Integrating extensive readingin the task-based curriculum

Christopher Green

Extensive reading has for many years been seen as an important andmotivating means of improving general language proficiency in a secondlanguage. This article argues that while extensive reading per se is animportant medium for long-term second language acquisition, extensivereading schemes may not be the most effective means of promotingacquisition. This argument springs from the disappointing results of theimplementation of the Hong Kong Extensive Reading Scheme in English,which are described in the article. The article presents the view that extensivereading is too important an activity to be confined within the hermetic boundsof a scheme. Instead, it is argued, extensive reading should be incorporated fullyin the language curriculum as a vital component of a task-based approach tosecond language learning.

Introduction Few language learning initiatives have generatedmore hope initially andmore disappointment ultimately than extensive reading schemes. Asoriginally conceived, extensive reading in a second language was toprovide a broad-spectrum panacea for language learning ills, particularlythose endemic among learners living in non-native speaking cultures.The formula is a strong one and is seen as having the power to enhanceproficiency generally and automate word recognition in particular (Grabe1991). It offers broad exposure to the target language and is second onlyto acquiring the language by living among its native speakers (Nuttall1982). It motivates learners and leads to improvement in writing (Yu andWong 1991). Input is meaningful and engaging because texts are chosenby readers in accordance with their preferences and so provide a mediumfor attaining individual pleasure and enlightenment (Day and Bamford1998; Renandya and Jacobs 2002). This optimistic view is pervasive inthe literature and is based on the notion that a well organized extensivereading scheme will enhance learners’ general language capacity and atthe same time provide a satisfying aesthetic dimension to languagelearning. With such high expectations in place, it is hardly surprising thatdisappointment so often results when schemes are actuallyimplemented.

A notable recent trend in extensive reading scheme design has been theincorporation of material which is relevant to learners’ lives but whichmay have little or no accepted literary merit; that is, literature with a small

ELT Journal Volume 59/4 October 2005; doi:10.1093/elt/cci059q The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

306

rather than large ‘l’. The principles in operation remain unchanged,however, and for most authorities extensive readingmeans reading forindividual pleasure. (See, for example, Mason and Krashen 1997.)Krashen (1989) refers to the important role played by free individualreading in facilitating second language acquisition and increasingmotivation. It is argued here, however, that schemes which emphasizeindividual and largely unguided activity fail to provide a clear and directpurpose for the reading and do not exploit the opportunities extensivereading presents for the dynamic processes of presenting and debatingwhat has been read. Extensive reading left to be done silently byindividuals goes against the tenets of interactionist theory and, as is thecase inmany Hong Kong schools, is likely to find itself marginalized inthe curriculum.

The Hong KongExtensive ReadingScheme

The Hong Kong Extensive Reading Scheme in English (HKERS) was firstimplemented in Hong Kong secondary schools in 1991. The HKERS wasintroduced at junior secondary school level and was not extended tosenior forms until 1997. The process of implementation followedpiloting of an initial scheme in nine schools between 1986 and 1988. Thescheme was implemented in primary schools in 1995. Pre-pilotingplanning owed its inspiration to the links forged between communicativelanguage teaching and extensive reading by Criper (1986). Progress indeveloping the scheme owed a great deal to the work of Yu (Yu andWong1991), and her view that extensive reading is a naturalistic form ofindividualized learning is an important consideration in an educationalenvironment in which forty or more students in a class is standard atsecondary level.

Aims The scheme’s aims reflect the liberal philosophy described earlier in thisarticle: to develop in students the habit of reading in English and soincrease exposure to the language which in turn will improve theirgeneral proficiency. Perhaps nowhere in the world do the glowing aimsof the scheme stand in starker contrast to the grimmechanics of itsimplementation than in Hong Kong. The initial operations areuncontroversial: a placement test is administered to determine students’entry level to the scheme. This test, other (progress) tests and the booksthemselves are supplied by the Edinburgh Project on Extensive Reading(EPER). The books are divided into eight levels of readability—accordingto number of pages and difficulty of vocabulary—with 50 titles for eachlevel. The progress tests permit themovement of students upwards anddownwards within the scheme.

Reality It is at this point that the early promise begins to evaporate. Schoolsinterpret government-issued guidelines in strikingly different ways:somemarginalize extensive reading to the extent that it occupies nospace at all on the formal timetable and takes on an extracurricularremedial status. Others follow the official recommendation to hold two orthree extensive reading lessons per week, which yield a total average timeof about four hours per week spent reading. However, in the vastmajority of schools the extensive reading lesson does not take the form ofa teacher-led reading conference to check progress and help students

Integrating extensive reading in the task-based curriculum 307

choose appropriate books—activities recommended in official guidelines.

Instead, the typical extensive reading lesson has all the appearance of aparticularly monastic detention session with teachers sitting at the headof the class enforcing a rule of silence. The outcome of these austeresessions is usually a book report. Such reports are used for policing thescheme rather than as the basis for the expression of personal viewpointon the reading. The opportunity for sharing the challenges and joys ofreading in a foreign language—in small groups or through oralpresentations to the whole class—is excluded by the individualized andsilent nature of the scheme. Also excluded in this model ofimplementation is the opportunity for teachers to present themselves asmodels of committed readers.

Issues Apart from supplying guidelines, government has done its best tointroduce flexibility into the scheme. Schools receive an annual ERSgrant and are permitted to use it to purchase books of their own choosing,whichmay or may not be on the EPER list. In pan-educational terms, thegovernment pursues an active ‘read to learn and learn to read’ policy. Andso the question arises that if government is providing sound theoreticaland logistical frameworks for schools to operate within, what is goingwrong at the implementation end of the scheme? The answer, almostcertainly, is that which applies to any educational initiative applied in anundifferentiated and top-downmanner—teacher resentment andresistance. The resistance results from twomain causes, one general andthe other specific: teachers have been required over the past five years toimplement numerous government initiatives and have becomeexhausted, and few teachers have received adequate training inimplementing extensive reading schemes.

To be successful extensive reading needs to integrate as seamlessly aspossible with other components of the language curriculum. It is afundamental misconception to see it as a ‘stand-alone’ component. Inexamination-oriented school cultures particularly—of which Hong Kongis a leading example—the unassessed and isolated nature of extensivereading schemes is almost certain to guarantee that they aremarginalized beyond redemption. A number of recommendations havebeen put forward to improve the implementation of the HKERS (Welch1997; Wong 2001). These recommendations include the use ofmagazines and newspapers to add an informal dimension to the scheme,and the systematic orientation of both teachers and students to thescheme. These are all helpful suggestions, but essentially the scheme isviewed in stand-alone, non-integrationist terms.

Hong Kong could also benefit, of course, from learning about theexperience of other countries that have implemented schemes. Therecommendations to improve the Fijian ‘Book Flood’ initiative (Elley andMangubhai 1983), for example, would be well worth implementing inHong Kong. The recommendations include: offering students choicefrom a very wide range of topics and genres, displaying booksprominently in the school and thus raising the profile of the scheme, andregular class meetings in which teachers read aloud to students. But

Christopher Green308

again, the focus here is onmaintaining extensive reading as a stand-aloneactivity. To be of greatest effect, extensive readingmust be incorporatedfully into the language curriculum, specifically into the task-basedcurriculum. Before this can be done, however, two important principlesneed to be discussed. These principles relate to reading purpose and theselection of readingmaterials.

Reading purpose The task-based approach’s requirement that all language learningactivities have clear and attainable purposes stands in sharp contrast toextensive reading schemes, which often fail to provide a clear learningpurpose for learners. Assurances of the benefits of extensive readingactivities in fostering second language acquisition over the long termmay not satisfy many learners’ more short-term purposes. Extensivereading incorporated in a task-based approach acquires purposeautomatically by becoming a key component in gathering information ona topic or as input to solving a problem. The benefits of extensive readingin task-based approaches are not just limited to the pre-task and task cyclestages, but are particularly beneficial in what Willis (1996: 39) calls the‘language focus’ (i.e. the language analysis and practice) stage. In thisstage, learners can be encouraged to explore texts (either those previewedat an earlier stage in the task cycle, or new ones for extension andenrichment of the topic under study) to raise their awareness of featuresof the grammatical, lexical and discourse systems in the texts. Suchactivities may, for example, involve learners in decisions about verb tensechoice and whether one tense may be substituted for another in aparticular context. Lexis-related awareness raising may well focus onidentification of collocations and lexical sets, while discourse-relatedanalytical activities might focus on the pragmatic variation of a particularlanguage item in a text.

Language focus The point I want to make here is that in its overwhelming concern todevelop reading fluency and aesthetic appreciation, the typical extensivereading scheme fails to pay sufficient attention to the development oflearners’ target language systems. Language features encountered inreading that is completed as part of a scheme are frequently leftunexplained and unpractised. The overriding concern always in readingschemes is to progress to the next book or the next level, leading to thedevelopment of a superficial fluency at the cost of deeper andmorefocused learning. This reminds us of the potential of fluency-focusedactivities to induce the fossilization of erroneous and inappropriate targetlanguage forms (Skehan 1998). The principles of analysis and recyclingso vital in consolidating and extending learners’ knowledge of and abilityto use target language systems do not operate inmost reading schemes.

Task-based approaches permit readingmatter to be debated and used,and reading extensively provides opportunities for students to encountergaps in their understanding of target language usage as they takeadvantage of the interaction and negotiation promoted in task-basedapproaches. As Skehan (1998) points out, negotiation of meaningpromotes an ever-increasing flexibility in the student’s rule system byencouraging the exploration of new hypotheses about the structure of the

Integrating extensive reading in the task-based curriculum 309

target language. A remarkable degree of flexibility is given to learners intask-based approaches as they interact to accomplish both generaland language-specific learning objectives. By contrast, negotiation andinteractionmay well be entirely absent from an extensive reading scheme,as revealed in the earlier description of the Hong Kong scheme.

Selection ofmaterials

In task-based classrooms the principle of students choosing topics forstudy is well established, and teachers may conduct class surveys todetermine learners’ preferred topics. The literature related to these topicsthen becomes the input to a cycle of tasks. Through an exploration ofsuch literature, students can be encouraged to develop certain corecompetencies such as research, critical thinking skills, and the ability tosynthesize information drawn from different sources. But this notionleads us to consider just what constitutes appropriate material forextensive reading. The literary nature of much extensive readingmaterialmakes schemes unattractive for many students—it is frequently seen asdifficult and lacking relevance. But this problem disappears whenmaterial is selected as part of a task-based programme since the purposein reading thematerial is to facilitate the completion of a task or cluster ofrelated tasks.

Mini texts Extensive reading need not, of course, consist of a series of books each of100 pages or more. Indeed, a number of thematically-linkedmini-textsdrawn frommagazines can be exploited far more effectively than full-length books. Thematically-linked texts clearly meet the requirement oftask-based approaches that task input should centre on the exploration ofparticular themes or topics. Series of mini-texts are not, however, anintegral part of most extensive reading schemes andmore often than notneed to be ‘home produced’. This will inevitably involve teachers in extrapreparation work, but the workload can be reduced by tapping anotherfruitful source of readingmaterial—the writing produced by otherstudents.

Student writing Task-based learning always yields an outcome or product and this is oftena piece of writing. Editing and redrafting of learners’ writing producesrefined versions suitable for use as the extensive reading input of other(more junior) learners—an activity which has the double benefit ofcohering with interactionist theories of learning and of complying withthe tenets of the process approach to writing. I am not suggesting thatsuch texts be the only source of reading input, but they are remarkablyvaluable: writers gain an audience, readers gain comprehensiblematerials which themselves are the products of a task-based approach,and teachers gain access to a rich source of learningmaterial.

Conclusion This brief article has called into question the effectiveness of extensivereading schemes, particularly those which are bought-in andimplemented in top-down fashion. It does not, however, advocate theabandonment of all schemes. Those developed by teachers to suit localcircumstances and which incorporate time for interaction, sharing andteachers modelling good reading practice should be implemented withconfidence. And yet, all reading needs a purpose that learners can

Christopher Green310

perceive clearly and this may not be provided by even the best extensivereading schemes, disconnected as they often are from themainstreamlanguage curriculum. Extensive reading, if done in interactive mode,supports the negotiation of meanings in texts, helps prevent thefossilization of interlanguage structures, and provides contexts in whichlearners can encounter and debate ideas, and analyse and practiselanguage features found in the texts. For these reasons, it is vital tointroduce extensive reading within the purposeful and interactiveframework of the task-based language curriculum.

The benefits of integration are substantial in the dimensions of contentand language systems. But skills development benefits too. Suchdevelopment relates not only to specific reading skills but also to criticalthinking skills, the appreciation of different authorial viewpoints, and theability to synthesize information on the same topic drawn from differentsources. Put simply, extensive reading in a task-based approach is goodfor learners not only for aesthetic reasons or for increasing cross-culturalunderstandings (although these purposes are, of course, important intheir own right), but because it aids cognitive development and promoteslearning through interaction. Home-grown extensive reading schemesshould develop from and connect with extensive reading as an integralpart of the task-based language curriculum.

Final version received July 2004

ReferencesCriper, C. 1986. ‘Communicative languageteaching and extensive reading’. Institute ofLanguage in Education Journal 2: 7–16.Day, R. R. and J. Bamford. 1998. ‘Extensivereading: what is it? Why bother?’. The LanguageTeacher Online 21/5.Elley, W. B. and F. Mangubhai. 1983. ‘The impact ofreading on second language learning’. ReadingResearch Quarterly 19: 53–67.Grabe, W. 1991. ‘Current developments in secondlanguage reading research’. TESOLQuarterly 25/3:375–406.Krashen, S. 1989. Language Acquisition andLanguage Education: Extensions and Applications.New York: Prentice Hall International.Mason, B. and S. Krashen. 1997. ‘Extensivereading in English as a foreign language’. System19/2: 31–55.Nuttall, C. 1982. Teaching Reading Skills in aForeign Language. London: Heinemann.Renandya, W. andG. Jacobs. 2002. ‘Extensivereading:why aren’t we all doing it?’ in J. C. RichardsandW. Renandya (eds.).Methodology in LanguageTeaching. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Skehan, P. 1998. ACognitive Approach toLanguage Learning. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.Welch, R. 1997. ‘Introducing extensive reading’.The Language Teacher 21/5: 51–3.Willis, J. 1996. A Framework for Task-BasedLearning. Harlow: Longman.Wong, C. K. 2001. ‘What do we know after a decadeof the Hong Kong Extensive Reading Scheme?’ERIC document: reproduction service number ED458806.Yu, V. and C. Wong. 1991. ‘TheHong KongExtensive Reading Scheme (HKERS)—anextensive reading programme for junior secondaryschool students’. Institute of Language in EducationJournal 8: 188–92.

The authorChristopher Green is a teacher educator and hasworked in Hong Kong for 18 years. He iscurrently an Assistant Professor in theDepartment of English at the Hong KongPolytechnic University.Email: egchrisg@polyu.edu.hk

Integrating extensive reading in the task-based curriculum 311