With the computer revolution now in full swing, it was probably inevitable that a language-teaching approach based on a computerized concept of learning would appear. And so it has, in the form of Neuro-Linguistic Programming, or NLP. Before jumping on the NLP bandwagon, however, I hope language teachers will pause and consider carefully the merits of the NLP gospel. Does it come to us with the power of coherent reasoning, convincing evidence, and a credible view of human behavior? I do not think so, for a number of reasons. In an article of this limited size, it is impossible to deal with their way of thinking in depth and detail, but I can touch on some of the main issues.
Conceptual Weaknesses
To begin with, NLP comes across as an educational approach that has difficulty defining itself well. What exactly is NLP? Is it hypnosis, neuro-linguistics, motivational psychology, Suggestopedia, the "power of positive thinking," or Buddhist meditation (Allaway, 1997)? Judging by the articles in the February, 1997 issue of The Language Teacher, NLP is all of these things, without actually being any of them. I suppose they are all considered to be loosely related to the power of suggestion. Generally speaking, NLP seems to be an educational approach that bases itself on a model of human behavior coming directly from the world of computers and computer programming. This model views the human mind as something the instructor can "program" with new educational "software" in the form of subliminally implanted language content or messages. The practical way in which we can "install software" into the human brain is by the power of suggestion, in this view, though the NLP writers also make some reference to the use of sensory stimulation and other things. Therefore, NLP recommends the use of trance states, hypnotic suggestion, meditation, and other such means.
However, there is something inherently problematic about a view of learning that puts students into a passive role and makes teachers into hypnotists, gurus, or programmers. Instead, I believe teachers should help students to escape their usual role as passive followers of the suggestions of teachers. In a democratic society, according to my understanding, the role of a teacher is not simply to reproduce his own image or ideas in the minds of students. In such a society, it is necessary to nurture their powers of rational discernment and skepticism about the suggestions of teachers and other authorities, because there is always the danger of putting too much trust in them. Granted that this is probably only an ideal as no one can really completely escape his role as an authority figure and molder of student minds. Nevertheless, it is an ideal worth aiming at, even if we fall short of it, because the alternative extreme could be worse. For example, one teacher, Shoko Asahara, recently hypnotized his followers with chants of "Shoko, Shoko, Shoko," and everyone knows the result. As a teacher, I hesitate to imitate the methods of the brainwashers of the world, even in the good cause of better language learning. Rather than being malleable to an instructor's suggestions, I would prefer students always to be wide awake and testing in their minds the validity of everything he says. Especially in Japan, where the tendency toward blind submission to authority has produced notable problems such as emperor-worship and militarism, the authority-based approach is very questionable. After encountering the amazing credulity and passivity of many students here, it is hard for me to accept this dependence on the teacher-as-authority relationship.
The Absence of Real Support
The NLP special issue shows us why students should learn to be skeptical of the ideas of authority figures such as teachers. There are glaring examples of poor reasoning in the articles. For one thing, they have a number of unsubstantiated assertions. Two writers refer to Lozanov's (1978) claim that a language student can learn "1000 words an hour." On the face of it, this claim is ridiculous, since if it were true, students could absorb entire dictionaries in weeks. Really learning a word means becoming familiar with its uses in a variety of contexts, its various denotations and connotations, etc., and all this cannot be digested in a matter of seconds. Furthermore, the NLP writers themselves admit that Lozanov's statement is only a claim and bring forward no empirical data to support it. Nevertheless, Acton (1997) uses the claim as if it were evidence to support another claim about the bright prospects of success for NLP pronunciation training: "Recall Charles Adamson's note (in this issue) on Lozanov's claim. . . if that's the case with vocabulary--imagine the impact on trying to remember a 'simple' [th] sound!" (p. 23). The NLP writers encourage us to instill even wilder expectations in our students. Murphy and Bolstad (1997) advise: "You can even use your authority to suggest 'you can achieve anything you set your mind to. . .'" (p. 9). Anything? What if he sets his mind on becoming a flawless speaker of English in one week? Maybe the authors are following their own advice by trying to convince us readers by the power of suggestion alone. There is nothing else in such statements to persuade us.
The writers do make reference to some research and stories that they believe support the NLP approach, but most of the research seems to be done by people aggressively involved in NLP promotion, perhaps members of organizations such as The NLP Institute, who have a vested interest in its success. Their research may be about as credible as research done by The Tobacco Institute to establish the safety of smoking. Also, the relevance of the research is unclear. For example, Bolstad (1997) refers to one study by Dilts and Epstein (1995), which has to do with the eye position of spelling learners, but it is hard to see how the use of eye position in spelling recall establishes the whole NLP philosophy and approach. Besides research like that, Bolstad comments on NLP studies of the success of the marriage counselor Virginia Satir (as cited in Bandler & Grinder, 1975), but these anecdotes do not carry much weight either, since they only present an NLP interpretation of the causes of her purported success.
Ironically, one of the anecdotes offered as evidence even goes against the whole NLP approach. Bolstad mentions using Thomas Edison's 10,000 mistakes in experiments leading to the invention of the light bulb to convince his students that making errors can be an important part of learning. This is really a rational appeal, not hypnosis or suggestion, since it is just an illustration of the empirical fact that most learning involves trial and error. He calls this "reframing"; I call it reasonable persuasion.
Conclusion
This is not to say that I feel all the practical advice of the NLP advocates is bad. Many would agree that it is necessary for teachers to establish a good rapport with their students, to help them to relax in class, to make use of all their senses, to try to instill hope rather than negativism about language learning. What can NLP really teach those who know these things already? It is not clear. But clearly this is a seriously flawed educational methodology which encourages irrational student submissiveness. For this reason, the NLP approach would be objectionable even if it were proven to be effective for language teaching, but it also appears to suffer from a lack of convincing support. These problems ought to make us wary of adopting their methods. Moreover, a number of ESL/EFL writers including me (Chamot, 1995; Davidson, 1994; Tavrin & Al-arishi, 1991) have argued that English language teaching should move in the direction of promoting more thoughtful use of English. NLP seems to be advocating the opposite, which may be its greatest weakness.
References
Acton, W. (1997). Seven suggestions of highly successful pronunciation teaching. The Language Teacher, 21(2), 21-25.
Adamson, C. (1997). Suggestopedia as NLP. The Language Teacher, 21(2), 17-19.
Allaway, D. (1997). Buddhism and the struggling student. The Language Teacher, 21(2), 38-40.
Bandler, R., & Grinder, J. (1975). The structure of magic. Cupertino, CA: Meta Publications.
Bolstad, R. (1997). Using the language of the brain. The Language Teacher, 21(2), 12-15, 19.
Chamot, A. (1995). Creating a community of thinkers in the ESL/EFL classroom. TESOL Matters, 5(5), 1, 16.
Davidson, B. (1994). Critical thinking: A perspective and prescriptions for language teachers. The Language Teacher, 18(4), 20-26.
Dilts, R., & Eptein, T. (1995). Dynamic learning. Capitola: Meta Publications.