suggestopedia as teaching method

197

Effect of Suggestopedia on Critical Thinking NG SIEW HUA Universiti Putra Malaysia

Abstract To develop learners full potential intellectually and emotionally with the ability to think critically, learners need to be exposed to positive and constructive suggestions in a non-threatening environment. This research examined the effect of Suggestopedia, a teaching method, on a group of Malaysian secondary Form Two students critical thinking skills The research design used in this study is a nonrandomized control group, pretest-posttest quasi experimental design The instruments used were pre- and post-reading tests using the seven levels of COGAFF taxonomy of questioning. The data were analyzed using the SPSS for percentage, mean, standard deviation, t-tests and repeated-measures analysis of variance. The findings showed that there was no significant difference in the mean scores in the first posttest between the two groups of subjects administered immediately after teaching. However, there was significant difference in the mean scores in the experimental group as compared to the control group in the second posttest administered after two weeks. This study concluded that the teaching method, Suggestopedia had a positive and consistent effect on the group of form two students critical thinking skills immediately after treatment and also after a lapse of time as compared to the control group with the normal classroom teaching method.

Introduction Learners in the traditional classrooms are often exposed to negative and destructive suggestions which prevent the learners from developing their full potentials (Kussler, 1998). In order for the learners to develop their full potentials, Kussler (1998) suggests that these negative suggestions be replaced with constructive suggestions by creating a non-threatening learning environment. Many members in the language teaching community are trying to find ways to increase the learners receptive input and to lower the learners anxiety in the communicative output (Celce-Murcia, 1991). Brown and Yule (1983) and Bowen, Madsen and Hilferty (1985) suggest Suggestopedia as one of the packaged pedagogies or teaching methods which focuses on tapping the learners abilities in learning languages by counteracting the fears and inhibitions that are likely to impede language learning. Bowen, Madsen and Hilferty (1985) mention that there are assurances of progress in language learning using Suggestopedia as a method of teaching. They also mention that in ideal conditions the experience of learning is totally positive and learners also show surprising fluency and communicative ability in a short span of time. This research serves to focus on the learning environment using this teaching method Suggestopedia to examine its effect on the learners critical thinking skills. Identification of Research Problems Narrowly focused activities which require little cognitive processing will result in shallow learning unless it is accompanied by activities which stimulate the affective processing

198

(Tomlinson, 1998). This is a fundamental principle of the Lozanovs Suggestopedia. Lozanov assumes that the only major linguistic problems in the language classrooms are memorisation and integration (Adamson, 1997). Learners remember the words and patterns of the language and integrate them into their personalities. In addition to this, the materials and activities used which stimulates the thoughts and feelings in the learners allows for the maximisation and stimulation of the left and right brains learning potential (Tomlinson, 1998). They encourage intellectual involvement as in cognitive processing and aesthetic and emotional involvement as in affective processing. Here, Lozanovs Suggestopedia is designed primarily to make these two processes more effective through engaging the learners in a variety of left and right brain activities in the same lesson (Adamson, 1997, Tomlinson, 1998 ) The question now is how true are the above statements as mentioned by Adamson (1997) and Tomlinson (1998) when our Malaysian second language learners are engaged with literary texts and a variety of related activities which are supposed to help stimulate the right and left brain in a cosy musical learning environment as suggested by Lozanovs Suggestopedia. The researcher through her experience in teaching English in secondary schools found that most students feel comfortable with only the literal comprehension of the texts and often find problems in handling higher order divergent questions. Such problems with students inability to attempt higher order questions whereby they were required to exercise their critical thinking skills could probably be due to the teaching method and the learning environment which did not provide activities and tasks that were motivating and challenging enough to give the learners the opportunity to stretch and develop their critical thinking abilities. To add to this, Professor Chamkaur Gill (Johore Bahru, Nov. 13, 2000) mentions that learners tend to learn less once they stop enjoying their lessons. This research, therefore, seeks to find out if Lozanovs Suggestopedia teaching method in a non-threatening environment could possibly help stimulate the learners left and right hemisphere of their brains and thus help enhance, develop or improve their critical thinking skills with regard to the higher order questions. The critical thinking abilities of the learners are gauged through their ability to respond to the seven levels of the COGAFF taxonomy of questioning (Ghazali Mustapha, 1997, 1998, 2000). Objective of Research The objectives of this research are as follows: i. to find out whether the learners in the group with Suggestopedia teaching method

will perform better in their responses to the COGAFF taxonomy of questioning as compared to the group with normal classroom teaching method

ii. to find out to what extent do the responses to the COGAFF taxonomy of questioning differ in the pre- and post- reading tests with regard to time in the group with Suggestopedia teaching method as compared to the group with the normal teaching method.

199

Research Hypothesis There are two specific hypothesis related to this study. They are: HA1: There is a significant difference in the mean scores between the pretest and posttest

1 of the experimental group as compared to the mean scores of the pretest and posttest 1 of the control group at .05 level of significance.

HA2: There is a significant difference in the mean scores between the pretest and posttest 2 of the experimental group as compared to the mean scores of the pretest and posttest 2 of the control group at .05 level of significance.

Conceptual Framework of Research Figure 1 below shows a conceptual overview and framework of this research. The main focus of this research was on comparing the effectiveness of two different teaching methods using literary texts.

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of Research

Effect of normal classroom method

(control group)

Critical thinking skills

Evaluation of learners: Using the seven levels ofCOGAFF (Cognitive andAffective) taxonomy ofquestioning: literal,comprehension, application,analysis, synthesis, evaluationand affective

! Non-threatening atmosphere ! background music ! cosy environment ! Positive suggestions ! Desuggestions ! Peripheral and informal learning ! Lots of activities/tasks ! Students are to read before retiring ! Teacher and student-centred

! Normal classroom environment ! Teacher-centered ! Reading aloud by teacher and

students ! Teacher discusses story using chalk

and talk method ! Some pair and group activities

Visual Input : Literary reading texts, pictures of events and vocabulary items from texts, activities and tasks, translated texts in L1.

Aural Input: teachers oral reading of literary text, friends oral reading, dialogue, oral interaction, positive suggestions, music and songs

Visual Input : Literary reading texts and stick pictures drawn on blackboard.

Effect of Suggestopedia (Experimental group)

Which group will show better results in the post-test scores: Experimental group or Control group?

Physical and mental involvement: Games and activities

Aural Input: teachers oral reading and some reading aloud by students.

200

Scope of Research The sample of students selected for this research were two groups of form two students from a population of about 400 form two students from Sekolah Men. Keb. Sri Pantai, Kuala Lumpur. It is a co-education school. The racial composition of students in this school is about 100 per cent Malays. Both groups of students were of about the same level of academic performance. Literature Review According to Simpson and Weiner (1991:597) in The Oxford English Dictionary :

Suggesotpedia or Suggestology is the application of Suggestology to education or teaching by suggestion. ...With Suggestopedia the Bulgarian have expanded time in every real sense, teaching you in a minute what usually takes many weeks to learn. Suggestology is the science of suggestion and its concomitant penetration into pedagogy. It is a newly developing science for self improvement.

Suggestopedia used in this research was a method developed in Bulgaria by a psychiatrist called Georgi Lozanov in the early 1960s. This research looked into the procedures of this teaching method and features as mentioned by Lozanov (1988) and as suggested by Larsen-Freeman (1986), Richards and Rodgers (1992) and Tomlinson (1998) adapted to suit the Malaysian classrooms and educational contexts. Other researchers like Adamson (1997a, 1977b), Bancroft (1978, 1995), Timmerman (1991) and Stevick (1996) highlighted the optimal rate of learning and memory span through using suggestopedia and other important features related to suggestopedia like the use of classical and baroque music. Some of these researchers had also mentioned the strengths and weaknesses in using suggestopedia in teaching. One of the greatest strengths identified was the rate of learning could be increased by five times to fifty times as compared to learning by conventional methods(Bancroft, 1978, Lozanov & Gateva, 1988, Richards & Rodgers, 1991, Adamson, 1997a). One of the weaknesses identified was students themselves had to show willingness and individual motivation when they entered for this course of learning (Lozanov & Gateva, 1988, Cook, 1996).

Critical thinking was defined by Mayfield (1994:6) as: consciously observing, analyzing, reasoning and evaluating according to proven standards. These proven standards (Mayfield, 1994: 6) include clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, completeness, reliability, soundness and fairness. In relation to this, the COGAFF Taxanomy (Ghazali Mustapha, 1997, 1998, 2000) highlighted seven levels of thinking skills namely: literal comprehension, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation and affective. The word COGAFF originated from the root word cognitive and affective. The COGAFF taxonomy of questioning was a fusion of the six levels of Blooms taxonomy (knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation) and Krathwohls taxonomy (affective). Critical thinking, according to the COGAFF taxonomy was related to application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation and the affective level. The main focus of this study was on the five higher order level of critical thinking skills of application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation and affective according to the taxonomy.

201

Various other views regarding thinking and critical thinking, critical thinking and teaching approaches, critical thinking and the taxonomy of questions and its relationship with the Piagets theory, Gardners theory and Suggestopedia, the reading model and memory span were also discussed. The researcher also summarized how Suggestopedia and critical thinking could bring about positive results in teaching and learning in the Malaysian ESL contexts. Research Methodology This study employed a nonrandomised control group, pretest-posttest quasi-experimental research design (Ary, Jacobs and Razavieh, 1990) to explore the effect of two teaching methods on two different classes or intact groups of form two students. One group of students (experimental group) was given treatment, using the Suggestopedia method (E) while another group of students (control group) was given the normal classroom method (C).

The research was conducted on two groups of Form Two secondary students in 2000. Group A which comprised 23 students was the control group and Group B which comprised 25 students was the experimental group. The subjects were selected from an urban Kuala Lumpur school in Malaysia. The name of the school is Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Sri Pantai. The research instrument used was a progress test on reading. The literary texts used were extracts from a recommended literature text as stated in the Literature Component in the English Language Curriculum for Secondary Schools (1999), Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe (1989). Figure 2 below showed a simplified research framework of how the research was carried out. The methodological application of the teaching method, Suggestopedia, used in this research was planned so as to suit the school learning environment and situations in the Malaysian contexts. The instructional materials used as support materials for teaching and learning using this method of teaching were done with reference to what was mentioned by Lozanov (Lozanov and Gateva, 1988), Larsen-Freeman (1986), Richards and Rodgers (1992) and Tomlinson (1998). Six lessons were planned accordingly using lesson plans during the treatment over a period of two weeks for the experimental group during their English lessons which took place in the language room. Similarly the control group had six lessons using the same texts over a period of two weeks. However, the control group had had lessons conducted in their own normal classroom. Both groups were taught by their own English Language teachers who were qualified experienced TESL teacher s All the lessons in the treatment group followed a four-stage lesson plan. The lesson began with Stage I Introduction, where relaxation exercises were introduced followed by Stage II An active concert session, where reading aloud was done with rhythmic classical music and Stage III A pseudopassive concert session, where reading aloud was done at normal speed to baroque music and finally Stage IV An elaboration session, where games and more kinesthetic activities were introduced. The data collected were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS). Descriptive statistic was used to find the percentage of the scores for the pretest, posttest and delayed posttest (posttest 1 and posttest 2) for both groups. Repeated measures

202

ANOVA was also used to find out whether the scores in the three reading tests obtained by the two groups and the overall effect were significant.

Figure 2: Research Framework of Research Analysis of Results and Discussion Tables 1 and 2 are percentage distribution tables showing the respondents performance in the reading tests for the control group and experimental group respectively. Table 1: Percentage Distribution, Mean and Standard Deviation of respondents

Performance in the Control Group for all the Reading tests Reading test Scores (%) Pretest

(n = 23) Posttest 1 ( n = 23)

Posttest 2 ( n = 23)

Control group A (80 -100) - 26.10 - B (70 - 79) 4.30 43.50 8.70 C (60 - 69) 26.10 17.40 39.10 D (40 - 59) 56.50 8.70 34.80 F (0 - 39) 13.00 4.30 17.40 Mean 52.37 70.92 50.63

Procedures of research methodology

Suggestopedia teaching method Normal classroom

teaching method

Pre-reading test (COGAFF Taxonomy of questioning with

translation)

Post-reading test 1 (same as Pretest ) given immediately after treatment

Post reading test 2 (same as Pretest ) given after a lapse of 2 weeks.

Rating of reading tests by 3 selected raters and analysis of scores using SPSS for Repeated-measures ANOVA

Interpretation, discussion and conclusion from findings

Experimental group n =25

Control group n =23

Determining treatment

203

Standard deviation 13.36 15.59 24.36 Maximum 74 85 76 Minimum 18 10 0

Table 2: Percentage Distribution, Mean and Standard Deviation of the Respondents Performance in the Experimental Group for all the Reading Tests

Reading test Scores (%) Pretest ( n = 25)



Experimental group A (80 -100) - - 4.00 B (70 - 79) 8.00 56.00 36.00 C (60 - 69) 36.00 16.00 40.00 D (40 - 59) 36.00 20.00 20.00 F (0 - 39) 20.00 8.00 - Mean 52.88 65.74 66.38 Standard deviation 15.75 13.85 8.60 Maximum 74 79 80 Minimum 15 31 45 Tables 1 and 2 indicated improvement in the scores for the posttest 1 for both groups. There was no one who scored A in the experimental group but the percentage of subjects scoring B was higher as compared to the control group. The results indicated that the control group fared better than the experimental group immediately after the normal classroom method of teaching. However, the results indicated otherwise in the mean for the delayed posttest. There was a slight increase in the mean for the delayed posttest as compared to the posttest 1 for the experimental group. This implied that the subjects seemed to show better retention ability as compared to the control group and that the effect of the new teaching method was more consistent after a lapse of time as compared to the control group. Table 3 is a summary table showing the repeated-measures analysis of variance of all the reading tests within the subjects contrasts for both the control and experimental group

Table 3: Summary Table for Repeated- measures Analysis of Variance for the Three Reading Tests Within Subjects Contrasts for Both the Control and Experimental Group

Source of variance Sum of Squares df Mean

squares F Sig. F

Pre-posttest 1 * Group Factor

194.499 Linear

1 194.499 .952 .334


1390.5 Linear

1 390.529 5.084 .029

Posttest 1 & 2 *Group Factor

2625.136 Linear

1 2625.136 15.277 .000

Pre-posttest 1 & 2 *Group Factor

1390.529 Linear

1 1390.529 5.084 .029

204


1416.247 Quadratic

1 1416.247 8.877 .005

The conclusion of the finding was there was no significant difference in the linear effect or contrast in the mean scores for the pretest and posttest 1 within the groups at .05 level of significance and there was a significant difference in the linear effect for the pretest and posttest 2 within groups contrasts at .05 level of significance. It also showed that there was a significant difference in the linear effect for the posttest 1 and posttest 2 within groups contrasts at .05 level of significance. Table 3 also indicated that there was a significant linear effect for all the three reading tests, pretest, posttest 1 and posttest 2 (delayed posttest) within groups contrasts at .05 level of significance where F (1, 46) = 5.084, p = .029 and a significant quadratic effect within groups contrasts at .05 level of significance where F (1, 46) = 8.877, p = .005. Figure 3 indicated the interaction of all the three reading tests for both the groups in this research. The dark thick line represented the experimental group while the broken line represented the control group. The two lines intercepted each other showing that there was a significant interaction (p = .000) for all the three reading tests, pretest. posttest 1 and posttest 2.

Figure 3: Chart Showing Interaction of the Estimated Marginal Mean Scores of the Reading

Tests for the Control Group and Experimental Group

The line graph showed that there was interaction among the three reading tests within the two groups. It also indicated clearly that the treatment given by the teaching method, Suggestopedia had a greater influence on the respondents in the experimental group only after a lapse of two weeks as compared to the normal teaching method in the control group. Table 4 is a summary table showing the repeated-measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) for all the three reading tests with regard to the responses to higher order questions only (excluding the scores for responses to literal and comprehension questions). The results showed that there was no significant linear effect or contrast for the pretest and posttest 1 within the groups at .05 level of significance and there was also no significant linear effect

Pretest and posttests

posttest 2posttest 1pretest

Est

ima

ted

mar

gin

al m

ean

sco

res 80

70

60

50

40

Group

control group

experimental group

205

for the pretest and posttest 2 within groups contrasts at .05 level of significance after a lapse of two weeks in the subjects responses to higher order questions. The results also indicated there was no significant linear effect for the pretest, posttest 1 and posttest 2 within groups contrasts in the responses to the higher order questions at .05 level of significance where F (1, 46) = 3.45, p = .070. Table 4: Summary Table for Repeated-measures Analysis of Variance for the Three

Reading Tests (Responses to the Higher Order Questions only) Within Subjects Contrasts for Both the Control and Experimental Group

Source of variance Sum of Squares df Mean

squares F Sig. F


336.99 Linear

1 336.99 1.40 .243


1081.01 Linear

1 1081.01 3.45 .070

Posttest 1 & 2 *Group Factor

2625.14 Linear

1 2625.14 15.277 .000


1081.01 Linear

1 1081.01 3.45 .070


1614.41 Quadratic

1 1614.41 9.44 .004

However, the findings in table 4 also indicated that there was a significant quadratic effect in the responses to the higher order questions for the pretest, posttest 1 and posttest 2 within groups contrasts at .05 level of significance. This implied that the overall findings indicate that the teaching method, Suggestopedia did influence and had an effect on the subjects critical thinking skills in the experimental group as compared to the normal teaching method on the control group at .05 level of significance where F(1,46) = 9.44, p = .004. The interaction of the three reading tests for both groups was seen clearly in Figure 4.

Pretest and posttests

posttest 2posttest 1pretest

Estim

ate

d m

arg

ina

l m

ean s

core

s

80

70

60

50

40

Group

control group

experimental group

206

Figure 4: Chart Showing Interaction of the Estimated Marginal Mean Scores of the Reading Tests (Responses to Higher Order Questions) for the Control Group and Experimental Group

Figure 4 presented the interaction of all the three reading tests (responses to the higher order questions) for both the control and experimental group. Like figure 3, the interaction indicated clearly that the treatment given by the teaching method, Suggestopedia had a greater influence on the respondents responses to higher order questions in the experimental group only after a lapse of two weeks as compared to the normal teaching method in the control group.

Implications of Study in the Malaysian ESL Class A lot has been said about thinking and critical thinking and the objectives of building a Malaysian knowledgeable thinking society and producing students who are able to use the English language in the multi-media world and to meet the vision 2020. It is perhaps time to consider and select an approach to teaching that encompasses the global aspects of a learner, both cognitively and aesthetically. Teachers and educators have perhaps to be more aware of the different aspects of their learners and consider the affective and the cognitive aspects of the learners and the learning environment which can enable learners to use the language in an anxiety free environment and at the same time stimulate the cognitive aspects, thus, encouraging good thinking and critical thinking in the learners. Problems in language learning which could be due to the uninspiring and conventional style of teaching could probably be solved if constructive suggestions are encouraged by creating a non-threatening environment to develop the learners full potential (Gill, 2000, Kussler 1998). It has also been claimed by Lozanov and other researchers that this method suggestopedia can improve the learners memory by 10 to 25 times and that learning in the second language learners can be accelerated as compared to the normal rate of learning (Larsen-Freeman, 1986, Lozanov and Gateva, 1988, Richard and Rodger, 1992, Tomlinson, 1998). It has also been reported by Adamson (1997) through his personal experience and Timmerman (1991) through his Suggestopedia experiment with two groups of learners that Suggestopedia has had a positive effect in the long-term results. This is confirmed and indicated in the positive significant difference in mean scores of the second posttest (after a lapse of two weeks) in the group with Suggestopedia teaching method as compared to the group with the normal teaching method. Perhaps this finding could provide some insights into the effect of this teaching method on critical thinking and how this critical thinking ability could be maintained over a certain period of time.

Conclusion The findings in this study have therefore concluded what the other researchers like Lozanov and Gateva (1978, 1988), Larsen-Freeman (1986), Bancroft (1978), Richards and Rodgers (1992), Adamson (1997) and Timmerman (1991) who have had experimented this teaching method Suggestopedia either with themselves or with groups of learners that learners would show significant long term effects in learning. The findings in this study have also concluded that the effect of Suggestopedia on the learners critical thinking skills is greater after a lapse of time as compared to the normal classroom teaching method. In conclusion, this research has provided some insights into the effect of a different teaching method, Suggestopedia as compared to the normal eclectic conventional

207

classroom teaching method. The findings obtained from this study has shown that this teaching method, Suggestopedia, has had a significant quadratic effect on this group of form two learners critical thinking skills not immediately but only after a period of time. Recommendations for Future Research Many researchers in other countries especially in the West have experimented with Lozanovs teaching method, Suggestopedia. Many have adapted and used different names like accelerated learning, multi-level learning or super learning. This teaching approach has claimed that learning can be accelerated, memorization can be increased to more than 10 to 15 times as compared to the normal conventional method of teaching and that it has positive impact on the learners cognitive achievements and affective attributes. This global humanistic approach to teaching, however, has not been explored extensively in Malaysia. It would, therefore, be highly recommended that future research using this teaching method could be used to explore learners creative and critical thinking using other tools like De Bonos Cort thinking tools and Barretts taxonomy of question types. Research into the effect of this teaching method on the learners process writing on different types of learners of different levels, ethnic groups or gender are also recommended for future research. It would also be good that future research could look into the developments of the second language learners in the learning of English as a second language or in the learning of grammar in the Malaysian ESL contexts using this teaching method. It has also been mentioned in the Lozanovs teaching method that it is especially recommended and applicable to small groups of learners who are willing to learn. As a result, adaptations to the method have to be considered to suit our Malaysian ESL teaching environment. Apart from this, the use of other support instructional materials especially music could probably be modified. Perhaps, the use of Malaysiatopedia (a new word used by the researcher to describe Suggestopedia used in the Malaysian contexts) would be more effective with the use of local traditional classical music or chants which are more familiar to our Asian learners instead of western classical music. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adamson, C. (1997). Suggestopedia. The Language Teacher Online. Retrieved from the

World Wide Web: http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/97/feb/suggest.html/BR.

Adamson, C. (1997). Suggestopedia as NLP. The Language Teacher Online. . Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/97/feb/suggest.html/BR.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C.& Raazavieh,A. (1990). Introduction to research in education. Fort Worth, U.S.A.: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,Inc.

Bancroft, W.J. (1978). The Lozanov method and its American adaptations. Modern Language Journal, 62(4),167-175.

Bancroft, W.J. (1995). The 2-sided mind: teaching and Suggestopedia. Eric Document Reproduction Service No.ED 384244.

Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

208

Bowen, D.J., Madsen, H. & Hilferty, A. (1985). Tesol techniques and procedures. Singapore: Newbury House Publishers.43 -44.

Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.38-43.

Cook,V. (1996). Second language learning and language teaching. London:Hodder Headline Group.

Defoe, D. (1989). Robinson Crusoe. New York: Tom Doherty Associates Book. 235-253.

Ghazali Mustapha. (1997). An investigation into teachers questions and tasks to develop reading comprehension: The application of the Cogaff Taxonomy in developing critical thinking in Malaysia. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., Universty of Leicester. England.

Ghazali Mustapha. (1998). English Language Teaching Methods. Unpublished article. Universti Putra Malaysia, Serdang.

Ghazali Mustapha. (2000). Too convergent to be divergent.. In Chan S.H., Quayum, M.A. & Rosli Talif (Eds.), Diverse Voices: Readings in languages, literatures and cultures.(pp.75-89). Serdang: Universty Putra Malaysia Press.

Johore Bahru. (2000, November 13). Fear hinders English studies: students prefer to keep a low profile during lessons. The STAR, pp. 3.

Kussler,R. (1998). ALT Accelerated language teaching. Modern ForeignLanguages. . Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.sun.ac.za/forlang/alt.htm.

Larsen-Freeman, L. D. (1986). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. 72-86.

Lozanov, G. & Gateva, E. (1988). The foreign language teachers Suggestopedic manual. Switzerland: Gordon & Breach Science Publishers, 5-113.

Lozanov, G. (1978). Suggestology and outlines of Suggestopedia. New York:Gordon & Breach Science Publishers. In Cook, V. (Ed.). Second language learning and language teaching. London:Hodder Headline Group. 64-87, 199-203.

Mayfield, M. (1994). Thinking for yourself: developing critical thinking skills through reading and writing (3rd ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co. 5-8.

Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (1992). Approaches and methods in language teaching - a description and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 142-154.

Simpson, J.A. & Weiner, E.S.C. (1991). The Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed). IX, 597. Stevick, E. W. (1996). Memory, meaning & method. Masachusetts: Heinle & Heinle

Publishers. 23-42, 135-136. Timmerman, L. (1991). Our 1991 Suggestopedia experiment: results and conclusions.

WOT study group for the optimization of language teaching KATHO Polythecnic. . Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http.//www.katho.be/reno/suggestexp.html.

Tomlinson, B. (1998). Material development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 20-21.

NG SIEW HUAUniversiti Putra Malaysia

IntroductionLearners in the traditional classrooms are often exposed to negative and destructive suggestions which prevent the learners from developing their full potentials (Kussler, 1998). In order for the learners to develop their full potentials, Kussler (1998)Identification of Research ProblemsThe researcher through her experience in teaching English in secondary schools found that most students feel comfortable with only the literal comprehension of the texts and often find problems in handling higher order divergent questions. Such problemObjective of ResearchResearch HypothesisConceptual Framework of ResearchLiterature ReviewAccording to Simpson and Weiner (1991:597) in The Oxford English Dictionary :Critical thinking was defined by Mayfield (1994:6) as: consciously observing, analyzing, reasoning and evaluating according to proven standards. These proven standards (Mayfield, 1994: 6) include clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, completenessVarious other views regarding thinking and critical thinking, critical thinking and teaching approaches, critical thinking and the taxonomy of questions and its relationship with the Piagets theory, Gardners theory and Suggestopedia, the reading model

Research MethodologyThe methodological application of the teaching method, Suggestopedia, used in this research was planned so as to suit the school learning environment and situations in the Malaysian contexts. The instructional materials used as support materials for teaAll the lessons in the treatment group followed a four-stage lesson plan. The lesson began with Stage I Introduction, where relaxation exercises were introduced followed by Stage II An active concert session, where reading aloud was done with rhythMinimumSig. F

1390.529

Conclusion

Recommendations for Future ResearchBIBLIOGRAPHYGhazali Mustapha. (1997). An investigation into teachers questions and tasks to develop reading comprehension: The application of the Cogaff Taxonomy in developing critical thinking in Malaysia. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., Universty of Leicester. England.Ghazali Mustapha. (1998). English Language Teaching Methods. Unpublished article. Universti Putra Malaysia, Serdang.Ghazali Mustapha. (2000). Too convergent to be divergent.. In Chan S.H., Quayum, M.A. & Rosli Talif (Eds.), Diverse Voices: Readings in languages, literatures and cultures.(pp.75-89). Serdang: Universty Putra Malaysia Press.

suggestopedia as teaching method

Documents