Review

What is extensive reading (ER)? What is the theoretical basis for introducing ER in the already crammed second/foreign language curriculum? Are the learning benefits large enough to justify the inclusion of ER in the curriculum? How do we go about planning, implementing and evaluating an ER program? What resources are required? What is the role of teachers and students? How do we select appropriate reading material? Does it have to be authentic? How much reading do students have to do? Should ER be integrated into the existing reading course? Should it be treated as a separate course? These and many other theoretical and practical questions pertaining to ER are addressed in this book. Richard Day and Julian Bamford’s comprehensive and detailed treatment of the topic, coupled with their reader-friendly writing style, makes the book an important contribution to our field.

Summary of the book

The book, comprising 15 chapters, is divided into three main parts. The first part is the more theoretical, beginning with an explanation of what ER and various related terms, such as free voluntary reading, mean. The next chapters in this part situate ER in light of theories of the reading process, discuss the importance of affect and how ER can improve learners' attitudes toward reading, review research on ER, and consider the place of ER in the second language curriculum.

The book's second part discusses a crucial issue regarding materials for use in ER programmes. The authors argue for the use of what they call language learner literature, works written or rewritten especially for language learners, e.g., simplified versions of well-known works. Responding to critics of simplified works, Day and Bamford cite Alderson and Urquhart (1984: 196, quoted on p. 61), “If simplification is defined as making a text appropriate to the audience, then perhaps any text may be considered a simplification.” Day and Bamford go on to illustrate what is involved in creating good language learner literature. Further, the book's appendix provides a 49-page bibliography of recommended works of this type.

The last and longest part of the book describes the nuts and bolts of running ER programmes, including setting up the programme, finding and organising the materials, orienting the students to the programme, creating an on-going community of readers, evaluating the programme, and, last but not least, the role of the teacher. They conclude by emphasising that although successful ER programmes differ in many regards, they all have one element in common: teachers who put their heart, soul, and mind into making the programme a success.

What is ER?

• Students read large amounts of printed material;
• Students read a variety of materials in terms of topic and genre;
• The material students read is within their level of comprehension;
• Students choose what they want to read;
• Reading is its own reward;
• Students read for pleasure, information and general understanding;
• Students read their selection at a faster rate;
• Reading is individual (students read on their own);
• Teachers read with their students, thus serving as role models of good readers;
• Teachers guide and keep track of student progress.

Point 1 above, in particular, is one of the key features that distinguishes ER from other reading programs. Reading extensively means reading lots and lots of print material. Although we don’t know how much reading is needed to produce the most learning gain, we do know that the more learners read, the more benefits they get. In a study that we just completed (Renandya, Rajan, and Jacobs, to appear), amount of extensive reading was the only variable that could be used to make a reliable prediction of adult ESL learners’ proficiency in English at the end of a two-month intensive course in English.

Finding the materials to support Points 1, 2, and 3 above can be difficult, especially where funding is insufficient. Day and Bamford acknowledge that setting up a library that houses a large collection of materials can be very costly. They suggest that one way to get around this problem is to get teachers and students to write stories for use in their ER program . Another excellent way is to collect material, as illustrated in the Philippines context by Lituañas (1997), involving fellow teachers, past and present students, and community groups in the ER material collection campaign. The internet can also be a good source of inexpensive ER materials (see Derewianka, 1997, for some Internet Websites where you can download ER materials).

Point 5 above is also worth commenting on. The authors seem to downplay the importance of follow-up activities (e.g., summary writing, answering questions). Although they offer a number of postreading activities, they maintain that “… no postreading work should be required, the act of reading being its own reward” (p. 140). We agree that students should see reading as a rewarding experience in and of itself, but we feel that postreading activities have an important role in ER. Yu (1993) states that postreading tasks may not be needed for students who are already good readers, but for most of our students who have not developed good reading habits, short postreading activities can become a very useful tool for teachers and students to monitor progress. In addition, from a theoretical perspective, carefully planned postreading tasks, such as those suggested by Day and Bamford, can provide necessary language output to further enhance students’ language development. This is consistent with Swain’s (1985) output hypothesis which states that while comprehensible input supplies an essential basis for second language acquisition, it must be supplemented by the production of comprehensible output if learners are to reach a high level of proficiency in the target language. Several of the authors in Day’s (1986) edited book Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition also propose a role for output in learners’ language development.

Why aren’t we all doing ER?

Those of us who have been in the profession for some time know that ER is not new. However, although many of us would readily acknowledge the educational benefits of ER, how many of us are actually implementing ER in our second language program? As the authors put it, if ER is good for second language development, why is not everybody doing it? According to Day and Bamford, one of the most important reasons is that many teachers believe that intensive reading alone will produce good, fluent readers. In intensive reading, students spend lots of time analysing and dissecting short, difficult texts under the close supervision of the teacher. The aim of intensive reading is to help students construct detailed meaning from the text, to develop reading skills, and enhance vocabulary and grammar knowledge. This approach by itself, Day and Bamford argue, will produce skilled readers but not skilled readers.

A related reason why ER is not done goes back to the whole paradigm issue of the role of the teacher: sage on the stage or guide on the side. Many teachers are perhaps still uncomfortable with the idea of playing a “less” central role in the classroom. In intensive reading, instruction is more teacher-centred in that teachers have full control over what is happening in the classroom. They decide what skills or strategies to teach, how these are taught, and what passages to use. In ER the role is not only to pass on knowledge, but, as Day and Bamford argue, to “guide students and participate with them as members of a reading community“ (p. 47).

Conclusion

The view that people learn to read by reading is shared by a growing number of applied linguists. Eskey (1986: 21, cited on p. 4), for example, says that “Reading … must be developed, and can only be developed, by means of extensive and continual practice. People learn to read, and to read better, by reading.” The benefits of ER, however, extend beyond the acquisition of reading fluency. After reviewing literally hundreds of research studies in both first and second language learning contexts, Krashen (1993: 23, cited on p. 38) has this to say:

Reading is good for you. The research supports a stronger conclusion, however. Reading is the only way, the only way we become good readers, develop a good writing style, an adequate vocabulary, advance grammar, and the only way we become good spellers.

References

Derewianka, B. 1997. Using the internet for extensive reading. Successful strategies for extensive reading, ed. by G.M. Jacobs, C. Davis, & W.A. Renandya (pp. 128-143). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Lituañas, P.M. 1997. Collecting materials for extensive reading. Successful strategies for extensive reading, ed. by G.M. Jacobs, C. Davis, & W.A. Renandya (pp.25-29). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Renandya, W.A., Rajan, B.R.S., & Jacobs, G.M. (to appear). Extensive reading with adult learners of English as a second language.

Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. Input in Second Language Acquisition, ed. by S. Gass & C. Madden (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Yu, V. 1993. ER programs: How can they best benefit the teaching and learning of English? TESL Reporter, 26, 1-9.