Summary of Extensive Reading in Japanese by Claire Ikumi Hitosugi and Richard R. Day
Reading in a Foreign Language
Volume 16, Number 1, April 2004

Introduction and the nature of extensive reading
This was the first paper that discussed the use of extensive reading in an Asian language class. The authors defined extensive reading by Richard Day and Julian Bamford’s ten principles:

  1. The material should be easy, with understandable grammar and no more than 1-2 difficult words per page
  2. Students should have access to a wide variety of material
  3. Students choose what they want to read and whether or not they want to continue reading a particular book
  4. Students read as much as possible
  5. Reading is for pleasure and information, not 100% comprehension
  6. Reading is its own reward, and there’s no test, although there may be followup activities
  7. Reading speed should be faster, rather than slower, and dictionaries shouldn’t be used
  8. Reading is done individually and silently
  9. Teachers orient and guide their students
  10. Teachers are reading role models, and should read the books themselves

Japanese 102
The Japanese 102 course at the University of Hawai’i is the followup to Japanese 100 / Japanese 101. Each semester, there are 12-15 sections with about 15 students per section, and the sections meet five times a week for sixteen weeks. JPN 102 was chosen because 100/101 teaches hiragana, katakana and enough grammar and vocabulary that the students should be able to start reading low-level books. The extensive reading program was part of one section that had 14 students; it was taught by Hitosugi, and Day was the leading collaborator and mentor for the extensive reading component of the course.

Implementing extensive reading in JPN 102
Because all of the sections had to use the same syllabus, the extensive reading program was added to the section’s existing tasks and did not replace any part of the course. Although the project started three months before classes started, it wasn’t ready in time and was only in place during the last ten weeks of the 16-week class.

Although there are books written specifically for English language learners, Japanese language learners didn’t have that resource, and so students read books written for children whose native language was Japanese. The authors worried that such low-level material would seem insulting to college students, so they explained the project’s expected benefits and the difficulties in finding appropriate material to the section. They collected 266 new and used books and created classification and rating systems to help students select appropriate, interesting reading material. 39 books were level 1 (the easiest), 76 books were level 2, 50 books were level 3, 87 books were level 4, 11 books were level 5 and three books were level 6.

Participating in the program accounted for 10% of the student’s final grade; participation was required so that students would understand the importance of reading and find time for it in their busy schedules, as they might not do if it was just optional. To gain the full 10%, each student had to read 40 books over the 10 week period, with a weekly target of four books per week; there was also extra credit for reading more than 40 books. This was thought to be a challenge, but not impossible because the books were short.

Reading was done outside of class as homework, so that the students could keep up with the other sections during class. However, the students’ reading was incorporated into the class during a 30-minute session once a week, where the students did things like promote their favorite books or act out stories they had read. This was fun for them, but it also linked the reading that had been done individually to the whole class, and it promoted reading, as those who hadn’t done any felt left out.

To measure the impact of the extensive reading program, a three-part reading test and a 22-item survey were created. They were given to students in the extended reading section and a non-extended reading section before the program was introduced, then again at the end of the course.

What the authors learned
Although the authors only expected one or two students to read 40 or more books, four students hit or exceeded the mark. Five students read less than 25 books; the lowest number read was by a student who had a family and a full-time job.

The authors expected the extensive reading group to have made more gains in reading than the section that followed the standard curriculum, and the three-part test shows that to have been the case. (It must be kept in mind that the sample size was too small to be conclusive, and the program was done to aid in learning, not primarily for research.) Both classes improved their scores on part A and did about the same on part B, but students in the extensive reading program gained an average of .88 points (out of a possible 10) on part C, which was the hardest section (taken from the JPN 201 final exam), while the students in the other class did slightly worse than they had the first time around, dropping on average .13 points. In total, the extensive reading class gained an average of 1.08 points on the three-part test, while the regular class gained an average of .37 points.

The questionnaire asked questions such as “I have confidence in my ability to read Japanese” and “So far, I am enjoying Japanese 102″; the students in the extended reading section had a greater increase in positive affective responses than the ones in the regular class. The extensive reading students reported that they didn’t need to use a dictionary as much as the students as the regular class, and that they came to read outside of class and watch Japanese TV more than the non-extensive reading students. Answers to some of the questions indicate that the extensive reading students considered reading more difficult than students in the regular class did; the authors theorize that this may be because the books they read had little connection to the vocabulary or topics found in the textbook. However, even though these students saw reading as a challenge, their attitudes towards it, and towards their Japanese class, improved between the first and second times the questionnaire was administered.

Even though ten weeks is a fairly short period in which to expect significant gains in reading ability, the 14 students read a good deal, improved their scores on the reading test and came to feel positive about the experience. The authors continued the extensive reading program and expanded it to JPN 101 and 202; they’ve found that it appeals to some students but not to others, that it promotes overall reading fluency, and that for some students it triggers an interest in Japanese culture, prompting them to study independently.


  • Given that this was the second semester of a first year class, I’m kind of surprised that there were so many level 4 books, and that the organizers bothered adding anything above level 3 to the library at all. Was this just because the level 4-6 books were donated, because teachers and experts sometimes forget the practical concerns and abilities of beginning students and thought higher-level books might be within their reach, or because the organizers were looking ahead to the future and planning to expand their program? Was it by design that the students would have to read at least one level 2 book to get full credit, or just a coincidence?
  • I would have liked to have known how the students’ reality corresponded to the extensive reading ideal: did they stick mostly to level 1 books so that they could read fluently? Even with the level 1 books, did they ever find more than two difficult words per page? (The study’s given threshold for the number of unknown words per page allowable in extensive reading (1-2) is even lower than the one I personally use (3-4).) Did they push themselves to read higher level books despite probably finding more than two difficult words on each page? Was there any sort of one-upmanship among the students or were they all content to read very low-level books? If there was any sort of feeling of competition, was it beneficial or not? Did they actually read without dictionaries?
  • We know the number of books that each student read, but what level did they primarily read at? My guess is that they mostly read level 1 books and some level 2 books, and didn’t read level 3 and above at all; I base this guess on the fact that they’re first-year students and that one student who only read level 2 books was treated as an exceptional case.
  • Was there any particular difference between the background and performance of the student that only read level 2 books and that of the other students?
  • Question 5 on the questionnaire was “I read Japanese books, comics, newspapers, etc., outside of class,” and the authors found that the extensive reading students came to read much more outside of class than the non-extensive reading students. I wonder if the extensive reading students interpreted this question to mean “outside of class, but as part of the reading homework” or if they read materials beyond the ones provided for the extensive reading program.
  • These last two papers about extensive reading as part of a beginning student’s coursework make me wonder how it would have affected my own progress in Japanese, had it been known to me at the time. The more I think about it, the more I realize that Japanese didn’t really feel like a language to me until I started trying to read authentic material; that material, however, was waaay above my level.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>