Chapter Ten: Three Steps Toward Authenticating the Practice and Research of Extensive Reading at a Japanese University

This study documents the first two of three steps taken by one teacher to deepen and authenticate the practice of Extensive Reading (ER) in non-Reading-based classes at a Japanese university. Step One began in the fall of 2014 through the establishment of a paper-based form of ER in a second year discussion course; Step Two was taken from spring 2015 and expanded the program to cover five non-reading-skill focused courses. Step Two continued the use of paper-based books and included three first year courses (two communication courses and one writing course) and two second year courses (one communication course and a new discussion course). It differed from Step One in that two forms of ER were used: Communication students in first and second year courses read “x” number of books and wrote responses; Discussion course and Writing course students read “x x 2” books, wrote responses, and noticed three words they either did not understand or were unclear about their meaning. In both forms a total of 99 students provided data through a) written responses, b) questionnaire responses, and c) the results of two vocabulary size tests that bookended semester one of academic year 2015-2016. The data allows for assessment on the worth of the ER practiced in the courses, to investigate the attitudes and performance of students, and to consider how such a program may be used with future students at the institution. The decision to give students vocabulary tests allowed for additional speculation on matters related to vocabulary acquisition, and utilized a research tool that may provide fruitful data with future students. Results saw students wholeheartedly endorse the practice of ER and approve the writer’s third step (currently in progress): a movement from solely paper-based ER to a mix between paper-based and online screen-based ER.

For a still-growing number of EFL researchers in tertiary education Extensive Reading (ER) is an approach to reading that has definite benefits for students of foreign languages. Researchers cognizant of its benefits find it remarkable that some institutions that offer EFL programs do not utilize its proven potential to get students reading large numbers of foreign language books. The inescapable case for extensive reading (Waring, 2006; 2009) has long disseminated far and wide, but perceptions that a) ER is unworthy for lower level university students, and b) uses up valuable time that could be more profitably used for commercial tests such as TEFL or TOEFL still linger and prevail. While the former is easily contested the latter is harder to disprove and provides oxygen for those who wish to resist such change. As Humphries and Burns (2015) recently noted, opposition to curriculum change is often a default reaction and is strengthened through teacher beliefs, lack of understanding new approaches, and a lack of ongoing support. In the case of ER, even where a teacher is open to change, there remain considerable problems: as with the Sciences, ER research has a replicability crisis. Existing research has not or cannot be replicated satisfactorily, and certainly not to convince stakeholders in Japanese institutions of its worth. One only needs to look at Nakanishi’s (2015)’s meta-analysis to understand this: the lack of specificity in detailed and descriptive statistics, control groups, and sample size in many studies has diluted ERs potential impact.

Another reason for lukewarm welcomes to ER is confusion over its definition. Day and Bamford’s 10 principles (1998, 2002) kick started the modern ER Movement and provided room for a wide umbrella of research, but differing research focuses have obfuscated an agreement as to its essence. However, Waring and McLean’s (2015) search to clarify core and variable dimensions in research and pedagogy have led to four core elements that may be present in a “purified” form of ER: fluent comprehension, high reading speed, the reading of large amounts of text, and a focus on meaning. When satisfying all of these, a reader practices the first language reading concept of “rauding” (Carver, 1992), but it may be that “ER” practiced by students in many departments and faculties that offer English Language, English Linguistics, or English Culture based courses in Japan do not (and cannot) consistently promote reading where students regularly raud.

This is a shame but is something that needs to and can change. While most forms of ER have much pedagogical validity, a purified form of ER (as referred to above) would likely move students towards a deeper understanding of English written texts, whether this be English language emails at work, a BBC news text, or a modern rewrite of a Shakespeare classic. Indeed, while secondary education in Japan continues to overlook the use of graded readers in English courses, university students (whether majoring in communication, linguistics, or literature fields) need ER to deepen the acquisition process of large numbers of half-understood words. Quite possibly, a purified ER operated in conjunction with courses that promote intensive reading is the optimum way to provide quality reading courses for most students majoring in English language fields. This writer sees purified ER as a hypothesized “heavenly” state that manifests when environments support large-scale rauding. Co-opting the title of US singer Eddie Cochran’s (1960) Three Steps to Heaven, this paper looks at two steps taken and ends with a third step that has moved the project into a more effective ER program.

Background to Step One: The University Environment (and Why ER May or May Not Manifest)

Although many English departments in Japanese tertiary education still do not recognize ER, or utilize purified ER, Reitaku University’s Faculty of Foreign Studies has long allowed individual teachers to use undocumented forms of ER (within Reading classes) at their own discretion. These forms of ER may have included those outlined by Waring and McLean (2015: 164), (i.e. a focus on texts to promote cultural understanding, on reading English language books, on the provision of meaning-focused input, and on the building of cultural capital). Whether past students read texts in which they understood 97% of the vocabulary is unlikely, but what is certain is that individual teachers in Reitaku classes integrated ER into courses to put it on the pedagogical menu for students to chew on (if not feast). While the university has made the sensible decisions to focus on tangible and visible ways to serve students, research-based activities of individual faculty members led to the development of a sizeable library of graded readers which allowed teachers to experiment with ER within courses.

Its manifestation has, however, provided limited fruit for definite reasons. The foremost opposition to it is teacher belief. Naysayers may not have read studies such as Nation and Wang (1999) and Nishizawa, Yoshioka and Fukada’s (2010) but they understand the herculean task facing students who use ER to improve vocabulary acquisition. Still, as with most universities, the commercially important TOEIC tests have shown that student reading score is far lower than the average listening score; and this points to a specific need to improve reading skills. Waring and McLean’s (2015: 164) suggestion of weekly, monthly and semester-long reading targets on reading speed may be worthwhile. Increasing reading speed and completing the acquisition of incompletely acquired words, as opposed to vocabulary growth, are, after all, possibly the main functions of extensive reading (Nation & Wang, 1999; Waring & Takaki, 2003). Reading fluency, or the state of completion in knowing how to practically use a language is something that does not emerge via a concentration on intensive reading (IR), textbooks, or translation.

It is fair to say that ER was far from the forefront of my mind when I started teaching a new Discussion class in mid-2014, but a growing sense of student frustration at the slew of words tantalizingly poised on the tip of their tongues made me reflect and face the obvious truth that they had not received sufficient input or produced sufficient output to stimulate the automaticity required to participate skillfully in discussion. The course was improving their ability to use discussion functions and promoted word acquisition but the sheer amount of undigested (i.e. not fully acquired) words reduced the effectiveness of their present output. Upon being asked whether they had read graded readers, many replied in the affirmative. When asked “How many have you read,” their reply tended to be “one or two.” It was clear that they had inhabited zones of incomplete development in their academic past and had not spent sufficient time in Vygotskyan zones of proximal development, where encouragement and structured programs would have seen instructors help them acquire vocabulary at a deeper level. Perhaps this was a ramification of excessive translation, but, whatever the reason, ER seemed to be a tool to expose them to large amounts of clear comprehensible text. Thus began the road to Step One: where an action research impulse led to a non-Reading-course based ER program.

Method

Step One: Testing the Field: “SR” not “ER” – Supplementary Reading not Extensive Reading?

Step One began in September 2014 when I introduced the idea of using graded readers in the second year Discussion class. Exploratory in intent, I first requested they read a mere three graded readers, but target five or more for which 10% of the grade would be based on written responses and in-class book talks. It was deliberately undemanding because students had other classes (including Reading) in which ER could have been used. After one semester with freedom and encouragement to read as much as they could, the highest amount read was 11, the average a lowly 4. The student who read 11 books commented that “… my reading section (sic) in TOEIC jumped up,” while a student who barely managed one noted “it is difficult for me because I don’t like reading books.” Unenthusiastic readers had one text in their bag for fifteen weeks; others, unchecked by the teacher, read slowly but far from extensively. However, questions from a post-course questionnaire (see Table 1) allowed for an insight on student perception towards extensive reading and showed unanimous support in using it.

Question One probed whether these second year English language students had read non-textbook books in English before and 65% explained it was their first time to read one. Question Two showed the same percentage expressing a wish to read books in class time. Two of these students responded they didn’t have time to do such reading at home; one hoped to talk about books in class time, and almost 90% agreed that ER should be used with future students at the university.

Step Two: Deepening and Extending the Experiment - More Recognizable ER

The students in the discussion class had effectively given me carte blanche to continue my experiment with graded readers in non-Reading classes. Mentioning this, previously uninterested members of the faculty made encouraging noises and money was allocated to purchase books for the English Faculty Office. Other teachers who practiced forms of ER as a pedagogical tool requested purchases of new graded reader texts: “Ones with CDs please!” and “More Disney!” were two common calls, while in a separate development, the English Faculty requested me write “anything” for a departmental newsletter. I chose “Extensive Reading” and channeled Rob Waring to explain its indispensable nature for the English language learner (Walker, 2015). Too lexically dense to be “rauded” it was used in a translation competition: a piece about ER used for IR (Reitaku, 2015). For good or ill, word was spreading; (supplementary) reading was happening. A plan for stage two was set in place but, once again, because the classes were not Reading classes, caution prevented me from insisting that students read more than one book a week.

Knowing we had enough books, I used five classes instead of one: three communication classes (two first year and one second year class), a first year writing class and a second year discussion class. With ER not being an official goal, I again took care not to over-burden students and divided the classes into two groups: ER A and ER B. Communication classes formed ER A; the writing class and the discussion class formed ER B. ER A students would read a minimum of five books and a maximum of their own choice; ER B would read a minimum of ten books and a maximum of their own choice. ER B students would also be expected to write down three words they did not know or were unclear about (to practice “noticing”). In addition, as an experimental means of tracking change in vocabulary size, in Week One and Week 15 I used the PC version of the Mochizuki Vocabulary Size Test (1998), a test designed specifically for Japanese students to measure receptive vocabulary size. One test was administered in April 2015 and another in July 2015.

Procedure: Step Two

Class one for each group saw the introduction of the course curriculum which included informing students about the supplementary ER program that would give them large-scale practice in reading English for pleasure. Students signed a consent form, written in English and Japanese, that gave me permission to use specified data over the 2015-2016 academic year, and which a) explained the concept of ER, b) informed them that non-participation would not affect their grade, and c) assured them of their anonymity. All assented to participate in what remained action research but was becoming “proper research.” At the end of the class students took the vocabulary size test. The consent form included three questions on the topic of reading and gave insight into their history and opinion about reading. (See Tables 3 and 4.)

Tables 3 and 4 show that the majority of first and second year students had read a non-textbook English book prior to April 2015. That 40% of first years had not done so reflects on the lack of reading such texts in high school; 13% of second years, however, had evidently not been forced or expected to do so in their first year in university. Unsurprisingly all students wanted to read easy English, but almost 30% of first years stated they did not like reading in their mother tongue. Even more surprisingly a majority of second years did not either. This might be explained by several of the second years having a year-long study abroad program ahead of them in semester two, but might also suggest that a) reading in Japanese is unappealing to large numbers of students in the Faculty of Foreign Studies, or b) that within this context – and it obviously could be read as such – they were reacting to the number of lessons in the Japanese medium. Further research would be fruitful in discovering the reasons behind this.

The procedure for overseeing the readings of ER A and ER B were similar. Both groups were informed that they should read every week throughout the semester, and would have to participate in five graded “book talk” discussions. They were informed that this was a supplementary activity to the course and as university students they were responsible to maintain notes in journal or note form, the teacher giving them examples of how to do this in English and Japanese. They were informed that the teacher would check their progress intermittently with 30% of their grade allocated to their spoken in-class and written class responses. The instructor also group emailed each class several times during the semester to remind them of the readings but took care not to interfere too much with their own personal progression. In practice large numbers of the first year communication classes did not follow the program as well as one had hoped, making the instructor react by bringing in simple Oxford Reading Tree books to do simple ER activities in-class. A mid-term questionnaire given in late May 2015 saw these students comment on the high volume of homework in their other classes, though the second year communication group and the first year writing group reported no such difficulties.

However, as Tables 5 and 6 show, students did exactly what they were told to do.

*This does not include four books read in-class to raise awareness of ER.

*This does not include four books read in-class to raise awareness of ER.

In fact most read beyond the required number of books in their own time. Unsurprisingly, through reading between ten and fourteen books, 32% of the highest-level second year communication students read beyond the minimum, but none of the lower level first year communication students did. With twelve out of nineteen second year discussion students reading ten or more ER books and eight out of nineteen writing students doing so, it also seemed that their schedule did not prevent the practice of ER as a supplementary activity.

Vocabulary Test Data

Step Two also saw students also take the Mochizuki Vocabulary Size Test at the start and end of the semester. They took one version in April, and a different version in July. The results allow for a view of changes in vocabulary size through a test that measured promptness of lexical retrieval. There was little expectation for a statistically significant change in student scores over one semester, and any increase or decrease in vocabulary size would reflect more on the overall English language program than ER in the first semester. However, Table 7 hows that a slight change did occur in the scores for the ER A group, but not for ER B. A possible explanation for this is given below.

*Students took a different version of the test in April and in July 2015

An explanation for improvements in the ER A first year low level communication classes may be a positive reaction to intensively studying English in an environment that contrasted greatly with their former high school environment. In addition, when we recall that two fifths of these students had not read a graded reader prior to entering the university, it may well be that ‘ER’ played a part in the improvement. The increase in the score for the second year high level communication course could be attributed to higher word knowledge having a larger impact on vocabulary learning through ER (Webb and Chang, 2015). Notably this class also chose more complex ER texts. Improvement in scores for the ER B group was unexpected and did not occur: the students appeared to choose texts from well within their reading comfort zone. To make significant improvement it is expected that either specific IR together with a more intense ER program would be needed. These scores reflect the whole program of which ER is a small part.

Discussion

Stage Two of my exploration into using ER with non-reading-skill classes can be said to have been a success in further promoting the act of reading graded readers to aide comprehension, to read for pleasure and to increase the number of texts read over a semester. An end of course questionnaire (See appendix) of three sets of questions saw students approve ER and its projected future use. The first covered ER – in general and included the finding that 80% found ER to be of interest, with 80% acknowledging the importance of teacher reminders. The second set were Finding the Books and saw students report no difficulty in locating books. 60% however stated they prefer them in one location rather than divided between the Faculty Office, library and teacher offices. From ER in the future 90 % believe that future students should do ER, with 65% seeing the use of iPhones as a good idea. Students did not give a preference for starting ER programs on the same book nor for doing quizzes instead of book reports.

Conclusion

Step Two of my move to authenticate ER at my workplace led to a significant increase in students reading graded readers which, for some of them, would have involved more rauding than in Step One. At the time of writing (midway into semester two in November 2015), step three has seen the following changes: ER A classes continue to use paper-based texts but ER B classes have started to use the online reading medium: Xreading (2015). Both groups have to read an increased minimum number: 15 or more books; but ER B classes still have the option of using paper-based books. The Mochizuki Vocabulary Test was taken again in September 2015 and will be taken again in January 2016. The signs so far are that students are reading (and rauding) more: the majority already have surpassed 15 books and two students having read over 40.

Over one year this supplementary ER program for non-Reading-classes has approached a purified ER: future papers will report on the findings of one full academic year, and on student perception of paper- versus screen-based ER.

References

ER Program In General

1 How interesting was the practice of ER?

2 How well did you understand the reason for ER?

3 How clearly did the teacher explain the need to do ER?

4 How often did the instructor remind you to do ER?

Finding the Books

5 How easy was it to find books?

6 Would you prefer all the books to be in the same place?

7 Could you find an interesting and useful range of books?

8 How did Mr. Walker help you understand how to find books?

ER in the Future

9 Should RU students use ER in the future?

10 Would the use of iPhones be a better way of doing ER?

11 Should all the books be on the 1st floor of the library?

12 Is it a good idea for books to be kept in three locations?

13 Is it true that ER is OK for students from other universities but not for this university?

14 Would you like to start ER with everybody reading the same book?

15 Would you like to do quizzes about the book instead of book reports?