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 of
COGAFF (Cognitive and
Affective) taxonomy of
questioning: literal,
comprehension, application,
analysis, synthesis, evaluation
and 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)
Posttest 1
( n = 25)
Posttest 2
( 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
Pre-posttest 2 * Group
Factor
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
Pre-posttest 1 & 2 *Group
Factor
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 2 posttest 1 pretest
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

m
a
r
g
i
n
a
l

m
e
a
n

s
c
o
r
e
s
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
Pre-posttest 1 * Group
Factor
336.99
Linear
1 336.99 1.40 .243
Pre-posttest 2 * Group
Factor
1081.01
Linear
1 1081.01 3.45 .070
Posttest 1 & 2 *Group
Factor
2625.14
Linear
1 2625.14 15.277 .000
Pre-posttest 1 & 2 *Group
Factor
1081.01
Linear
1 1081.01 3.45 .070
Pre-posttest 1 & 2 *Group
Factor
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 postt ests
posttest 2 posttest 1 pretest
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

m
a
r
g
i
n
a
l

m
e
a
n

s
c
o
r
e
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 (3
rd
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 (2
nd
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.