Talk:Suggestopedia

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Alternative Views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

I have added some useful links for anyone that wants to tackle writing an interesting article on this subject also emailed bdeporter@learningforum.com about contributing to the subject.Mike 00:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 major methods[edit]

The article states "Suggestopedia is the latest of the six major foreign-language teaching methods known to language teaching experts (the oldest being the grammar translation method". I feel this is rather subjective (what constitutes 'major'?), and would in any case be clearer if the other 5 were named. The other major approaches I can think of are Grammar Translation, the Direct Method, Audiolinguism, Communicative Language Teaching. But do the Silent Way and Community Language Learning count? (see, for example, How to Teach Grammar, Scott Thornbury, Longman, 1999 and Inside Teaching, Bowen & Marks, Heinemann, 1994 ) Davidelit 04:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I could name other candidates (e.g., task-based instruction, extensive reading, tpr, tprs) that are comparable in "majorness" with silent way. Either the original editor should weigh with her/his list or we need to re-word this. Kdammers (talk) 06:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd and biased article; surely one of his disciples can make it sound more convincing than this? Why should anybody care what UNESCO (1978) recommended? Many contemporary writers see themselves as post-method in any case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.205.232 (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a non-subjective puff for a pseudo-science 'method' that has no relevance to actual classroom experience worldwide. Sadly not up to Wikipedia standards and neither a valid description nor critique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.87.192.121 (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the user above. The article presents a one sided argument and contains a lot of questionable non-NPOV wording. Phrases like "Suggestopedia has been confirmed by a great number of scientists", without referencing, should be avoided. There also seems to be curiously little information in the "criticism" section, considering this is a the that's hasn't been accepted by the scientific community at large. It seems like only supporters of the technique has been working on the article.--Guff se (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to the pseudo science aspect of this theory to the top of the article, as well as new references to the sources claiming so. This was removed by User:Pnegrete two days later, without any type of comment or argument. I don't want this to end up in an edit war, but I have now undone his removal of the text (first topic, second paragraph).--Guff se (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After having read the article, I thought it was very similar to an 'infomercial'. How anyone can compare this method (?) to traditional ones like grammar-translation, the direct approach, the audio-lingual approach, project-based learning, the lexical approach (e.g. chunking) etc. is beyond me. This method belongs more on the David Copperfield page than in the Linguistics section. I agree with most of the criticism above and question the author's motivation. I even wonder if it's not an elaborate hoax to keep us on our toes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.122.131.235 (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear me...[edit]

...this page is in dire need of clean-up and citation. It doesn't actually get round to explaining what suggestopedia is. It's also not at all neutral. I'll have a go, but anyone who knows more, please join in.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

portmanteau[edit]

My question is in regard to the author's statement that the world 'Suggestopedia' is a portmanteau of the words 'suggestion' and 'pedagogy.' If that were the case, it would be something like 'Suggestigogy'. How does this work, and where is the citation for this? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpstribling (talk • contribs) 03:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism??[edit]

how does the following sentence belong in the "Criticism" section? -- "On the other hand, there are thousands of thesis in universities around the world, proving that Suggestopedia has had important and relevant results. Prof. Paulo Sergio, from Brazil has claimed to be using Suggestopedia/Neuropedia in Brazil since 2000 with amazing results" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettpeirce (talk • contribs) 16:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unesco report is not an endorsement[edit]

The unesco report cited is not the result of a study by any "experts" but a proposal written by Dr Lazanov himself and is submitted to Unesco for research funding via the Bulgarian ministry of education. Citing it in the article as an endorsement and is tantamount to fraud. Most of the biased content of this article and life to directly from Lazanov's own site! http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0003/000300/030087eb.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.203.75.31 (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section heading is certainly grossly misleading. Unless it can be shown that Unesco responded, it should be removed entirely. And if Unesco did respond, we would of course have to report what the response was (assuming that they said anything significant). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UNESCO endorsement[edit]

There are three documents about the UNESCO mission in Bulgaria (1978):

The preliminary report - http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0003/000300/030086eb.pdf
The Proceedings of the International Conference (3rd, April 21-23, 1978) are published here: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED202238
The Final UNESCO report is written 2 years later (1980) only in French - http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0004/000433/043398fo.pdf . Most important here are the given recommendations (page 22 – 26). --Natan76 (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]