Exploring EFL Teachers’ Implementation of Extensive Reading in Undergraduate Foundation English Courses

May 2025 – Volume 29, Number 1

https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29113a1

Mintra Puripunyavanich
Chulalongkorn University Language Institute, Thailand
<mintra.pchula.ac.th>

Abstract

This study explores how Thai university teachers integrate extensive reading (ER) into foundation English courses for non-English majors. 63 participants completed an online questionnaire and eight respondents joined semi-structured Zoom interviews. Questionnaire respondents were categorized into Groups A (less experienced with ER) and B (more experienced). The results revealed no significant differences in their perceptions of ER implementation aims; however, strong correlations were found among some sets of aims. Both groups exhibited similar ER practices, typically making ER mandatory, combining paper-based and online materials, and relying on free resources. However, qualitative data highlighted financial constraints, with students often purchasing their own reading materials. Reported reading volumes ranged from 2,000 to 24,000 words per semester, generally too low to be considered as “extensive reading.” Additionally, most participants assessed reading and incorporated post-ER activities, yet both groups commonly used intensive reading materials, suggesting potentially inappropriate material usage for ER. These findings emphasize the need for teacher training on what ER entails, recommended word counts, and materials selection to enhance the quality of their ER practice.

Keywords: implementation of extensive reading, assessing extensive reading, foundation English courses, higher education

Nowadays, extensive reading (ER) is implemented as part of language teaching in many EFL countries, especially in Asia (Chang & Renandya, 2017; Hidayati et al., 2022; Puripunyavanich & Waring, 2024). This is because the positive effects of ER on learning foreign languages are widely recognized in the literature (e.g., Day & Bamford, 1998; Nation & Waring, 2020; Ng et al., 2019; Renandya & Jacobs, 2002; Robb, 2022; Robb & Ewert, 2024). Numerous studies have shown that ER has gained popularity in the last 20 years, particularly in universities in Asia such as Indonesia (e.g., Adhitya & Novita, 2021; Janah et al., 2022), Japan (e.g., Iwata, 2022; Robb & Kano, 2013; Yamashita, 2013), Korea (e.g., Kim 2019; Suk, 2024), Taiwan (e.g., Tien, 2015; Wang & Ho, 2019), and Vietnam (e.g., Bui & Macalister, 2021).

In Thailand, ER has been integrated into foundation English (FE) courses since the 2000s (e.g., Pratontep, 2007), with a growing body of research over the last 15 years documenting its implementation (e.g., Pongsatornpipat, 2021; Puripunyavanich, 2021; Sek et al., 2021; Tamrackitkul, 2010; Tantipidok, 2023). Although those studies have investigated classroom practices within single institutions, a broader study across multiple universities remains to be conducted. While Puripunyavanich and Waring (2024) surveyed ER implementation among over 200 teachers across different English subjects and levels in Japan, Mongolia, Thailand, and Vietnam, their study did not explore the motivations behind the teachers’ implementation policy. This study, thus, seeks to address these gaps by exploring ER practices and motivations among EFL university teachers across numerous Thai universities, focusing specifically on FE courses.

Literature Review

Extensive Reading (ER)

Extensive reading involves reading large quantities of material suited to the students’ proficiency and interests (Anderson, 2008; Day & Bamford, 2002; Nation & Waring, 2020), and extends beyond mere pleasure reading (Grabe & Yamashita, 2022). Waring and Puripunyavanich (2025) identified three core features of ER, including students (1) reading a lot of (2) easy materials (3) comfortably and fluently. Day and Bamford (2002) proposed that easy materials mean “texts must be well within the learners’ reading competence in the foreign language” (p. 137) and suggested that one book a week be the minimum amount of reading essential to benefit from ER, as it is a realistic goal for learners of all proficiency levels. For students at the beginner level, Nation and Wang (1999) recommended reading around 5,000 words a week.

Having students read something quickly and fluently for meaning should be a standard feature of an ER class. However, there are a multitude of ways to implement ER. Waring and Puripunyavanich (2025) categorized ER practice into two dimensions—how students read and how ER is implemented. In the first dimension, they argued that it is necessary for students to read a lot of easy material fluently when doing ER for the class to be labelled ‘ER’. In the second dimension, following Waring and McLean (2015), the implementation of ER may include various optional features such as whether ER is mandatory, assessed, or uses digital or paper materials. These varieties create distinct flavors of ER, reflected in the Thai university teachers’ practices explored in this study.

ER contrasts with intensive reading (IR), which emphasizes teaching and learning grammar and vocabulary, and building reading strategies through the reading of short dense texts. Both approaches are complementary and should be integrated for effective reading instruction (Anderson, 2008; Nuttall, 2005; Renandya, 2007).

EFL Teachers’ Aims and Practices of Implementing Extensive Reading

Several studies have investigated teachers’ perceptions of ER and their implementation, especially in Asian countries, and indicated positive attitudes toward ER (e.g., Chang & Renandya, 2017; Puripunyavanich, 2022; Thongsan & Waring, 2024; Waring & Chu, 2017). Chang and Renandya (2017) reported several reasons to implement ER for 119 teachers in Asia, with the top three including improving language competence (82.4% of responses), building reading competence (68.9%), and making the reading enjoyable (41.2%). Additionally, some teachers (10.9% of responses) focused on preparing students for exams, while a few others emphasized developing language skills and reading motivation. It should be noted that Chang and Renandya (2017) did not explore whether years of ER practice affected the teachers’ aims of ER implementation or whether there were any relationships among such aims, thus leaving room for further investigation.

Regarding ER practices in Asia, Puripunyavanich and Waring (2024) conducted a survey with 259 EFL teachers in Japan, Mongolia, Thailand, and Vietnam. In Japan and Mongolia, ER was typically mandatory and was conducted with digital materials, while in Thailand and Vietnam, it was optional and paper-based materials were used. Most teachers included post-reading activities and assessments, despite them being optional aspects of ER (Waring & McLean, 2015). Notably, non-ER materials, such as non-graded and intensive reading resources, accounted for 60% of the responses. Although their study evidently illustrates diverse ER practices across Asian countries through quantitative results, it neither explored the teachers’ reasons for implementing ER nor collected qualitative data to enrich the investigation.

The Implementation of Extensive Reading in Foundation English Courses in Thailand

Over two decades, research has explored ER programs (ERPs) with non-English major undergraduates in Thailand. Pratontep (2007) compared a 10-week ERP with self-regulated learning (ERSRL) strategies to one without. The ERSRL group set reading goals, monitored progress, and reflected, while the ER group did not. Both groups read 1,000 pages and wrote summaries. Both ERSL and ER groups showed significant within-group reading comprehension gains, but not between-group differences. Tamrackitkun (2010) evaluated a four-month ERP involving reading graded readers weekly, writing summaries, and giving oral reports among 284 students, reporting enhanced reading comprehension, fluency, and motivation. Pongsatornpipat (2021) examined an eight-week ERP where 30 students read CNN, BBC, and National Geographic articles and discussed them in interactive groups, coupled with journal writing. This approach improved reading comprehension, attitudes, and learner autonomy.

Three studies showcase online ER, two implemented via Xreading.com (Puripunyavanich, 2021; Tantipidok, 2023) and one via unnamed ER software (Sek et al., 2021). Tantipidok (2023) found significant gains in reading comprehension and skills and motivation among 109 undergraduates after a 10-week ERP with quizzes, self-logs, and discussions. Similarly, Puripunyavanich (2021) observed positive attitudes toward ER and reading online graded readers among 365 students in one academic year, which included quizzes and writing book reviews, despite challenges like eyestrain and book selection. Sek et al. (2021) reported enhanced reading comprehension and motivation in 33 education undergraduates in a 10-week ERP featuring reading graded readers, giving presentations or writing reflections. Results showed high motivation for reading and improved reading comprehension with no significant gender differences in post-test scores although female students read more.

Collectively, these studies suggest that ERPs with self-regulated learning, interactive elements, and digital components can enhance reading comprehension and motivation in higher education.

Assessment of Extensive Reading

Puripunyavanich and Waring (2024) found 83% of the ER practitioners in Japan, Mongolia, Thailand, and Vietnam generally assessed ER in order to recognize students’ effort and ensure students read, while those who prioritized reading for pleasure avoided assessment. ER assessment takes various forms, including tasks requiring verbal or written expression. Discussion with friends and teachers was reported as an effective assessment task for students at the basic level, while writing one’s opinions on themes was more effective for students at the intermediate level (Kim, 2019). Research shows that assigning scores, which contribute to students’ total course grade, for ER activities can motivate students extrinsically (e.g., Puripunyavanich, 2021; Sek et al., 2021). Tamrackitkun (2010) recommended allocating 5–10% of module scores to book reading to incentivize reading. Without assessment or reward, many students may neglect ER or fail to take it seriously (Nation & Waring, 2020; Ng et al., 2019), potentially leading to its exclusion from curricula (Robb & Ewert, 2024). Despite concerns that assessment might negatively affect students’ attitudes toward reading, research indicates it has no negative effect on learners’ perceptions (Robb & Kano, 2013; Stoeckel et al., 2012). Assessment, thus, ensures ER remains a valued and integrated aspect of education.

Reading Materials

Both graded and non-graded reading materials were used in the aforementioned ERPs in FE courses in Thailand. Paper graded readers were used in Pratontep (2007) and Tamrackitkun (2010), while online graded readers and books, delivered through platforms such as Xreading, were used in Puripunyavanich (2021) and Tantipidok (2023). Non-graded materials were also used in Pratontep (2007) and Pongsatornpipat (2021). Authentic English books (i.e., books written for native speakers) were part of Pratontep’s (2007) ERP, while Pongsatornpipat (2021) employed non-fiction articles from CNN, BBC, and National Geographic. Notably, none of these authors mentioned using materials mainly used for intensive reading (IR) such as English textbooks, academic articles, or test preparation materials. However, Puripunyavanich and Waring’s (2024) study provided evidence that ER practitioners in Japan, Mongolia, Thailand, and Vietnam also used IR materials for doing ER.

The above section has reviewed the implementation of ER in Asia and the integration of ER into FE courses in Thailand. Most studies have focused on classroom practices within single institutions, highlighting the need for a broader investigation across multiple universities. Additionally, few data exist on teachers’ motivations for implementing ER. Addressing these gaps, this study examines the practices of ER teachers in undergraduate FE courses across institutions, comparing teachers with higher and lower levels of ER experience. The findings will also help us identify whether ER practitioners require further training in specific areas.

Research Questions

The study investigates the following research questions:

1. Do Thai university teachers with less experience of extensive reading implementation (Group A) and with more experience (Group B) perceive the aims of implementing ER differently?
2. Are there any correlations among the five sets of aims of implementing extensive reading?
   • Are there any correlations between the teachers’ extensive reading experience and the five sets of aims?
3. How do Groups A and B implement extensive reading in foundation English courses for non-English major undergraduates?
4. How do Groups A and B assess the reading in their extensive reading programs?
5. What materials do Groups A and B use in their extensive reading programs?

Methodology

Research Design

This research used a mixed methods design, where quantitative and qualitative approaches complement each other (Dörnyei, 2007). An online descriptive questionnaire was used to capture characteristics and trends in ER implementation (Gray, 2014). Semi-structured interviews followed to triangulate the questionnaire’s findings. These research instruments are explained in the instruments section.

Research Context

English reading is taught at universities in Thailand in foundation English, English for Academic Purposes, and English for Specific Purposes courses. Foundation English (FE) courses are usually required for first- or second-year students. They generally cover the four skills—reading, writing, listening, and speaking—but some universities may focus on just one or two skills. As part of teaching reading in an FE course at the author’s university, for instance, students are usually required to read four reading passages in four units in the main textbook (Evolve Level 5, CEFR B2, Hendra et al., 2022), totaling approximately 2,000 words, and four reading passages in four units in the supplementary handout, totaling approximately 1,200 words per semester (ranging from 16 to 18 weeks, including midterm and final exam weeks). Without doing ER, students would read only a few thousand words per course.

This study examined EFL university teachers’ implementation of ER in FE courses for non-English major undergraduates, covering both public and private institutions in Thailand supervised by the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation (MHESI).

Participants and Sampling Methods

Participation in the questionnaire and interviews was entirely voluntary. Purposive and snowball sampling methods were used to recruit questionnaire participants as they suited the purpose of this study, which was to explore university teachers’ ER implementation in FE courses. Purposive sampling enabled the researcher to choose particular participants who met the selection criteria (Gray, 2014), which included being Thai full-time or part-time EFL teachers at institutions supervised by MHESI (see the list of institutions in Appendix A); teaching or having taught FE courses for non-English major undergraduates; implementing or having implemented ER in FE courses; and consenting to data use. Through snowball sampling, the researcher identified initial participants from the researcher’s colleagues who were an FE course coordinator, deans and program directors, and presidents of professional associations (e.g., Thailand TESOL and Thai Association for Applied Linguistics), who then referred other university teachers in their networks to join the study by forwarding the questionnaire link (Gray, 2014). Although both methods might not fully represent the broader population and may have led to potential bias in selecting the sample (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Gray, 2014), they allowed the researcher to focus on the target participants who met the criteria. In total, sixty-three teachers responded to the questionnaire.

Appendix A shows the MHESI divides higher education institutions into seven categories: autonomous universities, public universities, former teacher’s colleges (Rajabhat universities), former technical colleges (Rajamangala universities), private universities, private institutes, and colleges.

The questionnaire participants were divided into two groups: Group A (55.56%, n = 35) comprising the participants who had less experience with ER implementation, ranging between 0.5 and 5 years, and Group B (44.44%, n = 28) comprising the participants with more experience, ranging between 6 and 20+ years. Table 1 shows that the highest percentages of the participants in both groups worked at autonomous universities (Group A = 51.43%, Group B = 39.29%). None worked at colleges.

Table 1. Questionnaire Participants’ Affiliation Information

Institution type		Autonomous universities	Public universities	Former teacher’s colleges	Former technical colleges	Private universities	Private institutes	Total
Group A	% (n)	51.43% (18)	2.86% (1)	17.14% (6)	2.86% (1)	20.00% (7)	5.71% (2)	100% (35)
Group B	% (n)	39.29% (11)	10.71% (3)	25.00% (7)	3.57% (1)	10.71% (3)	10.71% (3)	100% (28)

For interviews, purposive sampling with the same selection criteria as the questionnaire was used to select eight participants from the questionnaire respondents who were full-time teachers at their institutions. Only full-time teachers were selected because they would likely know their institution’s policy better than part-time teachers. Table 2 indicates that the eight interview participants worked at eight different institutions throughout Thailand and had taught reading for over five years. Notably, most participants had implemented ER not more than five years.

Table 2. Interview Participants’ Demographic Background

Pseudonym	Years of implementing ER	Institution type
1.      Lalin	8 weeks	Autonomous university
2.      Warit	2	Autonomous university
3.      Natcha	3	Former technical college
4.      Nada	3	Former teacher’s college
5.      Picha	4	Former teacher’s college
6.      Airin	4	Autonomous university
7.      Bhurin	5	Private university
8.      Praewa	20	Private institution

Research Instruments

The study employed two research instruments: an online questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The questionnaire included 48 questions across five sections: Part 0: Participant’s confirmation of qualification, Part 1: Participant’s profile, Part 2: Teaching English reading in foundation courses for non-English majors, Part 3A: The implementation of extensive reading, and Part 3B: Not implementing extensive reading. Part 3A, focusing on ER implementation, was mostly adopted from Puripunyavanich and Waring (2024). This study presents data from Part 1 and most items in 3A.

Six semi-structured interview questions were used to explore the participants’ ER implementation. Five experts in L2 reading, ER, and English teaching validated the instruments adopting the Index of Item-Objective Congruence (IOC). Introduced by Rovinelli and Hambleton (1976), IOC involves content experts rating test items based on how well they align with specified objectives: 1 (congruent), 0 (unclear), or -1 (incongruent). A value of 0.5 or higher indicates acceptable congruence (Rovinelli & Hambleton, 1976). This study applied the IOC method by having experts evaluate questionnaire and interview items to ensure the instruments were appropriate for obtaining the data to answer the research questions. The experts also suggested improvements to enhance instrument quality. The questionnaire, distributed in Thai, was piloted with 31 teachers, leading to minor revisions to enhance clarity. It demonstrated high reliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.924. Relevant questionnaire and interview items are provided in Appendix B.

Data Collection and Analysis

A research participant recruitment poster and a Google Forms questionnaire link were posted and shared via email, Facebook, MHESI’s website, and various LINE groups from March to May 2024, potentially reaching over 5,000 target respondents. However, only 63 teachers who met the selection criteria completed the questionnaire. Furthermore, in-depth, semi-structured Zoom interviews with eight teachers were held in June 2024. Ethical approval was obtained from the author’s university and participants signed consent forms prior to interviews. Conducted in Thai, the interviews lasted 40–72 minutes and were recorded for transcription and translation. To maintain confidentiality, participants used gender-reflective pseudonyms with different initials on Zoom. Pseudonyms were also used to report their responses in this article. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw at any time and were assured that their information would remain confidential.

Quantitative data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 29 for both descriptive and inferential statistics. Specifically, an independent-samples t-test was conducted on the mean differences in five sets of aims between Group A and Group B to answer RQ1, while Pearson correlation coefficients were employed to answer RQs2 and 2.1. Before using inferential statistics, normality distribution was tested by using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The results indicated that the data were normally distributed (p = .092). Thus, parametric statistics, including the independent-sample t-test and Pearson correlation, were used. The degree of correlation was interpreted following Turney (2022). In addition, percentages were used to answer RQs3–5.

The author used content analysis to code qualitative data from interviews by identifying the important points in the data, grouping similar responses, and counting the frequency of each category. A research assistant verified the analysis, and member checking was used to ensure data validity, where interviewees confirmed that summaries and direct quotes accurately represented their views and experiences (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).

Results

This section is divided into three parts to respond to the five research questions. Part 1 illustrates the aims of implementing ER (RQs1, 2, and 2.1); Part 2 presents the participants’ implementation of ER (RQ3); Part 3 looks at the assessment of ER (RQ4); and Part 4 reports the use of reading materials (RQ5). Questionnaire data are presented in tables followed by interview data in descriptive paragraphs. A summary of interview data on ER implementation, assessment, and reading materials is provided in Appendix C.

Part 1: The Aims of Implementing Extensive Reading

Participants were asked to rate the importance of each aim on a 5-Likert scale ranging from 5 (extremely important) to 1 (not important). Table 3 presents 15 aims categorized into five sets: (1) To build general or linguistic knowledge, (2) To build skills (i.e., reading and English language skills), (3) To involve students in reading and selecting materials, (4) To build desired outcomes from having read extensively, and (5) To prepare students for exams.

Table 3. Aims of Implementing Extensive Reading*

1. To build general or linguistic knowledge

2.     To build students’ vocabulary

3.     To build students’ grammar

9.      To help students become more knowledgeable

2. To build skills

4.     To build students’ reading skills

5.     To improve students’ English language skills

3. To involve students in reading and selecting materials

8.     To give students opportunities to read a lot (i.e., to practice reading)

10.   To let students choose what they read

11.   To let students experience the joy of reading

13.   To introduce students to a variety of reading materials

4. To build desired outcomes from having read extensively

1.     To build students’ reading comprehension

6.     To build students’ reading fluency

7.     To build students’ reading confidence

12.   To motivate students to read

5. To prepare students for exams

14.   To prepare students for their midterm and final exams

15.   To prepare students for standardized English tests

* Item numbers follow the numbers in the questionnaire.

RQ1 Do Thai university teachers with less experience of extensive reading implementation (Group A) and with more experience (Group B) perceive the aims of implementing ER differently?

An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the scores of Group A and Group B across five sets. To control the risk of Type I errors due to multiple comparisons, the Bonferroni correction was applied. After applying the Bonferroni correction, Table 4 shows none of the comparisons reached the adjusted significance level of .01, indicating no statistically significant differences between the two groups across all five sets of aims of implementing ER. This indicated that they both strongly valued the importance of these five sets regardless of their years of ER practice. Notably, a statistical comparison of the means of the two groups yielded no clear results; a correlational analysis was, thus, applied as shown in Tables 5 and 6.

Table 4. Differences Between the Five Sets of Aims Perceived by Groups A and B

Aim set	Group A		Group B		t(61)	p	Cohen’s d
	M	SD	M	SD
Set 1: Knowledge	4.19	0.62	4.39	0.47	-1.475	0.145	0.364
Set 2: Skills	4.46	0.59	4.68	0.46	-1.687	0.097	0.416
Set 3: Student involvement	4.45	0.56	4.61	0.50	-1.171	0.246	0.301
Set 4: ER outcomes	4.49	0.51	4.65	0.37	-1.494	0.140	0.359
Set 5: Exam preparation	3.77	1.13	4.09	0.81	-1.304	0.197	0.325

Interview data revealed various aims of implementing ER. Three participants—Warit, Airin, and Bhurin—highlighted the importance of building students’ reading skills. The other five participants reported diverse objectives: Nada aimed to build students’ vocabulary, while Natcha sought to motivate her students to read. Lalin focused on giving her students opportunities to read a lot, and Praewa stated that her aim was “to integrate ER into the foundation course” without mentioning specific learning outcomes. Picha had a unique perspective, viewing ER as a means to support her university’s policy:

My university, situated in Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, aims to enhance students’ understanding of the province’s historical significance and local wisdom. I viewed this policy as an opportunity to incorporate ER into my foundation course, allowing students to read extensively about the history, culture, and local wisdom of Ayutthaya.

RQ2 Are there any correlations among the five sets of aims of implementing extensive reading?

Table 5 illustrates correlations among the five sets of aims for the 63 participants. The top three strongest correlation coefficients include the correlations between Set 4: To build desired outcomes from having read extensively and Set 3: To involve students in reading and selecting materials, followed by Set 2: To build skills and Set 4: To build desired outcomes from having read extensively, and Set 1: To build general or linguistic knowledge and Set 5: To prepare students for exams.

Table 5. Correlations Among Five Aim Sets of Implementing Extensive Reading

Aim set	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.
1.    To build general or linguistic knowledge	—
2.    To build skills	.50**	—
3.    To involve students in reading and selecting materials	.51**	.64**	—
4.    To build desired outcomes from having read extensively	.51**	.75**	.87**	—
5.    To prepare students for exams	.68**	.26*	0.24	.29*	—

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

RQ2.1 Are there any correlations between the teachers’ extensive reading experience and the five sets of aims?

Tables 6 and 7 illustrate that although both groups exhibited similar relationships between the teachers’ ER experience and the five sets of aims of implementing ER, there are more strong correlations among the sets of aims in Group B than in Group A. The strongest correlation coefficient for both groups was between Set 3: To involve students in reading and selecting materials and Set 4: To build desired outcomes from having read extensively, with Group A demonstrating slightly higher coefficient value. Another correlation that both groups shared was between Set 2: To build skills and Set 4: To build desired outcomes from having read extensively. However, they differed in one correlation. In Group A, Set 1: To build general or linguistic knowledge strongly correlated with Set 5: To prepare students for exams, while in Group B, Set 1 strongly correlated with Set 2: To build skills. Notably, a strong correlation between Sets 1 and 5 in Group A influenced the data, making this correlation the third strongest in Table 5. Without dividing the correlation analysis into two groups based on participants’ ER experience, we would not be able to see that Set 5 did not correlate with any other set in Group B and Sets 1 and 2 did not correlate in Group A.

Table 6. Correlations Between Participants’ Extensive Reading Experience of Group A (n = 35) and the Five Sets of Aims

Aim set	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.
To build general or linguistic knowledge	—
To build skills	.39*	—
To involve students in reading and selecting materials	.46**	.62**	—
To build desired outcomes from having read extensively	.47**	.75**	.90**	—
To prepare students for exams	.81**	.25	0.31	.31	—

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 7. Correlations Between Participants’ Extensive Reading Experience of Group B (n = 28) and the Five Sets of Aims

Aim set	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.
1.     To build general or linguistic knowledge	—
2.      To build skills	.67**	—
3.      To involve students in reading and selecting materials	.56**	.64**	—
4.      To build desired outcomes from having read extensively	.56**	.73**	.80**	—
5.      To prepare students for exams	.36	.18	0.04	.18	—

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

RQ3 How do Group A and Group B implement extensive reading in foundation English courses for non-English major undergraduates?

Part 2: The Implementation of Extensive Reading

Participants’ Implementation of Extensive Reading. Regular reading instruction (RRI) in Table 8 involves intensive reading elements such as doing close reading of the text and teaching grammar points, vocabulary, and reading strategies. Notably, regular reading instruction constituted a greater proportion than ER for both groups in FE courses. Similar patterns were observed between Group A and B in that the highest number of participants in Group A (31.43%) and Group B (25.00%) favored a balanced approach of 50% RRI and 50% ER.

Table 8. The Proportion of Regular Reading Instruction (RRI) and ER in Participants’ Foundation Course(s)

Proportion	Group A		Group B
	n	%	n	%
1.     30% RRI + 70% ER	1	2.86	2	7.14
2.     40% RRI + 60% ER	3	8.57	4	14.29
3.     50% RRI + 50% ER	11	31.43	7	25.00
4.     60% RRI + 40% ER	5	14.29	5	17.86
5.     70% RRI + 30% ER	8	22.86	6	21.43
6.     80% RRI + 20% ER	2	5.71	3	10.71
7.     90% RRI + 10% ER	5	14.29	1	3.57
Total	35	100.00	28	100.00

Table 9 indicates similar patterns between Groups A and B. There was a strong preference for integrating both classwork and homework in implementing ER, with 48.57% in Group A and 50% in Group B opting for this approach. Assigning ER solely as homework was also popular, while classwork implementation only was less common. Additionally, the highest percentages of participants in both groups required their students to do ER (Group A = 60%, Group B = 57.14%). However, one participant in Group A made ER totally optional, while none did so in Group B. In terms of delivery, 40.00% in Group A and 60.71% in Group B utilized a balanced mix of paper-based and online formats. 28.57% in Group A and 32.14% in Group B predominantly favored online modes, indicating a growing preference for online modes in ER implementation.

Table 9. The Participants’ Implementation of ER

Component	Group A		Group B
	n	%	n	%
1.   Form of implementation
1.    Classwork	2	5.71	1	3.57
2.    Homework	16	45.71	13	46.43
3.    Combination of the two	17	48.57	14	50.00
Total	35	100.00	28	100.00
2.    Status of ER
1.    Required	21	60.00	16	57.14
2.    Optional (but recommended)	13	37.14	12	42.86
3.    Totally optional	1	2.86	0	0.00
Total	35	100.00	28	100.00
3.    Mode of ER
1.    Exclusively paper-based	1	2.86	0	0.00
2.    Mostly paper-based	5	14.29	1	3.57
3.    Mostly online	10	28.57	9	32.14
4.    Exclusively online	5	14.29	1	3.57
5.    Both paper-based and online in an equal amount	14	40.00	17	60.71
Total	35	100.00	28	100.00

The interview data indicated that ER implementation in five interviewees’ ERPs was primarily driven by individual teacher initiatives. The participants decided to do ER for various reasons, as stated above in the aims. However, at three interviewees’ universities, ER was integrated into the FE course curriculum. Picha’s university incorporated ER to enhance students’ understanding of Ayutthaya’s history, while Airin’s university integrated ER to develop students’ English skills. Natcha’s university officially integrated ER into a reading-focused FE course due to the course coordinator’s recognition of its benefits.

ER was a required component in seven ERPs, with participants allocating scores or bonus points to ER activities. Six participants—Warit, Airin, Picha, Natcha, Bhurin, and Praewa—mandated ER participation and included it in students’ total grades. These participants retained the autonomy to decide which course components (e.g., self-study activities, participation) could be turned into ER activities, including reading, post-reading, and assessments.

In Nada’s course, ER was mandatory with allocation of bonus points which would be added to students’ total grade if they received low scores. In contrast, Lalin’s ERP made ER optional without score allocation. Overall, there was a clear trend toward score allocation for ER when it was a required course component. Score allocation is elaborated on in Part 3: The Assessment of Extensive Reading.

Post-Reading Activities. The findings indicated that a significant majority of the participants in Groups A (85.71%, n = 30) and B (89.29%, n = 25) incorporated post-reading activities into their ERPs. Participants were prompted to select all applicable options for post-reading activities. Table 10 shows that the top three most frequently selected activities were the same for both groups, including oral reports, comprehension quizzes, and language work. Notably, a diversity of activities was employed to reinforce reading comprehension and engagement.

Table 10. Post-Reading Activities

Activities	Group A		Group B
	Frequency of responses (n)	%	Frequency of responses (n)	%
1.     Oral reports (e.g., presentation, group discussion, mini plays acting the story, etc.)	22	31.43	21	30.43
2.     Comprehension quizzes	16	22.86	19	27.54
3.     Language work (e.g., vocabulary building or grammar)	12	17.14	11	15.94
4.     Writing (written book review, poster, rewriting the story etc.)	9	12.86	7	10.14
5.     Further study of the author’s life or the topic	4	5.71	5	7.25
6.     Reading circles (students read the same book but have different responsibilities such as the character analyser, story summarizer, culture finder etc.)	3	4.29	5	7.25
7.     Other	4	5.71	1	1.45
Total	70	100.00	69	100.00

All eight interviewees engaged in post-reading activities, with most using only one activity type. However, Praewa incorporated both reading quizzes and oral presentations in her ERP. Natcha conducted oral presentations and Airin administered reading quizzes.

Unlike the quantitative findings, writing activities—such as weekly journals, learning logs, reflection papers, and mind maps—were the most frequently reported by five participants (Lalin, Nada, Bhurin, Warit, and Picha). Lalin required her students to write weekly journals to summarize articles, reflect on new vocabulary, and evaluate reading strategies. Warit and Bhurin asked students to write reflection papers summarizing readings and sharing opinions on them. Picha took a different approach by having students collaboratively create mind maps summarizing key ideas from chapters on Ayutthaya. Nada, unlike the others, did not focus on summaries or learning logs. Instead, her students reflected on new vocabulary and insights gained from weekly readings.

Quantitative data also showed that 14.29% of the participants in Group A and 10.71% in Group B omitted post-reading activities. They were asked to choose all the reasons for not doing activities and Group A provided eight responses, while Group B provided four responses. Among Group A, the most commonly reported reasons were the fact that the reading was unassessed (37.50%, n = 3), time constraints (25.00%, n = 2), large class sizes (25.00%, n = 2) and the fact that ER was not in the course syllabus (12.50%, n = 1). For Group B, equal proportions (50.00%, n = 2) cited time constraints and large class sizes.

Sources of Funding. Participants were prompted to select all applicable funding sources. Table 11 shows that free materials were most commonly used by both groups, while no participants reported receiving government funding. Notably, quite high percentages of participants in both groups reported not knowing where the sources came from, which could be because the reading materials might already be available at their institutions and they did not know who purchased them.

Table 11. Sources of Funding for ER Programs

Sources	Group A		Group B
	Frequency of responses (n)	%	Frequency of responses (n)	%
1.     I use free materials.	13	29.55	18	48.65
2.     I fund the ER program in my class(es).	4	9.09	1	2.70
3.     My university	6	13.64	3	8.11
4.     The library at my university	7	15.91	5	13.51
5.     External grant from sponsor(s)	2	4.55	0	0.00
6.     Government	0	0.00	0	0.00
7.     The students	3	6.82	3	8.11
8.     I don’t know.	9	20.45	7	18.92
Total	44	100.00	37	100.00

The interview data revealed that funding was limited across the eight institutions, leading some participants to rely on free materials. For example, Praewa noted, “I use free materials from the internet and books at my department. There has not been a budget in my department for doing ER.” These budget constraints not only limited material sources but also narrowed book selection options. Nada reported, “Due to the limited budget, I have to buy discounted graded readers as regular-priced ones are quite expensive, so choices are limited.”

Some ERPs relied on institutional funding (e.g., former teachers’ colleges and autonomous universities), while in three programs led by Warit, Picha, and Praewa, students were required to purchase their own reading materials.

RQ4 How do Group A and Group B assess the reading in their extensive reading programs?

Part 3: The Assessment of Extensive Reading

The quantitative data revealed that the majority of the participants in Groups A (68.57%, n = 24) and B (64.29%, n = 18) assessed the students’ reading. Participants were prompted to select all applicable options for assessing or not assessing ER. Table 12 shows that the top three reasons for assessment were to check comprehension, inform the students of their reading proficiency, and ensure the students had read the material.

However, 39.29% (n = 11) in Group A and 35.71% (n = 10) in Group B did not assess reading, reasoning that reading should be for pleasure, not all activities should require formal assessment, and assessment might reduce students’ enjoyment.

Table 12. Reasons for Assessing and Not Assessing ER

Reasons for assessing ER	Group A		Group B
	Frequency of responses (n)	%	Frequency of responses (n)	%
1.     We need to check comprehension.	16	24.62	13	27.08
2.     Students may benefit from knowing how well they read.	15	23.08	12	25.00
3.     We should make sure that students really read the books.	14	21.54	9	18.75
4.     Students’ effort should be acknowledged.	11	16.92	10	20.83
5.     Assessment data can be used when reporting to other teachers and the administration.	8	12.31	3	6.25
6.     Other	1	1.54	1	2.08
Total	65	100.00	48	100.00
Reasons for not assessing ER	Group A		Group B
	Frequency of responses (n)	%	Frequency of responses (n)	%
1.     Reading should be for pleasure.	8	27.59	5	23.81
2.     Students would not enjoy the reading if they are being assessed.	5	17.24	4	19.05
3.     We should not give the impression that everything needs to be assessed.	3	10.34	5	23.81
4.     We cannot test each student’s reading if they all read different texts.	4	13.79	3	14.29
5.     Students should spend most of their time on reading.	1	3.45	1	4.76
6.     My class is too large.	4	13.79	1	4.76
7.     I do not have time.	3	10.34	2	9.52
8.     Other	1	3.45	0	0.00
Total	29	100.00	21	100.00

The interview data revealed that all eight participants assessed students’ reading, even in Lalin’s ERP, where ER was optional, suggesting that they considered assessment an important part of ER. However, Lalin’s approach was distinct, as no scores were allocated to the reading or weekly journal but students were asked to self-evaluate their reading progress and reflect on their use of reading techniques in weekly journals. The other seven participants provided scores for ER activities, primarily through post-reading tasks such as reading quizzes, weekly journals, and oral presentations. Warit, Airin, Picha, and Praewa used reading quizzes, allocating 10% of the total grade to ER assessments, while Natcha assigned 5% for oral presentations. Bhurin used two assignments, collectively contributing to 45–50% of the total grade. They included a reflection paper, accounting for 15–20%, and a final project (30%), where students produced a video role-playing the main part of the story or creating a new ending. Bhurin allocated the highest ER score among participants, emphasizing ER’s role in enhancing other language skills as he noted, “Reading is a receptive skill that connects other skills. The more students read, the better other language skills will be.”

RQ5 What materials do Groups A and B use in their extensive reading programs?

Part 4: Reading Materials

In Table 13, the materials utilized for ER were categorized into four distinct sets: (1) graded reading materials (e.g., graded readers), (2) materials mainly used for intensive reading (e.g., four skills textbooks), (3) non-graded reading materials (e.g., newspapers), and (4) other resources. Participants were prompted to select all applicable materials, with the data presented in Table 11 reflecting the percentages of material types used, not the percentages of time that they were used.

Data revealed that IR materials (Set 2) accounted for the highest percentages for both groups with 37.40% in Group A and 38.06% in Group B. Additionally, Group A commonly used graded materials (Set 1), while Group B were more likely to use non-graded materials (Set 3). Notably, within Set 1, graded readers were the most frequently selected, followed by an online reading program. In Set 2, dedicated reading textbooks were prominent in both groups, with test preparation materials also being primarily used by Group A, and general English textbooks by Group B. In Set 3, non-illustrated books for young native speakers were predominantly used by Group A, while newspapers were mainly used by Group B.

In summary, the top two most frequently selected sets for Group A were IR and graded materials, accounting for 66.67%, while those for Group B were IR and non-graded materials, accounting for 70.9%. These findings suggested potentially inappropriate material usage for ER and that participants in both groups might be doing IR instead of ER.

Table 13. Reading Materials in ER Classes

Reading materials	Group A		Group B
	Frequency of responses (n)	%	Frequency of responses (n)	%
1.     Graded reading materials
1.   Graded readers (fiction or non-fiction books written for language learners)	13	10.57	9	6.72
2.   An online reading program (e.g., Xreading.com, Raz-kids.com, Scholastic Kids Press, er-central.com)	9	7.32	9	6.72
3.   Leveled readers (stories that practice language patterns e.g., I like books, I like pizza, I like ….)	7	5.69	7	5.22
4.   SRA system (a card-based reading program)	7	5.69	5	3.73
Total	36	29.27	30	22.39
2.     Materials mainly used for intensive reading
5.   A dedicated ‘reading’ textbook	11	8.94	12	8.96
6.   A typical 4 skills general English textbook	10	8.13	12	8.96
7.   Test preparation materials (e.g., TOEFL, IELTS, TOEIC) or previous tests	11	8.94	7	5.22
8.   My own materials (e.g., worksheets/articles from English learning websites)	7	5.69	11	8.21
9.   Academic (subject) books or articles	7	5.69	9	6.72
Total	46	37.40	51	38.06
3.     Non-graded reading materials
10. Non-illustrated books for young native speakers (e.g., Harry Potter)	8	6.50	11	8.21
11. Newspapers and news articles on websites	7	5.69	12	8.96
12. Magazines	6	4.88	9	6.72
13. Comics or manga	5	4.07	7	5.22
14. Picture books (most of the page is a picture as in e.g., The Hungry Caterpillar)	4	3.25	5	3.73
Total	30	24.39	44	32.84
4.     Others
15. Phonics readers practicing sounds (e.g., The fox is in the box.)	6	4.88	6	4.48
16. Other	5	4.07	3	2.24
Total	11	8.94	9	6.72
Grand total	123	100.00	134	100.00

The interview data indicated diverse practices regarding the use of graded and non-graded reading materials, as well as a blend of both alongside intensive reading materials. All participants except Lalin utilized graded reading materials. Specifically, Nada, Warit, Airin, Natcha, and Praewa used graded readers (hard copies) because they are categorized by difficulty level. Bhurin opted for a subscription-based online program offered by Edusoft, English Discoveries (https://englishdiscoveries.net/), as his institution subscribed to it for usage in English courses. This program features graded non-fiction reading materials tailored for language learners.

Picha’s ERP uniquely featured in-house localized materials, designed to align with her university’s curriculum requirement to study Ayutthaya’s history. The FE course instructors collaboratively authored these materials, simplifying content from an existing textbook used in the Ayutthaya Studies course to achieve a CEFR A2 level. Such localized materials made the reading content more relevant to the students, helping them connect to the reading more when it was about something that they were familiar with as Picha elaborated:

One chapter is about Nai (Mr.) Khanom Tom, a legendary Thai boxer from Bang Ban District in Ayutthaya. Students who come from Bang Ban all know Nai Khanom Tom’s story very well and this helps them relate to the reading more easily.

Notably, Natcha and Praewa combined paper graded readers with non-graded materials (e.g., books, news articles, and internet resources) and intensive reading texts (e.g., reading passages from other English textbooks). Praewa’s rationale for employing this mixed approach was to enhance student motivation for reading by letting them read graded readers, which are generally easier, while also exposing them to contemporary issues through news articles. In Natcha’s ERP, this combination was employed because she encouraged student autonomy in selecting reading materials.

In contrast, Lalin exclusively utilized non-fiction news articles from reputable websites, including National Geographic, BBC, and CNN. Her objectives were threefold: “to broaden students’ knowledge on topics covered in their foundation course textbook, to cultivate a positive attitude toward reading challenging texts, and to prepare them for academic reading at the university level.” Lalin assigned one article per week and provided scaffolding through background knowledge, pre-reading activities, and collaborative discussions to enhance comprehension and engagement.

The interview data further indicated that an average word count of ER reading materials per semester in seven ERPs was around 6,500 words, ranging between 2,000 and 24,000 words, while one ERP did not have a fixed word count (see Appendix C). When participants were asked about how much reading their students did in their ERPs, Warit and Praewa used the phrase “not more than…words.” Warit thought that non-English major undergraduates in FE courses should read between 3,000 and 4,000 words but not more than 5,000 words because this range would be manageable for them. Praewa initially assigned students to read one graded reader per semester but they complained that it was too much, so she switched to shorter articles, totaling no more than 2,000 words. In Picha’s ERP where the highest word count (24,000 words) was present, she reported “students commented that the reading content was quite a lot and they couldn’t manage to finish reading all eight chapters.”

Decision Makers Who Selected the Reading Materials. Table 14 indicates that teachers, including section teacher, foundation course coordinator, and course teachers, predominantly selected materials in both groups (Group A = 65.71%, Group B = 57.14%). The section teacher significantly influenced the materials selection, especially for Group A (40.00%), while co-selection between the section teacher and students also occurred in both groups. Notably, both the section teacher and the section teacher and students had the same percentage for Group B (28.57%). Additionally, no participant reported materials selection by the Head of the Department.

Table 14. Decision-Makers Who Selected the Reading Materials

Decision maker	Group A		Group B
	n	%	n	%
1.     Section teacher	14	40.00	8	28.57
2.     Section teacher and students decide together.	7	20.00	8	28.57
3.     Foundation course coordinator	6	17.14	5	17.86
4.     Students	5	14.29	5	17.86
5.     Foundation course teachers	3	8.57	2	7.14
6.     Head of the Department	0	0.00	0	0.00
Total	35	100.00	28	100.00

The qualitative analysis revealed that section teachers predominantly influenced the selection of reading materials in the four ERPs managed by Lalin, Warit, Airin, and Praewa. Although Warit and Airin thought that teacher-led material selection eased the management of ER activities, they reported different reasons. For Warit, selecting the same book for all students facilitated uniform reflection papers and quizzes as he said, “they can write a reflection paper on the same book and take the same reading quiz.” Airin reasoned that “the teacher selecting the materials quickens the decision-making process as there are a lot of students in one section.”

Lalin’s response underscored the importance of teacher-selected materials in guiding students toward unfamiliar online non-fiction sources, fostering future independent materials selection: “Students might not know or be familiar with sources for online non-fiction articles. The teacher’s reading materials selection gave them guidance and examples for choosing their own materials in the future.”

Praewa’s response highlighted the ineffectiveness of student self-selection, necessitating teacher intervention to enhance vocabulary learning and appropriate proficiency alignment:

Initially, I let my students choose reading materials themselves, but it turned out that they often chose very easy books that required little or no effort, so they didn’t learn any new vocabulary. Therefore, I decided to select the materials for my students that suit the English proficiency level for university students.

In contrast, the three ERPs led by Nada, Natcha, and Bhurin emphasized student autonomy, allowing students to choose materials that matched their interests and proficiency levels. In Picha’s ERP, the foundation course teachers co-selected the materials because ER was done to align with the university policy, necessitating that all students read the same book. Notably, the practice of co-selection between teachers and students was absent in all eight ERPs.

Discussion and Implications

The study’s findings provide insights into Thai university teachers’ implementation of ER in FE courses offered to non-English major undergraduates.

The Aims of Implementing Extensive Reading

The study found no significant difference in the perception of ER aims between Groups A and B, indicating that years of ER practice did not influence participants’ perceptions as all participants highly valued the five sets of aims. Consistent with Chang and Renandya (2017), who reported that ER in Asia primarily focuses on improving language and reading competence while fostering enjoyment, this study highlighted similar priorities among university teachers in Thailand. Additionally, it identified unique emphases, including involving students in reading and selecting materials and building desired outcomes (i.e., improved comprehension and fluency). Interviews revealed participants’ dedication to integrating ER into FE courses and aligning practices with institutional policies, suggesting a broader set of aims. These findings underline the need to align ER implementation with institutional goals to enhance ER’s adoption in FE courses.

The study further revealed several correlations among five sets of aims for all 63 participants. However, most of the correlations between Set 5 (i.e., preparing students for exams) and other sets were much weaker than other correlations, indicating that the teachers who thought this was important generally had different goals than the other teachers. After repeating the correlation analysis for each individual group, we could see that only Group A teachers wanted to prepare students for exams and used ER to help build general or linguistic knowledge, but the same was not true for Group B teachers. This means that participants who had less experience with ER and implemented ER in order to prepare students for exams clearly were primarily doing so because they thought it helped build general or linguistic knowledge and generally did not care as much about building skills, student involvement, or building desired outcomes. Saengboon (2019) indicated that the Thai education system is examination-oriented, which perhaps explains why some participants prioritized preparing their students for the exams. Additionally, evidence shows that ER enhances exam performance, including higher TOEIC scores (e.g., Milliner, 2021; Robb & Kano, 2013). Overall, the correlation analysis indicated slight differences between the two groups and suggests that the number of years of implementing ER probably affected their priorities of the aims of implementing ER. Despite their differences in some correlations, similar relationships were found between the teachers’ ER experience and the five sets of aims of implementing ER, as were some strong correlations among sets of aims in both groups. The strongest correlation in both groups was evident between Set 3: To involve students in reading and selecting materials and Set 4: To build desired outcomes from having read extensively. Participants perceived that involving students in reading through giving them opportunities to read a lot and letting them experience the joy of reading and selecting the materials through letting them choose their own materials and introducing them to a variety of reading materials were related to building desired outcomes from having read extensively such as reading comprehension, fluency, confidence, and motivation. These findings align with Day and Bamford’s (2002) ER principles, particularly P2: availability of various reading materials, P3: learner autonomy in choosing materials, P4: reading in large quantities, and P5: reading for pleasure.

Both groups also shared another strong correlation between Set 2: To build skills and Set 4: To build desired outcomes from having read extensively. Participants believed that ER could help them improve students’ reading and language skills and build outcomes from having read extensively. Previous studies have shown positive impacts of ER on reading comprehension, motivation, reading skills, and fluency (e.g., Sek, 2021; Tamrackitkun, 2010; Tantipidok, 2023). Furthermore, as Set 1: To build general or linguistic knowledge strongly correlated with most sets in Group B, this indicated that participants who wanted to build general or linguistic knowledge had many different aims. Although differences and similarities in correlations were discovered between the two groups, it should be noted that participants in both groups shared a common point in that they all used ER for general or linguistic knowledge.

The Implementation of Extensive Reading

Most participants implemented ER as a combination of classwork and homework, consistent with Puripunyavanich and Waring’s (2024) findings. However, while ER was predominantly optional but recommended in Thailand in their study, it was mainly mandatory in the present study, which was focused merely on tertiary education settings. Additionally, nearly 50% of ERPs utilized both paper-based and online formats equally, contrasting with the primarily paper-based mode reported by Puripunyavanich and Waring (2024). This distinction suggests a growing trend toward online ER in Thailand (e.g., Pongsatornpipat, 2021; Puripunyavanich, 2021; Sek et al., 2021; Tantipidok, 2023), Indonesia (e.g., Janah et al., 2022), and Vietnam (e.g., Bui & Macalister, 2021). Meanwhile, paper-based ER remains prevalent in several other Asian countries, such as Japan (e.g., Iwata, 2022), Korea (e.g., Kim, 2019; Suk, 2024), and Taiwan (e.g., Tien, 2015; Wang & Ho, 2019), suggesting there could be regional differences in the implementation of ER or may reflect the availability of graded materials.

The study also found that ER implementation largely depended on individual teacher initiatives, with participants recognizing its benefits and having the autonomy to choose relevant assessment activities. While the questionnaire did not address ER’s inclusion in FE course curricula, interview data showed it was integrated into such curricula at three universities. Robb and Kano (2013) indicated that incorporating ER into the General English curriculum enhances its success, as demonstrated in a university in Japan. Although teacher initiatives are crucial, aligning ER integration with university policies is essential for formal implementation. For instance, Puripunyavanich’s (2022) study highlighted administrative support for an ER program at her university, where ER implementation aligned with the institution’s mission to produce proficient English users. To enhance the success of ER implementation at universities, these findings suggest integrating ER into FE course curricula.

The study’s findings regarding post-reading activities in ERPs align closely with previous research, which found evidence of activities such as weekly reports or journals (Pongsatornpipat, 2021; Pratontep, 2007), oral presentations (Sek et al., 2021; Tamrackitkun, 2010), and book quizzes (Puripunyavanich, 2021; Tantipidok, 2023). Both this study and that of Puripunyavanich and Waring (2024) found that most participants engaged in post-reading activities, though some cited time constraints as a barrier. While most participants conducted oral reports, the interview data revealed that writing activities were frequently implemented in five ERPs, aligning with findings from Puripunyavanich and Waring (2024). The findings, thus, indicate possibilities of implementing diverse post-reading activities in ERPs and further suggest that teachers who implement ER address time constraints to enhance student engagement and learning outcomes.

Limited funding significantly affects ERPs in Thailand, as most participants relied heavily on free resources, reflecting findings from previous studies (Puripunyavanich & Waring, 2024; Thongsan & Waring, 2024). While some institutional funding is available, it is often insufficient, forcing students to purchase materials or rely on free resources, which raises concerns about the quality, variety, and suitability of materials. To address these challenges, teachers can explore several strategies. They can apply for grants from the Extensive Reading Foundation (ERF), which supports institutions in establishing ER programs (ERF, 2011). Nation and Waring (2020) suggested approaching faculty boards for grants, subscribing to Xreading for access to numerous graded readers, or organizing fundraising events to generate funds for materials. In resource-limited contexts, Macalister (2015) proposed that teachers create their own reading materials, though this requires significant effort. However, advancements in generative AI tools now make developing such resources more feasible. These approaches provide potential solutions to funding constraints, enabling programs to offer more diverse and suitable materials for students and enhance ER effectiveness.

Assessment of ER

This study found that most participants assessed ER primarily to check students’ comprehension. This finding underscores the importance of assessment in ERPs, similar to other Asian contexts (Puripunyavanich & Waring, 2024). The interview data further revealed that comprehension quizzes and weekly journals were used for assessment. Previous studies have also found quizzes to be common in ERPs (e.g., Kim, 2019; Puripunyavanich, 2021; Stoeckel et al., 2012; Tantipidok, 2023), while weekly journals have also been used in some programs (e.g., Pongsatornpipat, 2021; Pratontep, 2007). The interview data also indicated that in most cases where ER was required, scores were allocated to ER activities to assess students’ reading. Score allocation to ER activities was also evident in ERPs in other Asian countries (e.g., Iwata, 2022; Suk, 2024; Tien, 2015; Wang & Ho, 2019; Yamashita, 2013). In some ERPs in Thailand, score provision extrinsically motivates students to do ER (e.g., Puripunyavanich, 2021; Sek et al., 2021); however, none of the interview participants in this study mentioned this point. As assessment in ERPs recognizes students’ efforts, ER activities should thus be assessed with score allocation to extrinsically motivate students to do the reading and encourage their regular participation in ER. This is because “it is more than likely students will read due to Thai student preferences to study for grades in an attempt to get good marks” (Tamrackitkun, 2010, p. 177).

Reading Materials

While graded readers are predominant reading materials in many ERPs in Asia (e.g., Iwata, 2022; Kim, 2019; Puripunyavanich, 2021; Sek et al., 2021; Suk, 2024; Tamrackitkun, 2010; Tantipidok, 2023; Tien, 2015; Wang & Ho, 2019; Yamashita, 2013), this study’s quantitative data revealed that dedicated reading textbooks were the most widely-used resource, followed by graded readers and general English textbooks. This contrasts with Puripunyavanich and Waring’s (2024) findings, which identified graded readers as a predominant choice in Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, and Mongolia. A significant reliance on IR materials for ER suggests that ER may often be implemented as IR, as noted in recent studies (Puripunyavanich & Waring, 2024; Thongsan & Waring, 2024). Alarmingly, over 70% of the material types used by participants who had more experience with ER (Group B) were IR and non-graded materials. This possibly indicates that participants may inadvertently prioritize IR over ER, or lack understanding of or have limited access to suitable materials. It was also evident that financial limitations influenced materials selection, as the highest percentages of the responses from Group A and B reported reliance on free resources. Furthermore, the interview data suggested that using localized reading materials improved students’ reading experiences as students could relate to the reading more. Thus, teachers should be encouraged to develop their own graded reading materials related to their local culture and context. However, training on creating graded reading materials should be provided to guide teachers throughout the process.

Notably, without ER, non-English major students in FE courses tend to read only a few thousand words from textbooks per semester. Data from seven ERPs showed an average of 6,500 words read per semester, far below the recommended standard. Beginning-level students are advised to read at least one book weekly (Day & Bamford, 2002) or approximately 5,000 words (Nation & Wang, 1999), totaling 50,000 words over a 10-week ERP. However, none of the eight ERPs studied met this benchmark, indicating an apparent lack of teachers’ understanding of what constitutes ER, particularly the amount of reading that students should do. The interviewees further reported students’ feedback which shows that non-English major students might not be used to doing, or not enjoy, independent English reading. To address this, Puripunyavanich (2021) proposed a “start small” approach, setting achievable goals of 20,000–21,000 words per semester for non-English majors in Thailand, focusing initially on building confidence and enjoyment. To enhance ERP effectiveness, reading targets should eventually increase to at least 50,000 words per semester. Strategies such as setting weekly goals, organizing reading competitions, and sharing top readers’ progress have proven effective in motivating students to read regularly and achieve higher reading volumes (Puripunyavanich, 2022). By gradually raising expectations, ERPs can effectively nurture lifelong readers.

Variations in decision-making regarding reading materials selection were evident in the study. Participants in both groups, especially Group A, reported that teachers primarily selected materials, indicating that teachers newer to ER were more likely to select the books themselves rather than let students do it. Thus, student autonomy was not emphasized in materials selection. Such a result suggest that more teacher training is necessary, as teachers selecting materials contradicts the Extensive Reading Foundation’s (ERF, 2011) suggestion, which emphasizes that “selecting the right book is the student’s decision” (p. 4), as they know their own capabilities and limitations.

However, interview data indicated differences: section teachers selected materials in four ERPs, students in three, and course teachers in one. No instances of co-selection were reported, contrasting with Puripunyavanich and Waring’s (2024) findings of prevalent teacher-student co-selection in Thailand. Other studies have indicated that students often choose their own materials (Adhitya & Novita, 2021; Iwata, 2022; Kim, 2019; Puripunyavanich, 2021), aligning with Day and Bamford’s (2002) third principle: “Learners choose what they want to read.” Allowing students to choose promotes engagement and autonomy, as they select materials matching their interests and proficiency (Adhitya & Novita, 2021; Iwata, 2022). Thus, teachers should guide students to choose materials at an appropriate level, encouraging them to sample a few pages to ensure readability without a dictionary—no more than 2–3 unknown words per page (Nation & Waring, 2020). Students should also feel free to abandon overly challenging or uninteresting materials, opting for texts that are enjoyable and suitable for their level (ERF, 2011).

From the ways that the participants utilized ER, particularly the amount of reading done, the types of reading materials used, and the person selecting the reading materials, this study found that ER teachers at universities in Thailand seemed to lack a clear understanding of what ER involves and thus implemented ER as IR. Such findings clearly indicate a need for teacher training to help teachers understand the differences between ER and IR, inform them of the recommended word counts, and emphasize the need for allowing students to read easy texts or i-1, i.e., reading one level below their linguistic ability (Day & Bamford, 1998).  They also support Waring and Puripunyavanich’s (2025) study, which shows that teachers in Thailand reported “the highest need for training on several topics” (p. 10) and suggests that more training on ER be conducted.

Limitations

While this study addresses knowledge gaps identified earlier, it has some limitations. First, it focused exclusively on the implementation of ER in foundation courses. This leaves unexplored aspects of ER implementation in English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and English for Specific Purposes (ESP) courses, suggesting opportunities for future research. Furthermore, the study did not investigate teachers’ perceptions of ER, the challenges they faced, or their training needs, which could further our understanding of ER implementation. These areas can be topics for future investigations. In addition, the relatively small sample size and the sampling methods may limit the generalizability of the findings. Also, it should be noted that small group sizes (n = 35 and n = 28) may limit the reliability of conclusions about non-significant differences. Thus, future studies should include more participants.

Conclusion

This study examined how Thai university teachers implemented ER in FE courses for non-English majors and provided new insights into ER aims and practices. The participants’ length of ER experience did not significantly affect their perceptions of five sets of aims, which were highly valued by both experienced and less-experienced teachers. Strong correlations between some sets of aims were also observed. Although there were slight variations in the reading materials chosen, participants demonstrated comparable ER practices. Optional ER components, as described by Waring and McLean (2015), were evident in ERPs in this study. Most programs mandated ER, with an increasing shift to digital formats. Post-reading activities, often used for assessments and scored, were common. Limited funding constrained teachers to rely on free materials, restricted choices, and affected materials selection. The prevalent use of intensive and non-graded materials highlighted the need for better understanding and practice of ER. Improving ER outcomes requires teacher training on setting recommended word counts as reading goals, selecting appropriate materials, and securing funding for graded resources. To expand ER adoption in Thai higher education, formal integration into FE courses with score allocations is recommended. Further efforts are needed to optimize ER benefits within Thai higher education.

Acknowledgements

The author expresses her gratitude to Chulalongkorn University Language Institute for funding this project (Grant No. LAN_67_55_00_2). Appreciation is extended to the research assistant, the IRB reviewers, the five experts, and participants. Special thanks to Prof. Dr. Rob Waring for his guidance, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Jirada Wudthayagorn and Dr. Patsawut Sukserm for statistical advice, and Luke Petterson for manuscript editing. The author also acknowledges the anonymous reviewers, Prof. Dr. Thomas Robb (Editor), and the TESL-EJ editorial team for their valuable feedback and support.

About the Authors

Mintra Puripunyavanich, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of English at Chulalongkorn University Language Institute (CULI), Thailand. She is a co-founder and Immediate Past Chair of the Thailand Extensive Reading Association (TERA). Her research interests include extensive reading, second language (L2) reading, and materials development. ORCID ID: 0000-0003-3672-5268

To Cite this Article

Puripunyavanich, M. (2025). Exploring EFL teachers’ implementation of extensive reading in undergraduate foundation English courses. Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 29(1). https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29113a1

References

Adhitya, N., & Novita, J. (2021). Students’ responses towards self-selected reading in extensive reading class. The Journal of English Language Teaching, Literature, and Applied Linguistics [JELA], 3(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.37742/jela.v3i2.53

Anderson, N. J. (2008). Practical English language teaching: Reading. McGraw-Hill.

Bui, T. N., & Macalister, J. (2021). Online extensive reading in an EFL context: Investigating reading fluency and perceptions. Reading in a Foreign Language, 33(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10125/67391

Chang, A. C-S., & Renandya, W. (2017). Current practice of extensive reading in Asia: Teachers’ perceptions. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 17(1), 40–58. https://readingmatrix.com/files/16-4vj138u3.pdf

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.

Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (2002). Top ten principles for teaching extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(2), 136–141. https://doi.org/10125/66761

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Researching methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford University Press.

Extensive Reading Foundation. (2011). Guide to extensive reading. ER Foundation. https://erfoundation.org/guide/ERF_Guide.pdf

Grabe, W., & Yamashita, J. (2022). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Gray, D. E. (2014). Doing research in the real world (3rd ed.). Sage.

Hendra, L. A., Ibbotson, M., & O’Dell, K. (2022). Evolve Level 5. Cambridge.

Hidayati, M., Renandya, W.A., & Basthomi, Y. (2022). Extensive reading research: What have we learned and what questions remain? Asian Journal of English Language Studies (AJELS), 10, 1–64. https://doi.org/10.59960/10.a1

Iwata, A. (2022). An extensive reading program as an educational intervention in an EFL classroom. Reading in a Foreign Language, 34(2), 208–231. https://doi.org/10125/67423

Janah, K. E. N., Retnaningdyah, P., & Mustofa, A. (2022). Digital extensive reading in Indonesia: A critical review. Journal of English Language Teaching and Linguistics, 7(3), 513–528. https://doi.org/10.21462/jeltl.v7i3.918

Kim, M. (2019). The perceptions of students and teachers on the practice of assessment in extensive reading. English Teaching, 74(4), 179–203.  https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.74.4.201912.179

Macalister, J. (2015). Guidelines or commandments? Reconsidering core principles in extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(1), 122–128. https://doi.org/10125/66703

Milliner, B. (2021). The effects of combining timed reading, repeated oral reading, and extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 33(2), 191–211. https://doi.org/10125/67400

Nation, I. S. P., & Wang, K. (1999). Graded readers and vocabulary. Journal of Extensive Reading, 12(2), 355–380. https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/629c518f-7515-496a-b26e-bc635829519d/content

Nation, I. S. P., & Waring, R. (2020). Teaching extensive reading in another language. Routledge.

Ng, Q. R., Renandya, W. A., & Chong, M. Y. C. (2019). Extensive reading: Theory, research and implementation. TEFLIN Journal, 30(2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v30i2/171-186

Nuttall, C. (2005). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. Macmillan Education.

Pongsatornpipat, W. (2021). Interactive group in extensive reading to enhance reading ability of Thai undergraduate students. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 14(2), 342–371.
https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/article/view/253272

Pratontep, C. (2007). The effects of extensive reading and levels of reading proficiency on Thai university students’ English reading comprehension using a self-regulated learning framework [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Chulalongkorn University. http://cuir.car.chula.ac.th/handle/123456789/16226

Puripunyavanich, M. (2021). Revealing university students’ attitudes toward online extensive reading in Thailand. rEFLections, 28(2), 267–292. https://doi.org/10.61508/refl.v28i2.254070

Puripunyavanich, M. (2022). The implementation of a large-scale online extensive reading program in Thailand—From decision-making to application. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 15(1), 320–360. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/article/view/256726/174231

Puripunyavanich, M., & Waring, R. (2024). Investigating the implementation of extensive reading in four Asia countries. Reading in a Foreign Language, 36(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10125/67475

Renandya, W. A. (2007). The power of extensive reading. RELC Journal, 38(2), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688207079578

Renandya, W. A., & Jacobs, G. M. (2002). Extensive reading: Why aren’t we all doing it? In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 295–302). Cambridge University Press.

Robb, T. N. (2022). Encouraging schools to adopt extensive reading: How do we get there? Reading in a Foreign Language, 34(1), 184–194. https://doi.org/10125/67419

Robb, T. N., & Ewert, D. (2024). Classroom-based extensive reading: A review of recent research. Language Teaching, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000319

Robb, T. N., & Kano, M. (2013). Effective extensive reading outside the classroom: A large-scale experiment. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25(2), 234–247. https://doi.org/10125/66870

Rovinelli, R. J., & Hambleton, R. K. (1976, April 19–23). On the use of content specialists in the assessment of criterion-referenced test item validity [Paper presentation]. The 60^th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, United States. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED121845

Saengboon, S. (2019). Shadow education in Thailand: A case study of Thai English tutors’ perspectives towards the roles of private supplementary tutoring in improving English language skills. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 12(1), 38–54. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/article/view/168575

Sek, S., Katenga, J. E., & Mushunje, A. T. (2021). Reading comprehension of Thai students improved by extensive reading when learning English as a foreign language. Human Behavior, Development and Society, 22(3), 95–104. https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/hbds/article/view/249550/168951

Stoeckel, T., Reagan, N., & Hann, F. (2012). Extensive reading quizzes and reading attitudes. TESOL Quarterly, 46(1), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.10

Suk, N. (2024). Developing L2 learners’ use of reading strategies through extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 36(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10125/67473

Tamrackitkun, K. (2010). Extensive reading: An empirical study of its effects on EFL Thai students’ reading comprehension, reading fluency and attitudes [Doctoral dissertation, University of Salford]. University of Salford Institutional Repository. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/40033812.pdf

Tantipidok, P. (2023). Promoting EFL Thai undergraduates’ reading comprehension and reading motivation through extensive reading. Interdisciplinary Research Review, 18(5), 16–21. https://ph02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jtir/article/view/248500/169609

Tien, C.-Y. (2015). A large-scale study on extensive reading program for non-English majors: Factors and attitudes. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 4(4), 46–54. https://journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/IJALEL/article/view/1433/1391

Thongsan, N. C., & Waring, R. (2024). Challenges in implementing extensive reading in Thailand. rEFLections, 31(2), 457–477. https://doi.org/10.61508/refl.v31i2.274278

Turney, S. (2022, May 13). Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r): Guide & Examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/pearson-correlation-coefficient/

Wang, C., & Ho, C.-T. (2019). Extensive reading for university EFL learners: Its effects and both teachers’ and learners’ views. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(4), 692–701. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1004.04

Waring, R., & Chu, V. A. (2017, August 5–7). Setting up and managing an ER program in Vietnam [Paper presentation]. The Fourth World Congress on Extensive Reading, Tokyo, Japan. https://bit.ly/36T1ymY

Waring, R., & McLean, S. (2015). Exploration of the core and variable dimensions of extensive reading research and pedagogy. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(1), 160–167. https://doi.org/10125/66708

Waring, R., & Puripunyavanich, M. (2025). Perceptions of extensive reading practitioners in four Asian countries. Reading in a Foreign Language, 37(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10125/67479

Yamashita, J. (2013). Effects of extensive reading on reading attitudes in a foreign language. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25(2), 248–263. https://doi.org/10125/66872

Appendix A

Appendix A: The List of Higher Education Institutions Under Supervision of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation in Thailand

A. Autonomous Universities (27 universities, nos. 1–27)

No.	Name
1	Chulalongkorn University
2	Kasetsart University
3	Khon Kaen University
4	Chiang Mai University
5	Thaksin University
6	King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi
7	King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok
8	Suranaree University of Technology
9	Thammasat University
10	Burapha University
11	University of Phayao
12	Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University
13	Mahamakut Buddhist University
14	Mahidol University
15	Mae Fah Luang University
16	Walailak University
17	Srinakharinwirot University
18	Silpakorn University
19	Suan Dusit University
20	Prince of Songkla University
21	Princess Galyani Vadhana Institute of Music
22	King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang
23	Maejo University
24	Chitralada Technology Institute
25	Srisavarindhira Thai Red Cross Institute of Nursing
26	National Institute of Development Administration
27	Chulabhorn Royal Academy

B. Public Universities (10 universities, nos. 28–37)

No.	Name
28	Kalasin University
29	Nakhon Phanom University
30	Princess of Naradhiwas University
31	Naresuan University
32	Mahasarakham University
33	Ramkhamhaeng University
34	Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University
35	Ubon Ratchathani University
36	Pathumwan Institute of Technology
37	Institute of Community Colleges

C. Former Teacher’s Colleges (i.e., Rajabhat Universities; 38 universities, nos. 38–75)

No.	Name
38	Kanchanaburi Rajabhat University
39	Kamphaengphet Rajabhat University
40	Chandrakasem Rajabhat University
41	Chaiyaphum Rajabhat University
42	Chiang Rai Rajabhat University
43	ChiangMai Rajabhat University
44	Thepsatri Rajabhat University
45	Dhonburi Rajabhat University
46	Nakhon Pathom Rajabhat University
47	Nakhon Ratchasima Rajabhat University
48	Nakhon Si Thammarat Rajabhat University
49	Nakhon Sawan Rajabhat University
50	Bansomdejchaopraya Rajabhat University
51	Buriram Rajabhat University
52	Phranakhon Rajabhat University
53	Phranakhon Si Ayutthaya Rajabhat University
54	Pibulsongkram Rajabhat University
55	Phetchaburi Rajabhat University
56	Phetchabun Rajabhat University
57	Phuket Rajabhat University
58	Rajabhat Maha Sarakham University
59	Yala Rajabhat University
60	Roi Et Rajabhat University
61	Rajabhat Rajanagarindra University
62	Rambhai Barni Rajabhat University
63	Lampang Rajabhat University
64	Loei Rajabhat University
65	Valaya Alongkorn Rajabhat University under the Royal Patronage
66	Sisaket Rajabhat University
67	Sakonnakhon Rajabhat University
68	Songkhla Rajabhat University
69	Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University
70	Suratthani Rajabhat University
71	Surindra Rajabhat University
72	Muban Chombueng Rajabhat University
73	Udon Thani Rajabhat University
74	Uttaradit Rajabhat University
75	Ubon Ratchathani Rajabhat University

D. Former Technical Colleges (i.e., Rajamangala Universities; nine universities, nos. 76–84)

No.	Name
76	Rajamangala University of Technology Krungthep
77	Rajamangala University of Technology Tawan-ok
78	Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi
79	Rajamangala University of Technology Phra Nakhon
80	Rajamangala University of Technology Rattanakosin
81	Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna
82	Rajamangala University of Technology Srivijaya
83	Rajamangala University of Technology Suvarnabhumi
84	Rajamangala University of Technology Isan

E. Private Universities (42 universities, nos. 85–126)

No.	Name
85	Bangkok University
86	Bangkokthonburi University
87	Bangkok Suvarnabhumi University
88	The Eastern University of Management and Technology
89	Krirk University
90	Kasem Bundit University
91	Christian University of Thailand
92	Chaopraya University
93	Chalermkarnchana University
94	Shinawatra University
95	Saint John’s University
96	Tapee University
97	Mahanakorn University of Technology
98	Thonburi University
99	Dhurakij Punbit University
100	North Bangkok University
101	North-Chiang Mai University
102	Stamford International University
103	Asia-Pacific International University
104	Nation University
105	Pathumthani University
106	Payap University
107	Phitsanulok University
108	Fatoni University
109	The Far Eastern University
110	The University of Central Thailand
111	Northeastern University
112	Rangsit University
113	Rattana Bundit University
114	Ratchathani University
115	Rajapruk University
116	Vongchavalitkul University
117	Western University
118	Sripatum University
119	Siam University
120	University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce
121	Huachiew Chalermprakiet University
122	Hatyai University
123	Assumption University
124	Eastern Asia University
125	Southeast Asia University
126	Southeast Bangkok University

F. Private Institutes (11 institutes, nos. 127–137)

No.	Name
127	Kantana Institute
128	Panyapiwat Institute of Management
129	Learning Institute for Everyone
130	Thai-Nichi Institute of Technology
131	Mahachai Institute of Automotive Technology
132	Suvarnabhumi Institute of Technology
133	Institute of Entrepreneurial Science Ayothaya
134	Rajapark Institute
135	Vidyasirimedhi Institute of Science and Technology
136	Pacific Institute of Management Science
137	Arsom Silp Institute of the Arts

G. Colleges (17 colleges, nos. 138–154)

No.	Name
138	Chiangrai College
139	Saint Louis College
140	Dusit Thani College
141	Thong Sook College
142	Phanomwan College of Technology
143	Southern College of Technology
144	Siam Technological College
145	Nakhonratchasima College
146	Raffles International College
147	St Teresa International University
148	College of Asian Scholars
149	Pitchayabundit College
150	International Buddhist College
151	Northern College
152	Santapol College
153	Saengtham College
154	Lampang Inter-Tech College

Remark: This list was updated on March 14, 2023.

Reference:

Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research, and Innovation. (2023). Higher education institutions under the supervision of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research, and Innovation in the first semester of the 2023 academic year. https://info.mhesi.go.th/stat_aca_uni.php?search_year=2565&download=7222&file_id=202301191105.xlsx.

[back]

Appendix B: Questionnaire and Interview Questions

Part 0:  Participant’s Confirmation of Qualifications

I confirm that …

1. I have a Thai nationality. มีสัญชาติไทย
2. I am a full-time or part-time university lecturer teaching at a higher education institution under supervision of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation (see the list of higher education institutions at https://bit.ly/3Otmclm).เป็นอาจารย์ประจำและ/หรืออาจารย์พิเศษที่สอนภาษาอังกฤษระดับอุดมศึกษาในสถานศึกษาของรัฐหรือเอกชนในสังกัดกระทรวงการอุดมศึกษา วิทยาศาสตร์ วิจัยและนวัตกรรม (ดูรายชื่อสถานศึกษาได้ทางลิงก์นี้ https://bit.ly/3Otmclm)
3. I am teaching or have taught foundation English courses that include teaching reading for non-English-major undergraduate students. สอนและ/หรือเคยสอนวิชาภาษาอังกฤษพื้นฐานที่มีการสอนการอ่านในหลักสูตรระดับปริญญาตรีสำหรับผู้เรียนที่ไม่ใช่เอกภาษาอังกฤษ (non-English majors)
4. I am willing to participate in the study. สมัครใจเข้าร่วมโครงการวิจัย
5. I consent to the use of the research data for the researcher’s publications and presentations provided that my identity will not be publicized. ยินยอมให้ใช้ข้อมูลในงานวิจัยนี้สำหรับการตีพิมพ์และการนำเสนอผลงานวิจัยของอ.มินตราซึ่งจะไม่มีการเปิดเผยตัวตนของข้าพเจ้า

☐ I have all five qualifications stated above. ข้าพเจ้าขอยืนยันว่าข้าพเจ้ามีคุณสมบัติครบทั้ง 5 ข้อ

***************************************************************************

Part 1: Participant’s Profile (4 Qs) ข้อมูลผู้ร่วมวิจัย (4 คำถาม)

1. What is the category of your university? [Please check the category of your university/college in this file: https://bit.ly/3Otmclm. If you are a part-time teacher, please select the category for the university at which you teach the highest number of sections of foundation English courses for non-English majors.] มหาวิทยาลัยของท่านอยู่ในประเภทใด [กรุณาตรวจสอบประเภทมหาวิทยาลัย/วิทยาลัยของท่านได้ในไฟล์ https://bit.ly/3Otmclm หากท่านเป็นอาจารย์พิเศษ ให้เลือกสถานศึกษาที่ท่านมีจำนวนตอนเรียนที่สอนวิชาภาษาอังกฤษพื้นฐานสำหรับผู้เรียนที่ไม่ใช่เอกภาษาอังกฤษมากที่สุด]

a. Autonomous universities (no.1–27) มหาวิทยาลัยในกำกับของรัฐ (no.1–27)
b. Public universities (no.28–37) มหาวิทยาลัยรัฐ (no.28–37)
c. Rajabhat universities (former teacher’s colleges) (no.38–75) มหาวิทยาลัยราชภัฏ (no.38–75)
d. Rajamangala universities (former technical colleges) (no.76–84) มหาวิทยาลัยราชมงคล (no.76–84)
e. Private universities (no.85–126) มหาวิทยาลัยเอกชน (no.85–126)
f. Private institutes (no.127–137) สถาบันเอกชน (no.127–137)
g. Colleges (no.138–154) วิทยาลัย (no.138–154)

2. Do you have a language teaching qualification (e.g., a degree in English language teaching, TESOL, applied linguistics or curriculum design) ท่านมีวุฒิด้านการสอน เช่น ปริญญาด้านการสอนภาษาอังกฤษ TESOL ภาษาศาสตร์ประยุกต์ หรือการออกแบบหลักสูตรหรือไม่

a. Yes มี
b. No, but I have attended workshop(s)/lecturer(s) on how to teach English reading. ไม่มีแต่เคยเข้ารับการอบรมและฟังบรรยายเกี่ยวกับการสอนการอ่านภาษาอังกฤษ
c. No ไม่มี

3. How long have you been teaching English? ท่านสอนภาษาอังกฤษมาเป็นระยะเวลาเท่าไหร่

a. 1–5 years ปี
b. 6–10 years ปี
c. 11–15 years ปี
d. 16–20 years ปี
e. More than 20 years ปี

4. How long have you been teaching English reading? ท่านสอนการอ่านภาษาอังกฤษมาเป็นระยะเวลาเท่าไหร่

a. 1–5 years ปี
b. 6–10 years ปี
c. 11–15 years ปี
d. 16–20 years ปี
e. More than 20 years ปี

***************************************************************************

Part 2: Teaching English Reading in Foundation Courses for Non-English Majors
(14Qs) การสอนอ่านภาษาอังกฤษในวิชาภาษาอังกฤษพื้นฐานสำหรับผู้เรียนที่ไม่ใช่เอกภาษาอังกฤษ (14 คำถาม)

Remark: In the full questionnaire, this part consisted of six topics related to teaching English reading in foundation courses, including (1) time proportion, (2) aims, (3) priorities for teaching reading, (4) your practice of teaching reading, (5) future training, and (6) implementation of extensive reading. There were 14 questions in this part. However, this study included only Topic 6: Implementation of extensive reading.

6. Implementation of extensive reading: 1Q การนำการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวางไปใช้: 1 คำถาม

Remark: Extensive reading (ER) refers to any in-class and out-of-class reading practice that gets students to read extensively. When doing ER, students read a lot of materials (usually longer texts) that match their proficiency levels and interests in order for them to learn new information and/or to enjoy the texts, build reading fluency and comprehension skills. Also, they would read the same way they read in their first language which is without using a dictionary.

หมายเหตุ< : การอ่านอย่างกว้างขวาง (ER)
หมายถึงการฝึกการอ่านทั้งในชั้นเรียนและนอกชั้นเรียนที่ให้ผู้เรียนอ่านเป็นจำนวนมาก เวลาทำการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวาง ผู้เรียนจะอ่านสื่อการอ่านเป็นจำนวนมาก (โดยปกติจะอ่านบทอ่านที่ยาว) ที่ตรงกับระดับความสามารถทางภาษาและความสนใจของผู้เรียน เพื่อให้ผู้เรียนได้เรียนรู้ข้อมูลใหม่ ๆ และ/หรือเพลิดเพลินไปกับการอ่าน สร้างความลื่นไหลในการอ่านและทักษะความเข้าใจ (comprehension skills) เวลาที่ทำการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวาง ผู้เรียนจะอ่านแบบเดียวกันกับที่อ่านหนังสือในภาษาแรกของตน ซึ่งเป็นการอ่านแบบไม่จำเป็นต้องใช้พจนานุกรม

Do you integrate extensive reading into teaching reading in your foundation English course(s)? ท่านนำการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวางไปใช้ในการสอนการอ่านในวิชาภาษาอังกฤษพื้นฐานหรือไม่

a. Yes > Go to Part 3A ใช้ > ตอบคำถามใน Part 3A
b. No > Skip Part 3A and go to Part 3B ไม่ใช้ > ตอบคำถามใน Part 3B

***************************************************************************

Part 3A: The Implementation of Extensive Reading (28Qs) การนำการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวางไปใช้ (28 คำถาม)

Remark: In the full questionnaire, this part consisted of nine topics: (1) your understanding of ER, (2) years of implementing ER, (3) ER training, (4) aims of implementing ER, (5) proportion of RRI and ER, (6) the nature of your ER class, (7) materials, (8) assessment, (9) post-reading activities, (10) challenge, and (11) topics for future training on ER. However, this study included Topics 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

1. Your understanding of ER: 3Qs ความเข้าใจของท่านที่มีต่อการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวาง: 3 คำถาม

1.1 When doing ER, students should read ____. เมื่อทำการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวาง ผู้เรียนควรอ่าน…

a. a lot มาก ๆ
b. a little น้อย ๆ

1.2 When doing ER, students should read something ____. เมื่อทำการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวาง ผู้เรียนควรอ่านบทอ่านที่…

easy ง่าย
difficult ยาก

1.3 When doing ER, students should read ____. เมื่อทำการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวาง ผู้เรียนควรอ่านอย่าง…

a. fluently and quickly ลื่นไหลและรวดเร็ว
b. slowly and carefully ช้า ๆ และระมัดระวัง

2. Years of implementing ER: 1Q How long have you implemented ER in your teaching? จำนวนปีที่ท่านใช้การอ่านอย่างกว้างขวาง: 1 คำถาม ท่านใช้การอ่านอย่างกว้างขวางในการสอนมาเป็นเวลากี่ปี

a. 5–2 years ปี
b. 3–5 years ปี
c. 6–10 years ปี
d. 11–20 years ปี
e. More than 20 years ปี

3. ER training: 1Q I learned about ER from___. (Check all that apply.) การอบรมด้านการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวาง: 1 คำถาม ท่านเรียนรู้เกี่ยวกับการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวางจาก… (เลือกทุกข้อที่เกี่ยวข้อง)

☐ my teacher training course(s) หลักสูตรอบรมครู
☐ joining ER training sessions (online or face to face) การเข้าร่วมการอบรมเกี่ยวกับการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวาง (ออนไลน์หรือออนไซต์)
☐ watching YouTube videos about ER การดูวิดีโอเกี่ยวกับการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวางทาง YouTube
☐ reading articles and books about ER การอ่านบทความและหนังสือเกี่ยวกับการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวาง
☐ colleagues/friends เพื่อนร่วมงาน/เพื่อน
☐ Other อื่น ๆ โปรดระบุ ____

4. Aims of implementing extensive reading: 2Qs วัตถุประสงค์ของการใช้การอ่านอย่างกว้างขวาง: 2 คำถาม

Extremely important (5), very important (4), important (3), not so important (2) not important (1)

สำคัญอย่างยิ่ง (5), สำคัญมาก (4), สำคัญ (3), ไม่ค่อยสำคัญ (2), ไม่สำคัญ (1)

4.1  My main aims of integrating ER into my teaching reading are____. วัตถุประสงค์หลักในการสอนการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวางของท่านคืออะไร เพื่อ…	5	4	3	2	1
1.     To build students’ reading comprehension พัฒนาความเข้าใจในการอ่าน (reading comprehension) ให้กับผู้เรียน
2.     To build students’ vocabulary พัฒนาและเพิ่มวงคำศัพท์ให้กับผู้เรียน
3.     To build students’ grammar พัฒนาไวยากรณ์ให้กับผู้เรียน
4.     To build students’ reading skills พัฒนาทักษะการอ่านให้กับผู้เรียน
5.     To improve students’ English language skills พัฒนาทักษะภาษาอังกฤษของผู้เรียน
6.     To build students’ reading fluency สร้างความคล่องแคล่วในการอ่านให้กับผู้เรียน
7.     To build students’ reading confidence สร้างความมั่นใจในการอ่านให้กับผู้เรียน
8.     To give students opportunities to read a lot (i.e., to practice reading) เปิดโอกาสให้ผู้เรียนได้อ่านหนังสือเป็นจำนวนมากเพื่อฝึกการอ่าน
9.     To help students become more knowledgeable ช่วยให้ผู้เรียนมีความรู้ทั่วไปเพิ่มมากขึ้น
10.  To let students choose what they read ให้ผู้เรียนได้เลือกสิ่งที่พวกเขาอ่านด้วยตัวเอง
11.  To let students experience the joy of reading ให้ผู้เรียนได้รับความเพลิดเพลินจากการอ่าน
12.  To motivate students to read จูงใจให้ผู้เรียนอ่านหนังสือ
13.  To introduce students to a variety of reading materials เพื่อแนะนำสื่อการอ่านที่หลากหลายให้กับผู้เรียน
14.  To prepare students for their midterm and final exams เตรียมความพร้อมผู้เรียนสำหรับการสอบกลางภาคและปลายภาค
15.  To prepare students for standardized English tests (e.g., TOEFL, IELTS or TOEIC) เตรียมความพร้อมผู้เรียนสำหรับการสอบแบบทดสอบภาษาอังกฤษมาตรฐาน เช่น TOEFL, IELTS หรือ TOEIC

4.2 If you have other aims for the extensive reading component of your course, besides the ones in the previous question, please state them. [Short answer—optional] หากท่านมีวัตถุประสงค์อื่น ๆ สำหรับการสอนการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวางที่นอกเหนือจากในข้อ 1 กรุณาระบุ [คำตอบสั้น ๆ – ไม่บังคับ]

5. Proportion of RRI and ER: 1Q Using percentages, what is the proportion of regular reading instruction (RRI) and ER in your foundation course(s)? สัดส่วนของ RRI และ ER: 1 คำถาม: สัดส่วนของการสอนการอ่านแบบปกติ (Regular reading instruction: RRI) และ ER ของท่านคิดเป็นอัตราส่วนร้อยละเท่าไหร่

a. 30% RRI + 70% ER
b. 40% RRI + 60% ER
c. 50% RRI + 50% ER
d. 60% RRI + 40% ER
e. 70% RRI + 30% ER
f. 80% RRI + 20% ER
g. 90% RRI + 10% ER

6. 6. The nature of your ER class: 8Qs ลักษณะ ER ในชั้นเรียนของท่าน: 8 คำถาม

6.1 Do you do ER as part of your classwork or homework? ท่านให้ผู้เรียนทำ ER ในชั้นเรียนหรือเป็นการบ้าน

a. classwork ในชั้นเรียน
b. homework เป็นการบ้าน
c. combination of the two ทำทั้งสองแบบ

6.2 Are students required to do ER in your class? ผู้เรียนของท่านจำเป็นต้องทำ ER หรือไม่

a. Required จำเป็น
b. optional (but recommended) ไม่จำเป็นแต่แนะนำให้ทำ
c. totally optional ไม่จำเป็น

6.3 The readings done in ER are ___. การอ่านแบบ ER ในชั้นเรียนของท่าน จะเป็นการอ่าน…

a. exclusively paper-based หนังสือเป็นเล่มเท่านั้น
b. mostly paper-based หนังสือเป็นเล่มเป็นส่วนใหญ่
c. mostly online หนังสือหรือสื่อทางออนไลน์เป็นส่วนใหญ่
d. exclusively online หนังสือหรือสื่อทางออนไลน์เท่านั้น< e. both paper-based and online in an equal amount ทั้งหนังสือเป็นเล่มและหนังสือหรือสื่อทางออนไลน์

6.4 How much reading (in terms of minutes) does a typical student ACTUALLY do per week as part of the ER program? ผู้เรียนโดยทั่วไปอ่านหนังสือประมาณกี่นาทีต่อสัปดาห์ในการทำ ER

a. 5–10 minutes นาที
b. 11–20 minutes นาที
c. 21–30 minutes นาที
d. 31–60 minutes นาที
e. 61–90 minutes นาที
f. 91–120 minutes นาที
g. 120+minutes นาที
h. I don’t know. ไม่ทราบ

6.5 Who selects the amount of reading (in terms of minutes) that students do? ใครเป็นผู้กำหนดปริมาณการอ่าน (จำนวนนาที) ที่ผู้เรียนต้องอ่านในการทำ ER

a. I select the amount of reading my students do. อาจารย์ผู้สอนเป็นผู้กำหนด
b. Foundation course teachers decide together for all foundation courses. คณาจารย์ผู้สอนรายวิชาภาษาอังกฤษพื้นฐานช่วยกันกำหนด
c. Students have a free choice. ผู้เรียนกำหนดเอง
d. The teachers and students decide together. อาจารย์ผู้สอนและผู้เรียนช่วยกันกำหนด
e. It’s decided by others (e.g., course coordinator/director). ผู้อื่นเป็นผู้กำหนด เช่น ผู้ประสานงานรายวิชา
f. I don’t know. ไม่ทราบ

6.6 What is the percentage of the extensive reading done during class time? (The rest will be done out of class.) อัตราส่วนร้อยละของการทำการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวางในเวลาเรียนคิดเป็นเท่าไหร่ (ที่เหลือคือทำนอกเวลาเรียน)

a. 0
b. 1–20%
c. 21–40%
d. 41–60%
e. 61–80%
f. 81–99%
g. 100%

6.7 Who is doing ER in your university? ในมหาวิทยาลัยของท่านมีใครบ้างที่ทำ ER

a. only my class ข้าพเจ้าทำคนเดียว
b. some classes in the university อาจารย์บางท่านทำ
c. most classes in the university อาจารย์ส่วนใหญ่ทำ
d. all classes in the university อาจารย์ทุกท่านทำ
e. I don’t know. ไม่ทราบ

6.8 Who funds your ER program (for books or a reading subscription service)? (Check all that apply.) ใครเป็นผู้ให้เงินทุนสนับสนุนการทำ ER (สำหรับซื้อหนังสือหรือค่าสมัครเพื่อใช้บริการโปรแกรมหรือห้องสมุดออนไลน์) (เลือกทุกข้อที่เกี่ยวข้อง)

☐ I use free materials. ข้าพเจ้าใช้สื่อการอ่านที่ไม่ต้องจ่ายเงิน
☐ I fund the ER program in my class(es). ข้าพเจ้าเป็นผู้ออกเงินเองสำหรับการทำ ER
☐ my university มหาวิทยาลัยของข้าพเจ้า
☐ the library at my university ห้องสมุดของมหาวิทยาลัยของข้าพเจ้า
☐ external grant from sponsor(s) เงินทุนจากผู้สนับสนุนนอกมหาวิทยาลัย
☐ government รัฐบาล
☐ the students ผู้เรียน
☐ I don’t know. ไม่ทราบ

6. 6. 7. Materials: 4Qs สื่อการอ่าน 4 คำถาม

7.1 What reading materials do you use in your ER class? (Check all that apply.) ท่านใช้สื่อการอ่านอะไรในการทำ ER (เลือกทุกข้อที่เกี่ยวข้อง)

☐ phonics readers practicing sounds (e.g., The fox is in the box.) โฟนิกส์สำหรับฝึกการออกเสียง เช่น The fox is in the box.
☐ leveled readers (stories that practice language patterns e.g., I like books, I like pizza, I like ….) หนังสือแบ่งระดับ (leveled readers) สำหรับฝึกอ่านรูปแบบภาษาซ้ำ ๆ เช่น
I like books, I like pizza.
☐ picture books (most of the page is a picture as in e.g., The Hungry Caterpillar) หนังสือภาพสำหรับเด็กเจ้าของภาษา (ในแต่ละหน้าจะมีภาพประกอบ)
☐ non-illustrated books for young native speakers (e.g., Harry Potter) หนังสือนิยายที่ไม่มีภาพประกอบสำหรับเด็กเจ้าของภาษา เช่น Harry Potter
☐ graded readers (fiction or non-fiction books written for language learners) หนังสืออ่านนอกเวลาประเภทนิยายหรือสารคดีสำหรับผู้เรียนภาษา (graded readers)
☐ SRA system (a card-based reading program) ระบบหนังสือที่มีการแบ่งระดับ
☐ a typical 4 skills general English textbook หนังสือเรียนภาษาอังกฤษ 4 ทักษะ
☐ a dedicated ‘reading’ textbook หนังสือเรียนภาษาอังกฤษ 4 ทักษะ
☐ test preparation materials (e.g., TOEFL, IELTS, TOEIC) or previous tests สื่อสำหรับการเตรียมสอบ เช่น หนังสือเตรียมสอบ TOEFL, IELTS, TOEIC หรือข้อสอบเก่า
☐ my own materials (e.g., worksheets/articles from English learning websites) สื่อการอ่านที่ข้าพเจ้าสร้างขึ้นเอง เช่น ใบงาน บทความใบเว็บไซต์สำหรับการเรียนภาษาอังกฤษ
☐ an online reading program (e.g., Xreading.com, Raz-kids.com, Scholastic Kids press, er-central.com) โปรแกรมการอ่านออนไลน์ เช่น com, Raz-kids.com, หรือ er-central.com
☐ academic (subject) books or articles หนังสือหรือบทความวิชาการ
☐ magazines นิตยสาร
☐ newspapers or news articles on websites หนังสือพิมพ์หรือบทความข่าวทางเว็บไซต์
☐ comics or manga หนังสือการ์ตูน
☐ Other อื่น ๆ

7.2 Who chooses which books the students read each week? ใครเป็นผู้เลือกหนังสือที่ผู้เรียนอ่านในแต่ละสัปดาห์

a. section teacher อาจารย์ผู้สอน
b. students ผู้เรียน
c. section teacher and students decide together. อาจารย์ผู้สอนและผู้เรียนช่วยกันเลือก
d. foundation course teachers คณาจารย์ผู้สอนวิชาภาษาอังกฤษพื้นฐาน
e. foundation course coordinator ผู้ประสานงานรายวิชาภาษาอังกฤษพื้นฐาน
f. Head of the Department ผู้บริหาร เช่น หัวหน้าภาควิชา

7.3 Where do your students access their reading materials from? (Check all that apply.) ผู้เรียนของท่านเข้าถึงสื่อการอ่านได้จากที่ไหน (เลือกทุกข้อที่เกี่ยวข้อง)

a. a library in my classroom ห้องสมุดในชั้นเรียน
b. my personal collection of books ชั้นหนังสือของข้าพเจ้า
c. the university library ห้องสมุดมหาวิทยาลัย
d. our town/city library ห้องสมุดชุมชน
e. an online reading website that can track student progress (e.g., Xreading.com, er-central.com) เว็บไซต์ที่สามารถดูข้อมูลความก้าวหน้าในการอ่านของผู้เรียนได้ เช่น com และ er-central.com เป็นต้น
f. various reading websites เว็บไซต์ต่าง ๆ ที่มีบทอ่าน
g. Other อื่น ๆ

If you use a digital reading platform, website or application, which one(s) do you use? [Short answer–optional] หากท่านใช้แพลตฟอร์มที่เป็นดิจิตัลสำหรับการอ่าน ท่านใช้เว็บไซต์หรือแอปพลิเคชันไหน [คำตอบสั้น ๆ – ไม่บังคับ]

6. 6. 8. Assessment: 3Qs การประเมิน: 3 คำถาม

8.1 Do you assess the extensive reading that students do in your class? ท่านประเมินการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวางที่ผู้เรียนทำในตอนเรียนของท่านหรือไม่

a. Yes > Go to 8.2a ประเมิน > (ตอบคำถามข้อ 8.2a)
b. No > Go to 8.2b ไม่ประเมิน > (ตอบคำถามข้อ 8.2b)

8.2 a Yes, because _____. (Check all that apply.) ประเมินเนื่องจาก… (เลือกทุกข้อที่เกี่ยวข้อง)

a. students’ effort should be acknowledged. ความพยายามของผู้เรียนควรได้รับการยอมรับ
b. we should make sure that students really read the books. เราควรแน่ใจว่าผู้เรียนได้อ่านหนังสือจริง ๆ
c. we need to check comprehension. เราจำเป็นต้องตรวจสอบความเข้าใจของผู้เรียน
d. students may benefit from knowing how well they read. ผู้เรียนอาจได้ประโยชน์จากการรู้ว่าเขาอ่านได้ดีเพียงใด
e. assessment data can be used when reporting to other teachers and the administration. สามารถนำข้อมูลการประเมินไปรายงานให้กับอาจารย์ท่านอื่นและผู้บริหาร
f. Other อื่น ๆ
> Go to Topic 9 Activities > ไปหัวข้อที่ 9 กิจกรรม

8.2 b No, because _____. (Check all that apply.) ไม่ประเมินเนื่องจาก… (เลือกทุกข้อที่เกี่ยวข้อง)

a. reading should be for pleasure การอ่านควรเป็นไปเพื่อความเพลิดเพลิน
b. students would not enjoy the reading if they are being assessed ผู้เรียนจะไม่สนุกกับการอ่านหากมีการประเมิน
c. we should not give the impression that everything needs to be assessed เราไม่ควรรู้สึกว่าทุกอย่างที่ทำจำเป็นต้องได้รับการประเมิน
d. we cannot test each student’s reading if they all read different texts เราไม่สามารถทดสอบการอ่านของผู้เรียนได้หากแต่ละคนอ่านหนังสือต่างกัน
e. students should spend most of their time on reading ผู้เรียนควรใช้เวลาเกือบทั้งหมดไปกับการอ่าน
f. my class is too large ชั้นเรียนของข้าพเจ้ามีจำนวนผู้เรียนมากเกินไป
g. I do not have time ข้าพเจ้าไม่มีเวลาทำการประเมิน
h. Other อื่น ๆ
> Go to Topic 9 Activities > ไปหัวข้อที่ 9 กิจกรรม

9. Post-reading activities: 3Qs กิจกรรมหลังการอ่าน 3 คำถาม

9.1 Do you do activities after the students have finished a book (e.g., discussion or reports)? ท่านทำกิจกรรมหลังจากผู้เรียนอ่านหนังสือเสร็จหรือไม่ เช่น การอภิปรายหรือรายงาน

Yes > Go to 9.2a ทำ > (ตอบคำถามข้อ 9.2a)
No > Go to 9.2b ไม่ทำ > (ตอบคำถามข้อ 9.2b)

9.2 a Check all activities that you do after students have finished a book.

a. oral reports (e.g., presentation, group discussion, mini plays acting the story, etc.) การพูดรายงาน เช่น การนำเสนองาน การอภิปรายกลุ่ม การแสดงบทบาทสมมติจากเรื่องที่อ่าน เป็นต้น
b. letting students take a comprehension quiz การทำแบบทดสอบความเข้าใจ
writing (written book review, poster, rewriting the story etc.) การเขียน เช่น บทวิจารณ์หนังสือ โปสเตอร์ เขียนเรื่องที่อ่านออกมาใหม่
c. reading circles (students read the same book but have different responsibilities such as the character analyser, story summarizer, culture finder etc.) กลุ่มวรรณกรรม (reading circles) โดยให้ผู้เรียนอ่านหนังสือเล่มเดียวกันแต่กำหนดหน้าที่ให้ต่างกัน เช่น วิเคราะห์ตัวละคร สรุปเรื่องย่อ หาประเด็นเกี่ยวกับวัฒนธรรม
d. language work (e.g., vocabulary building or grammar) ทำแบบฝึกหัดเกี่ยวกับภาษา เช่น การสร้างคำศัพท์หรือไวยากรณ์
e. further study of the author’s life or the topic หาข้อมูลเพิ่มเติมเกี่ยวกับผู้แต่งหนังสือหรือหัวข้อที่อ่าน
f. Other อื่น ๆ
> Go to Topic 10 Challenge > ไปหัวข้อ 10 ความท้าทาย

9.2 b Select the reasons for not doing activities. เลือกเหตุผลสำหรับการไม่ทำกิจกรรมหลังการอ่าน

a. no time ไม่มีเวลา
b. not necessary ไม่จำเป็นต้องทำ
c. not useful ไม่มีประโยชน์
d. I do not assess the reading. ข้าพเจ้าไม่ประเมินการอ่าน
e. too many students มีจำนวนผู้เรียนมากเกินไป
f. limited class space ห้องเรียนมีพื้นที่จำกัด
g. the classroom is unsuitable (e.g. unmoveable classroom furniture) ห้องเรียนไม่เหมาะสมกับการทำกิจกรรม เช่น ไม่สามารถขยับโต๊ะและเก้าอี้ได้
h. Other อื่น ๆ
> Go to Topic 10 Challenge > ไปหัวข้อ 10 ความท้าทาย

10. Challenge: 1Q Identify the biggest challenge that you often face when doing ER in your class? Please explain. [Short answer] ความท้าทาย: 1 คำถาม ระบุความท้าทายที่ใหญ่ที่สุดที่ท่านมักจะประสบตอนนำ ER ไปใช้ในชั้นเรียนของท่าน 1 ข้อ พร้อมคำอธิบาย [คำตอบสั้น ๆ]

11. Topics for future training on ER: 1Q If you were to attend ER training, how important would these topics be for you to learn about? หัวข้อสำหรับการอบรมด้าน ER ในอนาคต: 1 คำถาม หากท่านจะเข้าอบรม ER หัวข้อดังต่อไปนี้มีความสำคัญสำหรับท่านมากแค่ไหน

Very important (3), important (2), not so important (1)
สำคัญมาก (3), สำคัญ (2), ไม่สำคัญ (1)

Topic: I want to learn how to ___. ข้าพเจ้าอยากเรียนรู้เกี่ยวกับการ…	3	2	1
1.     motivate students to read สร้างแรงจูงใจด้านการอ่านให้ผู้เรียน
2.     integrate ER into our curriculum นำ ER ไปเป็นส่วนหนึ่งของหลักสูตร
3.     design post-reading activities that could motivate students ออกแบบกิจกรรมหลังการอ่านที่จะช่วยสร้างแรงจูงใจให้ผู้เรียน
4.     gather data on the effectiveness of my ER program รวบรวมข้อมูลเกี่ยวกับประสิทธิผลของการทำ ER ในตอนเรียนของข้าพเจ้า
5.     share my experiences with other ER practitioners แบ่งปันประสบการณ์ของตนเองกับอาจารย์ผู้อื่นที่ทำ ER
6.     search for and understand up-to-date research on ER ค้นคว้าและทำความเข้าใจงานวิจัยที่ทันสมัยด้าน ER
7.     co-ordinate with other ER teachers ประสานงานกับอาจารย์คนอื่นที่ใช้ ER
8.     choose materials for ER programs เลือกสื่อการอ่านสำหรับทำ ER
9.     educate other teachers/administrators about ER ให้ความรู้ด้าน ER กับอาจารย์คนอื่นหรือผู้บริหาร
10.  assess students’ reading ประเมินการอ่านของผู้เรียน

> Go to Exit B > ไปทางออก B

Exit B
Thank you for completing the survey.

If you are willing to participate in an individual semi-structured interview in Thai on Zoom for about 45–60 minutes in June 2024, please complete the interview application form: https://forms.gle/Ryc6TPhcTWgB9GSZ9. You will receive a remuneration of 700 baht. Your personal and contact information will be kept confidential.

Please also pass on this survey to other Thai university lecturers who teach foundation English courses to non-English major students: https://bit.ly/3HNDWUz.

ข้อความสำหรับทางออก B

ขอขอบคุณที่ช่วยตอบแบบสอบถามนะคะ

หากท่านยินดีเข้าร่วมการสัมภาษณ์รายบุคคลเป็นภาษาไทยทาง Zoom ประมาณ 45–60 นาที ในช่วงเดือนมิถุนายน กรุณากรอกใบสมัครทางลิงก์ https://forms.gle/Ryc6TPhcTWgB9GSZ9. ท่านจะได้รับค่าชดเชยการเสียเวลาจำนวน 700 บาท ข้อมูลส่วนบุคคลและข้อมูลติดต่อของท่านจะถูกเก็บเป็นความลับ

ผู้วิจัยใคร่ขอความอนุเคราะห์จากท่านในการช่วยส่งต่อแบบสอบถามนี้ให้กับอาจารย์มหาวิทยาลัยท่านอื่นที่สอนวิชาภาษาอังกฤษพื้นฐานให้กับผู้เรียนที่ไม่ใช่เอกภาษาอังกฤษ https://bit.ly/3HNDWUz ขอบคุณค่ะ

***************************************************************************

Interview Questions

The full interview questions consisted of two parts: (1) teaching English reading and (2) the implementation of extensive reading. However, this study employed the interview questions in Part 2 Questions 2—3 which asked the participants about their purpose for integrating ER into teaching English reading and what they did in their ER programs.

Part 2: The Implementation of Extensive Reading

2. What is your number one purpose for integrating ER into teaching English reading? อะไรคือวัตถุประสงค์อันดับหนึ่งสำหรับการนำการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวางเข้าไปใช้ในการสอนการอ่านภาษาอังกฤษ
3. What do you do in your ER program? ท่านทำอะไรในโครงการการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวางของท่าน
   • Are students required to do ER? ผู้เรียนจำเป็นต้องทำ ER หรือไม่
   • Reading materials: What do students read and who selects the materials they read? ผู้เรียนอ่านอะไรและใครเป็นคนเลือกหนังสือ
   • Sources of funding: Who funds your ER program? ใครให้เงินสนับสนุนโครงการการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวางของท่าน
   • Activities: Do you do post-reading activities? If so, what do you do? ท่านทำกิจกรรมหลังการอ่านหรือไม่ ถ้าทำ ทำอะไร
   • Assessment: Do you assess the reading that students do for ER? If so, what do you do? ท่านทำการประเมินการอ่านของผู้เรียนในการทำการอ่านอย่างกว้างขวางหรือไม่ ถ้าทำ ทำอะไร

[back]

Appendix C: A Summary of the Interview Data on the ER Implementation, Assessment, and Reading Materials

Participant	Aim	Required or not	Reading materials (what and why) and word count per semester	Decision-maker on reading materials	Funding source	Post-reading activity	Assessment (tasks and scores)
1. Lalin	To give students opportunities to read a lot	Optional	·       Non-fiction news articles on websites, e.g., National Geographic, CNN, and BBC because she wanted to (1) extend students’ knowledge of the topics in the foundation English course textbook, (2) develop positive attitudes toward reading articles that they thought might be too challenging, and (3) prepare students for reading university-level academic texts

·       8,000 words (eight articles; approximately 1,000 words/article)Teacher because she thought that students might not know or be familiar with sources for online non-fiction articles. The teacher’s reading materials selection gave them guidance and examples for choosing their own materials in the future.Free materialsWeekly journalWeekly journal; no score2. WaritTo build students’ reading skillsRequired·       Paper graded readers because they are graded based on difficulty levels

·       3,000–4,000 words, but not more than 5,000 words (one graded reader)Teacher because he wanted to make the management of ER activities easier, including assigning students to write a reflection paper on the same book and designing the same reading quizStudents buying their own reading materialsReflection paperReading quiz; 10% of total grade3. NadaTo build students’ vocabularyRequired·       Paper graded readers because they are graded based on difficulty levels

·       2,000–4,000 wordsStudents because she wanted them to choose books of their interestUniversity with very limited budgetWeekly learning logWeekly learning log; 10 bonus points based on completion of the log4. NatchaTo motivate students to readRequired·       Various kinds, including paper graded readers, news articles, online articles, and books

·       Not setting a reading goal per semester, so word counts variedStudents because she wanted them to choose books of their interestFree materials & materials at university libraryOral presentationOral presentation; 5% of total grade5. AirinTo build students’ reading skillsRequired·       Paper graded readers because they are graded based on difficulty levels

·       2,000–4,000 words (two graded readers)Teacher because she wanted to quicken the decision-making process as there are many students in one sectionUniversity with very limited budgetBook quizReading quiz; 10% of total grade6. PichaTo support university policyRequired·       In-house localized reading materials graded at CEFR A2 level because her university required students to study Ayutthaya’s history

·       Approximately 24,000 words (eight units; approximately 3,000 words/unit)Course teachers co-selected the materials because ER was done to support university policyStudents buying their own reading materialsMind mapReading quiz; 10% of total grade7. BhurinTo build students’ reading skillsRequired·       A subscription-based online program (English Discoveries) because his institution had subscribed to it for use in English courses

·       2,000 words (10 reading passages; approximately 120 words/1 reading passage + one book of 800 words)Students because he wanted them to choose books of their interestUniversityReflection paperReflection paper (15-20%) and a final project (30%); 45-50% of total grade8. PraewaTo integrate ER as part of the foundation courseRequired·       One paper graded reader (usually simplified novels) and 2–4 online articles or reading passages from other English textbooks; this combination was used because she wanted her students to experience both reading something easy (paper graded readers) and something more difficult (e.g., articles on the internet, passages from other English textbooks).

·       Not more than 2,000 words per semesterTeacher because she wanted to select materials that suit the English proficiency level for university studentsFree materials; students buying their own reading materialsAlternating between reading quiz and oral presentationReading quiz; 10% of total grade

[

Copyright of articles rests with the authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately. Editor’s Note: The HTML version contains no page numbers. Please use the PDF version of this article for citations.