged "performance" sessions.

In terms of structure all Baur does is reshuffle Lozanov's model by taking some time devoted in Suggestopedia to elaboration and practice and using it for similar purposes in the presentation stages. Although Baur and Grzybek (1984) have given some empirical evidence for the efficacy of students reproducing non-verbal elements in the presentation phase, this study on its own does not give sufficient support to the rationale of including a reproductive phase in the presentation sessions. Lozanov's and more recent researchers' use of non-verbal elements in the review and elaboration sessions, and indeed throughout the suggestopedic cycle, may well prove equally as efficient. In order to prove the superiority of a reproductive phase it would be more appropriate to compare the results after teaching with the entire cycles of both models.