Exploring Instructors’ Attitudes Toward Extensive Reading in Language Programs

November 2025 – Volume 29, Number 3

https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29115a10

Adil Bentahar
University of Delaware, United States
<badiludel.edu>

Abstract

Extensive reading (ER) refers to a form of reading that exposes students to large amounts of text [usually full books] that is interesting, self-selected, and below their lexical difficulty. Despite ER advantages, its integration into university-based English language programs (ELPs) in the United States seems to be limited. This article presents the results of a mixed-methods study documenting the attitudes of instructors representing the University and College Intensive English Program (UCIEP) consortium’s 66 members toward extensive reading. The participants completed an online survey (n = 60); seven of them (n = 7) volunteered to participate in follow-up interviews, all with the goals of understanding what U.S.-based ELP instructors know about ER and exploring existing motivations for implementing or not implementing it in their programs. Overall, the results indicate that instructors are familiar with ER, but not with research on ER. The results also reported students’ poor motivation as well as the instructors’ failure to see the value of ER in ELPs, which may hinder implementation. This research supports the view that ER should be a required component of reading-writing instruction in language programs, and strategically designed professional development can help educate and change the views of instructors new to language programs and/or new to ER.

Keywords: extensive reading, English language programs (ELPs), instructors, United States, reading, mixed methods

The phrase English language programs (ELPs) is often used interchangeably with intensive English programs. The nature of these programs is different from K-12 ESL settings in that ELP multilingual learners of English (MLEs) must achieve certain language proficiency levels in short periods to matriculate into community colleges or universities or return to their home countries often to improve their job prospects (Bentahar, 2022). Some of these programs function independently, yet most ELPs operate under consortiums such as the University and College Intensive English Program (UCIEP) and English-USA. These organizations advocate for international education, providing international students and scholars with the resources to navigate the pathways to success in American higher education. They also promote the dedication of ELP professionals to stakeholders in and beyond the United States.

Extensive reading (ER) refers to a form of reading that exposes students to large amounts of text (usually full books) that is interesting, self-selected, and below their lexical difficulty. Despite ER advantages, its integration into ELPs, for some reason, seems to be limited (Kohnke, 2024). This article attempts to understand what U.S.-based ELP instructors know about ER and explore existing motivations for implementing or not implementing it in their programs.

Literature Review

What ER is and what it does

The terms associated with ER include the book flood (Elley, 2000); supplementary reading; sustained silent reading; independent reading; and Drop Everything and Read (Day, 2020). In this article, ER is operationally defined as a form of reading instruction where English as an additional language (EAL) readers engage with large quantities of self-selected and easy-to-understand texts with little instructor assistance. Generally, ten principles inform ER as an approach to reading instruction. These are—1) The reading material is easy; 2) A variety of reading material on a wide range of topics must be available; 3) Learners choose what they want to read; 4) Learners read as much as possible; 5) The purpose of reading is usually related to pleasure, information and general understanding; 6) Reading is its own reward; 7) Reading speed is usually faster rather than slower; 8) Reading is individual and silent; 9) Teachers orient and guide their students; and 10) The teacher is a role model of a reader (Day & Bamford, 2002).

Researchers and practitioners may not completely agree on the exact form and style for administering ER in educational settings (Robb, 2025; Waring & Husna, 2019), yet they tend to support its benefits (Robb, 2022). Krashen (2004) emphasized how an ER approach to reading lifts the pressure and responsibility from instructors and places it on the students, an important expectation for autonomous reading (Bentahar, 2022). The worst outcome that can happen in an ER activity is that the students’ language proficiency remains the same (Krashen, 2004). Additional benefits of ER include vocabulary development (e.g., Hayashi, 1999); increased writing performance (Hafiz & Tudor, 1989); overall improved language competence (Lee, 2007); and high levels of motivation (Bentahar & Collins, 2023; de Burgh-Hirabe & Feryok, 2013; Hayashi, 1999; Ro, 2016). In a nutshell, ER can be a reliable medium whereby students can develop various facets of language because they are exposed to comprehensible input in a relaxed, stress-free learning environment (Ali et al., 2022).

 Understanding ER Through Research in the Language Classroom

Alongside its perceived impact in second/additional and foreign (EAL) language settings, the literature has been mostly in favor of extensive reading (ER) as a medium that promotes English for academic purposes (EAP) reading (e.g., Day, 2015, 2020; Macalister, 2008, 2010; Ro, 2016; Robb & Ewert, 2024; Waring & Husna, 2019; Widodo, 2010; Zhou & Day, 2021). Macalister (2010) interviewed 36 ELP instructors in New Zealand to explore their experiences with and attitudes toward ER. Despite their positive opinions, the participants noted the stark need for more deliberate promotion of ER through research, teacher education, and course design changes. These aspirations can be achieved through spreading awareness of ER benefits among policymakers, ELP program administrators, and stakeholders (Macalister, 2010). In Thailand, Puripunyavanich (2025) explored how university instructors implement ER in English courses for non-English majors. In this mixed-method study, the respondents to the survey (n = 63) and the interviews (n = 8) were grouped into two categories—less experienced and more experienced instructors; the results revealed no difference in terms of practices and materials used to teach ER. Like Macalister (2010), Puripunyavanich (2025) stressed the need to educate teachers on ER to inform them about the recommended word counts and ways for choosing easy-to-understand texts and materials to improve ER teaching practices in Thailand.

In the United States, Zhou and Day (2021) documented EAP (English for academic purposes) students’ and instructors’ reactions to online extensive reading. The researchers studied the reactions of 57 university students to ER. In the study, two groups of EAP students spent 10 and 12 weeks reading online books using the Xreading Library, “an online subscription-based graded reader library that allows students unlimited access to more than 1000 books on their computers, tablets or mobile devices” (Zhou & Day, 2021, p. 103). Within the sample, intermediate-level students had to read 10,000 words; those in the advanced class read “13,000 words (for Fall 2017 semester) and 12,000 (for Spring 2018 semester),” all on a weekly basis (p. 106). Improvement was reported at many levels, including students’ attitudes; their reading rates; and other language aspects such as grammar, writing, speaking, and vocabulary. The instructors also responded favorably to the use of online platforms such as Xreading in an EAP context.

In Pennsylvania, three researchers studied practices related to ER teaching and learning in an English language program (Widodo, 2010). The observations were conducted in five class periods. Key sample ER-related behaviors reported in the study included—Empowerment of students via various reading skills such as reorganization, summarization, and evaluation; Awareness of self-learning determination [by students]; Teacher scaffolding; Dynamic interactions between students and teachers; and The types of questions emerging from class discussions and interactions (Widodo, 2010). Widodo’s findings stressed the positive impact of ER on students’ overall language development.

Furthermore, ER can aid learners in engaging with EAL content in an appealing and stimulating manner while facilitating the acquisition of the target language (Collins & Bentahar, 2024). However, a significant part of the research on ER tends to focus on its theoretical and instructional advantages (Grabe, 2009) or the practical aspects involved in its implementation (Day & Bamford, 2002). The impact of ER on language student attitudes toward and motivation for reading seemed less understood, especially in language programs (Kohnke, 2024).

ER potential to boost student motivation to read

The construct of motivation for reading has been linked to EAP contexts in several studies. In the United States, Komiyama (2013) surveyed 2,018 students representing 53 ELPs. The data collection targeted student motivation for reading, resulting in five constructs of motivation. These are Intrinsic motivation (i.e., recognition and sense of obligation to read) and four purely extrinsic factors. The latter are Academic Compliance (i.e., the need to read to complete assignments); Drive to Excel (i.e., the need to demonstrate excellence and outperform peers in reading); Test Compliance (the urge to read EAL text to increase scores in tests such as TOEFL and IELTS); and Social Sharing (i.e., the willingness to share reading experience with peers). Komiyama (2013) noted that of the five factors, Intrinsic Motivation affects ELP students’ motivation levels the most, followed by the Extrinsic Drive to Excel.

Similarly, Ro (2016) collected mixed-method data documenting the experiences of two EAP teachers and the impact of their practices on student motivation. Ro found that intrinsic motivation for reading improved markedly in one class compared to the other class, where the students reported little motivation. Qualitatively, the results confirmed that the teachers’ ER activities and the amount and type of instructor scaffolding are critical motivation factors. Bentahar and Collins (2023) came to this conclusion in their study on reading motivation levels using data from 20 ELP students’ surveys and four focus group discussions in response to an ER intervention. In the latter study, the researchers investigated whether participation in nonfiction ER impacted ELP students’ a) attitudes toward and motivation for reading and b) (if any) other learning areas likely impacted by their ER experience. The participants reported increased levels of confidence, changing attitudes toward reading, as well as an awareness and recognition of the power of reading to speak and reading to write. The mixed-method results demonstrated the participants’ appreciation for reading a full book and integrating it into their synthesis paper assignments and in-class presentations.

To provide a more meaningful analysis of whether an ER intervention impacted student attitudes toward reading, Collins and Bentahar’s (2024) action research explored ELP student attitudes toward reading in response to a pedagogical intervention based on an ER form slightly modified from their previous study. Like their 2023 research, the two instructors from different university-based ELPs facilitated an eight-week-long reading project with their students, reading and discussing a nonfiction book, following similar ER teaching activities and assignments in both settings. While the intervention incorporated the primary guidelines of ER, including quantity and comprehensibility, the researchers, as a practical necessity, selected the book and determined the reading schedule. Results from the study were not as favorable because, unlike the 2023 study, where the instructors scaffolded and monitored the students’ ER activity, this time the researchers adopted a hands-off approach where students were left on their own. One implication was that teaching ER can be more effective when the instructors scaffold the reading experience to ensure engagement, a statement that scholars such as Widodo (2010) would support.

In summary, studies including ER in language classrooms have generally described it as an effective approach that fosters language learning in general and reading proficiency in particular. Despite extant literature examining ER in EAP settings worldwide, empirical research studying instructors’ attitudes toward ER in U.S.-based ELPs seems underexplored, hence the contribution of this study.

 Study Purpose

The purpose of this research was to explore instructors’ understanding of and opinions about ER implementation across U.S. ELPs. In this study, “attitude” refers to a particular feeling or opinion about someone or something (Cambridge Dictionary, 2024). The use of mixed methods helped capitalize on the strengths of each data strand toward a more robust understanding of instructors’ experiences with and attitudes toward the integration of ER in ELPs. Two research questions guided this study.

1. What top three principles (guidelines) are associated with ER in U.S. university- and college-based English language programs?

2. Why are instructors implementing or not implementing ER in ELPs?

Methods

Instruments

Two instruments were used in this study—a survey and an interview. The survey respondents signed an online consent form and were then invited to share their emails to participate in optional follow-up Zoom interviews. The interviews were transcribed using the Zoom transcription option.

Survey. The online survey had three parts. The first section collected background information on the participants’ gender, their teaching experience in years, and their location. Section Two in the survey comprised 12 four-point Likert-scale statements, four of which are listed in Figure 1 (See Appendix A for the survey questions). The questions were used to give an overview of experiences with and attitudes toward ER. The third section of the survey consisted of seven open-ended questions inviting the respondents to reflect on their experiences and attitudes.

Interview. As is common in mixed-method explanatory sequential designs, semi-structured interview questions (See Appendix B) were drafted after the quantitative data had been collected. Specifically, the researcher conducted a cold reading (i.e., a quick review without prior context or understanding of the study purpose) of the survey responses to help guide the directions of the interview questions. The researcher created and administered the interviews with seven questions. The follow-up interview helped inform and explain some of the key highlights reported in the survey. The interview began with respondents’ demographic information, followed by their attitudes toward extensive reading in terms of how they defined it and why they thought fellow instructors were or were not integrating ER in ELPs. The interviews took place in Fall 2024 and lasted between 28 and 74 minutes.

Data Collection Procedures

The author obtained ethical approval for the study from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at his institution, including approval of the consent form, materials, and procedures. This mixed-method study examined the opinions of instructors regarding the implementation—or lack thereof—of ER in U.S.-based ELPs. A second reminder was emailed in September 2024 four weeks after the first invitation was sent to the same instructors whose ELPs were listed, then, on the University and College Intensive English Program (UCIEP) Website in hopes of obtaining a range of 50-70 responses representing UCIEP’s 66 programs nationwide. The invitation was also emailed to UCIEP program directors, requesting them to encourage their reading instructors to complete the survey.

Of the 13 respondents who had shared their emails in the online survey, seven re-expressed and confirmed interest in participating in the interview (n = 7). The responses were analyzed for a better grasp of ER implementation in ELPs. After the data were collected, the results of the survey and the interviews were merged at the interpretation phase. The merging of the data is a pivotal stage, for it helps the researcher make well-informed comparisons of the quantitative and qualitative responses in a meaningful manner while considering the research question(s). The merging also constitutes a way for researchers to consider and include areas of convergence and corroboration in the data.

Participants

In sum, after removing incomplete survey entries, 60 responses were considered for the study. According to the findings, 55 percent of the respondents (n=33) were female, 43.33% were male (n=26), and 1.67% (n=1) identified as “Other.” Regarding the teaching experience (in years), the data indicate that over half of the survey respondents have extensive experience teaching in ELPs. Only ten percent of the respondents have taught for five or fewer than five years; however, the data reported 85% teaching experience longer than 11 years, with 55% having taught for at least or longer than 16 years.

Table 1 describes demographic information on the interview respondents. Except for the respondent who identified herself as a part-time substitute, six interviewees teach in a full-time capacity. Two interviewees teach alongside administrative workloads.

Table 1. Interview Respondent Profiles

Pseudonym	Gender	Teaching experience (years)	Role within ELP
Fred	Male	40	Instructor
Mathew	Male	20	Instructor*
Dana	Female	2	Teaching Staff
Beatrice	Female	25	Instructor
Kevin	Male	36	Instructor*
Albert	Male	2	Instructor**
Cooper	Male	10	Instructor**

Notes: Instructor*: ELP instructors with administrative load.
Instructor; **: Instructors who responded to interview questions via email

Data Analysis

In this study, the researcher analyzed the survey responses using a) the scores and percentages from the survey’s Likert-scale statements and b) a conceptual content analysis of the survey’s open-ended data. A concept analysis entails selecting specific concepts and quantifying or counting the occurrence of specific terms in textual data. This approach is a form of content analysis that focuses on explicit mention of words related to the predetermined concepts (Delve & Limpaecher, 2023). For the interview responses, a thematic analysis was conducted, whereby a multi-step process was followed. The process entailed reading and re-reading the interview transcripts to comprehend the text and create relevant categories (Flick, 2022). The researcher then examined each question and conducted a line-by-line review that culminated in the creation of summary terms for each statement.

Results

RQ 1: Top three principles (or guidelines) associated with ER in U.S. university and college-based English language programs (ELPs)

To address this research question, data from the survey’s Likert-scale as well as open-ended statements were used. The researcher was particularly interested in finding out how ELP instructors define ER, and to narrow down the responses and arrive at the top three principles (also known in the literature as guidelines), a conceptual content analysis was used.

Figure 1. Extensive Reading: Attitudes and Practices

Familiarity with ER Guidelines Doesn’t Imply Familiarity with Research on ER

Quantitative and qualitative data align well regarding the respondents’ understanding of ER. When asked to choose one of the four-point Likert scale statement options—Definitely Yes, Probably Yes, Probably No, and Definitely No—the survey and interview responses were well aligned. To the statement “I know what Extensive Reading (ER) means” 73.33% of the respondents (n=44) chose “Definitely Yes.” One of the survey respondents also expressed their understanding of ER in the following words, “I’m not totally sure what extensive reading as a term means[.] But if it means reading a lot outside of class, then I would say this would be connected to books and reflections and reading fluency/pace.”

Only one of the seven interviewees was uncertain about the meaning of the concept. Dana, who identified herself as a teaching staff member with minimal teaching experience as an ELP instructor substitute and facilitator of co-curricular [outside class] ER activities, found it hard to define ER. Nonetheless, her description was not completely unrelated, commenting, “Extensive reading is reading every day for 1-2 hours.” Coincidentally, only one of the 60 survey respondents reported a lack of understanding of ER by choosing “Definitely not” [i.e., “I don’t know what ER means”].

Understanding the meaning of terms doesn’t necessarily correlate with their familiarity with research about those concepts. Most respondents in both the survey and interviews were not clear about familiarity with research on ER. For instance, in responding to the statement “I am familiar with research about extensive reading,” only 28% of the respondents (n=17) selected “Definitely yes,” and 23 of the 60 survey responses were not sure.

Qualitatively, unlike what one would often find in interviews with college and university instructors, the interviewees made no explicit mention of research on ER. Only Kevin referred several times to Krashen’s comprehensible input theory as a backbone for ER, which he had recently read in Krashen’s (2004) The Power of Reading. Despite the relatively reduced mention of research during the interviews, the respondents appeared to be confident about the principles and guidelines generally associated with ER. Of note is that, unlike other studies (e.g., Day, 2015, 2020) where the participants were shown the ten principles of ER as they completed the surveys, in this study, survey and interview statements did not include ER guidelines to avoid influencing the respondents’ responses.

Guidelines That Come to Mind When Language Instructors Hear ER

Whereas ELP instructors were not all certain about research on ER, they seemed confident about certain principles commonly associated in the literature with ER. Table 2 presents the top three principles.

Table 2: Key Principles (Guidelines) the Survey Respondents Associate with ER.

ER Principles	Principle #1	Principle #2	Principle #3
	Pleasure	Ease with Vocabulary	Self-regulation
Sample words	outside class; free; knowledge information; free reading; reading for exploration	right level; below level; linguistic complexity; comprehensible; comprehension; input; easiness; >95-98	self-agency; self-directed learning; self-selected; autonomy; accountability; self-motivated
Frequency of occurrence (times)	16	35	17

Of the ten popular principles (Day & Bamford, 2002), pleasure was emphasized in the survey’s open-ended responses. However, the ease with vocabulary emerged as the top principle that language instructors automatically associate with ER. The interview responses confirmed this conclusion. The ease with vocabulary (See Table 2, Principle #2) in ER activities appeared to matter the most. Again, except for the teaching staff who upfront expressed a lack of awareness of the guidelines of ER, the interviewees (n=6) made it clear ER always includes easy-to-understand text. The language used in most responses—quantitative and qualitative—included the following phrases: “98% [of vocabulary that readers understand],” “easy text,” “sight words,” “level-appropriate,” “easy,” “Krashen,” and “comprehensible input.” Even though the latter phrases might imply reference to research, what the respondents meant was more about how easy the text is for EAL students to engage with ER effortlessly. In summary, the survey and interview respondents appeared to know what ER means. They also seem to agree that ease of text constitutes a key pillar of any ER activity.

Unlike the ten principles depicted in the literature as guidelines (Day & Bamford, 2002), the survey responses highlighted a key guideline probably not mentioned among the ten principles—self-regulation. Related characteristics reported by the survey respondents include “autonomous learning,” “self-motivation,” and “self-direction.” In addition, “choice” and the ability to hold oneself “accountable” over the extensive reading activity are additional phrases shared by the respondents in their description of self-regulated learning as a principle of ER.

RQ 2: ELP Instructors’ reasons for implementing or not implementing ER

ER Advantages Cannot Be Missed

When asked about the reasons why ER is implemented in ELPs, the respondents immediately highlighted its numerous benefits. Only one of the 60 respondents thought ER had no benefits on language acquisition. Nearly 67% of the respondents selected “Definitely Yes” and 24% chose “Probably Yes,” a large percentage supporting the claim that ER positively impacts language acquisition (See Figure 1). The interview respondents shared similar opinions, listing ER’s positive impact on vocabulary, fluency, speed, and language learning. They also stressed its key role in boosting student confidence. But why is everyone not implementing ER?

When prompted to share why some instructors are using it and why others aren’t, there was agreement that professional development is a key opportunity for educating instructors about ER and its tenets. In fact, the data showed that over 57% of the interviewees (n=4) first heard about ER through professional development workshops and 43% (n=3) in university studies (particularly graduate school). Nonetheless, the interviewees specifically pointed to motivation as the core factor impacting students’ and instructors’ engagement with ER in several ways, as elucidated below.

Inadequate ER Implementation Is Due to Student Poor Motivation

The interviewees stressed the decline in students’ reading proficiency due to numerous distractors surrounding the overall English as an additional language (EAL) student learning experience. Fifty-seven percent (n=4) of the interviewees reiterated the need to revive a culture of and love for reading among multilingual learners of English (MLEs). Two respondents remembered growing up at home and outside of home, surrounded by books and conversations around reading, which they do not seem to see around in their language classrooms. Mathew, Beatrice, Kevin, and Dana noted that the growing student disengagement with reading, which negatively impacts ER implementation, is compounded by poor reading habits in the native language. “I hate reading,” shared one of Kevin’s students; a similar comment was voiced by Mathew. Such negative feelings and experiences with reading can easily transfer to EAL, likely inhibiting MLEs’ engagement with reading in general and extensive reading in ELPs in particular. At a time when individuals appear to be constantly distracted by the Internet and social media, many college students are already displaying unenthusiasm about and fear of reading, shared Dana.

Time

I did it [ER] as a new teacher when it was required; I also didn’t do it because I thought I should focus on intensive reading (Mathew)

The challenge of time might relate to the amount of other work that must be done as part of ELP instructors’ workload (e.g., teaching and service). Mathew commented that he introduced ER as a novice instructor only when it was required, and Fred noted the many other duties ELP instructors must fulfill, including service duties on- and off-campus. The challenge of time is also associated with students’ perceived priorities in ELPs, which likely indirectly causes instructors to leave out ER activities and focus, instead, on intensive reading. This apathy for extensive reading, as one of the survey respondents noted, continues to surface, considering the nature of ELPs as academic units where an “intensive English program” means learning and teaching so much in short periods (Bentahar, 2022).

ELP instructors appear to be also constantly grappling with time because “standardized test pressure” means many instructors “end up having to teach to the test,” as commented another survey respondent. Moreover, many ELP students don’t see the immediate expediency of reading without assessment, so “why should they [instructors] bother?”, wondered Kevin. The alternative to ER is a focus on standardized testing because most ELP international students dedicate their time to grade-oriented activities. But of all these findings, the following section highlights a new factor impeding ER implementation; this time, the focus is on ELP instructors.

Failure to See the Value of ER

The times when [ER] was successful, there was more teacher control. (Kevin)

One key obstacle to ER integration in the language classroom is instructors’ failure to see its immediate value. To many ELP instructors in this study, ER activities are associated with outside-class activities, which was voiced by four interviewees. Perhaps this inability to institute ER in class is also the result of teachers’ boredom when students are reading extensively in class. A survey respondent wrote, “I get bored when [my] students are doing ER.”

Similar to this survey statement is what one interviewee described as instructors’ fondness of control, in that not all instructors feel comfortable watching students reading on their own without asking [instructors] questions about vocabulary and grammar, interactions particularly common in intensive reading work. Fred added, “For some [instructors], it’s a lack of control of what the students are doing.” This is the same point about which Kevin made a beautiful analogy as a reminder that language instructors are not wasting time while their students are engaging with ER in class. On the contrary, continued Kevin, their role is critical to motivating students to stay focused on the activity. Kevin shared his experience with his brother, who would stand and watch him run with a watch in his hand. His brother thought that he was not doing anything significant since all the work was done by Kevin. Kevin (the athlete), however, thought that his brother’s monitoring and oversight were momentous, for they kept him on-task with high momentum. This instance, to Kevin, applies to ELP classrooms, where some instructors might think they are not helping students while the latter are reading, hence failing to see the value of extensive reading. One of the survey’s open-ended comments summarized such perceived negative attitudes toward ER in the following words: “Instructors don’t understand it [ER] and the power it has. Students don’t like to read, and perhaps the teachers, themselves, don’t like to read extensively [, either]!”

When asked what needs to happen to promote ER implementation, Fred, Mathew, Beatrice, and Kevin mentioned professional development (PD) so skeptics of ER can change their opinions and join their enthusiastic peers in their programs. PD can therefore connect theory with practice by offering examples and demo lessons for colleagues who may otherwise be unfamiliar with ER and, hopefully, spark their motivation to engage with it.

In sum, besides insufficient time, the instructors’ failure to see the value of ER forms a major challenge that continues to impede ER implementation in ELPs in the United States. In his response to the interview question What factors influence your decision to include or not include ER in your teaching?, Cooper commented, “Time constraints, the ELP program’s writing-focused goals, and limited buy-in from instructors who don’t view ER as directly beneficial to measurable academic outcomes.”

Discussion

For the first research question, the ease of vocabulary and self-regulation emerged in the data as guidelines ELP instructors associate the most with ER teaching and learning. Despite critiquing the initial ten guidelines, most revised ER guidelines have continued to consider ease with vocabulary a core principle for teaching ER (Day, 2020; Ro, 2016; Robb & Ewert, 2024; Robb, 2025; Waring & Husna, 2019). Day (2015) studied 44 articles involving ER intervention or implementation, and the study respondents ranked the ten principles in terms of importance. Like the present study findings, 34 of the 44 ER programs considered vocabulary an important determinant for adequate teaching of ER.

Offering students text that is below their lexical difficulty is, however, not enough because ESL and EFL students should learn to read strategically and be able to guide their reading experience through self-regulation (Bentahar, 2022). Findings from this study mentioned “self-regulation” or self-regulated learning as a new and pivotal guideline of ER activities. In Vasu et al.’s (2020) view, self-regulated learning is commonly associated with independent and autonomous learners in EAL contexts. This principle includes important qualities that language teachers hope to see in multilingual learners of English (MLEs). Such qualities are often found in metacognitively prescient EAL readers whose reading experiences can help them take active control of their learning before, during, and after they read (Bentahar, 2022; Lake & Holster, 2014). Robb (2025) stressed how students can learn to be independent and engaged, especially when the teachers hold learners accountable for the overall reading activities.

Regarding Research Question 2, the interview respondents in this study believed that the motivation to read constitutes another foundation for effective teaching and learning of ER in language classrooms. Numerous scholars (e.g., de Burgh-Hirabe & Feryok, 2013; Ro, 2016) have reiterated the role of ER in improving student motivation. In a mixed-method study, Bentahar and Collins (2023) investigated the impact of nonfiction ER activities on the motivation levels of ELP students. The findings from 20 students confirmed heightened levels of motivation and positive attitude toward reading in general as a result of the ER experience that lasted two months. But motivation can also affect instructors’ attitudes.

The perceived “failure” of language instructors to see the value of ER poses a major obstacle to its implementation, an issue that demands careful attention. This challenge brings an important quality of these language teachers. Their reading habits and personal experiences with reading could positively influence their teaching habits and instill in students a love for reading (Bentahar, 2025). Kevin, Beatrice, Dana, and Mathew reminisced about their time decades ago, enjoying reading and discussing books with friends and family, which they don’t happen to see prevailing nowadays among instructors. But in addition to poor motivation, the failure to see the value of ER, according to the study interview responses, is also ascribed to some instructors’ “obsession with control” or inability to feel the joy of reading themselves, which can make it hard for these classroom teachers to “sell ER” to their students as a viable approach.

It is important to remember that the lack of enthusiasm among teachers can limit student buy-in, which should not be sacrificed only to please the fondness of some colleagues to maintain control over student learning and remain in charge. We’re reminded of Kevin’s brother, who, despite his dedication to monitoring Kevin’s laps and practice, thought he wasn’t helping Kevin. Perhaps it’s time language teachers stopped worrying about teaching and focused, instead, on learning.

Implications

The following insights might inform the design and delivery of ER in the language classroom within and beyond the United States. From these insights, and with appropriate qualifiers, the following implications may be worthwhile for language instructors worldwide.

• ER should be an integral part of ELP reading activities. Requiring ER as a course learning outcome across levels—or at least as a complementary elective—will motivate even skeptics to ensure its inclusion. Those colleagues who remain unconvinced will get to engage with ER, learning and unlearning firsthand about this form of reading that puts student learning and agency at the center. Instructors and teachers all over the world will lose nothing when they implement ER because the worst outcome that could happen is that the students’ reading levels remain the same, as Krashen (2004) argued.
• Promotion of peer observation is key. Many instructors have had success facilitating ER implementation in the language classroom. Peer observations and instructor-facilitated book club gatherings, for example, can be key opportunities for everyone to learn what others are doing, this time using the learner’s hat as observers. Administrators should also support these efforts by facilitating observations and securing substitutes for those interested in joining these professional learning communities, which is never time wasted.
• Professional development must be more intentional and align with the teachers’ needs. While PD must ideally fulfill instructors’ needs, it should also encourage instructors and course coordinators to move out of their comfort zones by opening up to practices and ideas from other programs nationwide and beyond (e.g., guest speakers, workshops, TESOL and JALT webinars and conferences, etc.). Resources include, inter alia, TESOL Reading and Vocabulary Interest Section, Extensive Reading Foundation, Extensive Reading USA, and English-USA, where professionals from over 220 language programs meet biannually for online professional development conferences. Again, the onus falls on instructors to expand their learning and practice a growth mindset by exploring new teaching horizons. Isn’t this the same message and mindset we hope our students adopt?

Limitations and Future Research

This study had a couple of limitations. The first is the difficulty in generalizing the results, given the target audience of ELP professionals nationwide. Moreover, in the United States, ELPs can be university-based, college-based, or independent entities and programs. Data from this study were mostly collected from university-based units from UCIEP, which, like English-USA, is an accrediting body for English language programs. Future research could address non-UCIEP-affiliated programs and even consider non-U.S.-based English language programs such as those based in Asia (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Japan, and China).

Conclusion

The findings from this study shed light on a revealing paradox in the teaching of extensive reading (ER)—instructors express strong familiarity with ER principles and broadly agree on its benefits; however, many remain disconnected from the research that supports it, and they are even more hesitant to put it into practice. Despite teachers’ clear recognition of ER’s potential to foster language development and build learner autonomy, these ideals often collide with the reality of unmotivated learners.

What is perhaps most striking—and concerning—is the fading enthusiasm among many language teachers to establish or sustain ER activities. This reluctance appears rooted not in logistical challenges alone, but in a deeper uncertainty about ER’s relevance and impact in today’s classrooms. If extensive reading is to thrive, it needs champions who not only understand its value but also feel empowered to advocate for it.

Future research must go beyond documenting attitudes—it should probe the institutional, pedagogical, and even emotional barriers that prevent ER from taking root. Only then can we begin to reimagine reading as not just a requirement, but a meaningful and motivating part of the language learning journey in language programs in the US and worldwide.

About the Author

Adil Bentahar, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at the University of Delaware’s English Language Institute (ELI) and School of Education. He teaches first-year English composition, cultural diversity in U.S. schools, and literacy education courses in the MA-TESL program. His research centers on L2 extensive reading, ELT and teacher education in Morocco, and multilingual international student experiences in American higher education. He was the co-chair of the 2024 Social Science Education Consortium Conference and is the Co-founder of TESOL’s Extensive Reading USA-Affiliate Professional Learning Network. ORCID ID: 0000-0003-3856-6758

To Cite this Article

Bentahar, A. (2025). Exploring instructors’ attitudes toward extensive reading in language programs. Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal (TESL-EJ), 29(3). https://doi.org/10.55593/ej.29115a10

References

Ali, Z., Palpanadan, S. T., Asad, M. M., Churi, P., & Namaziandost, E. (2022). Reading approaches practiced in EFL classrooms: A narrative review and research agenda. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 7(28), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00155-4

Bentahar, A. (2022). Making thinking visible: Reading metacognitive strategies in intensive English programs. Journal of English Learner Education, 14(2), 53–78. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/jele/vol14/iss2/3

Bentahar, A. (2025, March 11). Improving reading proficiency in Morocco begins with teachers’ habits. TESOL-International Reading-Vocabulary Newsletter. https://my.tesol.org/news/1167644

Bentahar, A., & Collins, C. (2023, March 18-21). The effect of nonfiction extensive reading on IEP student attitudes: A mixed-method study [Conference presentation]. American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL), Portland, OR, United States.

Cambridge Dictionary. (2024). Attitude. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/attitude

Collins, C., & Bentahar, A. (2024). Assessing the impact of Extensive Reading on L2 learner attitudes [Conference presentation]. TESOL Annual Convention, Tampa, FL, United States.

Day, R. & Bamford, J. (2002). Top ten principles for teaching Extensive Reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14(2), 137–141. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/66761

Day, R. R. (2015). Extending extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 27(2), 294–301. https://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/item/332

Day, R. (2020, August 29). Extensive reading in practice [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d03RwkT6UJA

de Burgh-Hirabe, R., & Feryok, A. (2013). A model of motivation for extensive reading in Japanese as a foreign language. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25(1), 72–93. https://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl/item/271

Delve, H. L., & Limpaecher, A. (2023, January 25). What is conceptual content analysis in qualitative research? Step-by-step guide. https://delvetool.com/blog/what-is-conceptual-qualitative-content-analysis-step-by-step-guide

Elley, W. B. (2000). The potential of book floods for raising literacy levels. International Review of Education, 46, 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004086618679

Flick, U. (2022). An introduction to qualitative research (7th Ed.). Sage Publications.

Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge University Press.

Hafiz, F. M., & Tudor, I. (1989). Extensive reading and the development of language skills. ELT Journal, 43(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/43.1.4

Hayashi, K. (1999). Reading strategies and extensive reading in EFL classes. RELC Journal, 30(2), 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829903000207

Kohnke, L. (2024). Book review: Extensive reading: The role of motivation. RELC Journal, 55(1), 246–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368822110387

Komiyama, R. (2013). Factors underlying second language reading motivation of adult EAP students. Reading in a Foreign Language, 25(2), 149–169. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1015755.pdf

Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading (2nd ed.). Libraries Unlimited.

Lake, J. & Holster, T. (2014). Developing autonomous self-regulated readers in an extensive reading program. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 5(4), 394–403. https://sisaljournal.org/archives/dec14/lake_holster/

Lee, S. (2007). Revelations from three consecutive studies on extensive reading. RELC Journal, 38(2), 150–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688207079730

Macalister, J. (2008). Integrating extensive reading into an English for academic purposes program. The Reading Matrix 8(1), 23–34. http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/macalister/article.pdf

Macalister, J. (2010). Investigating teacher attitudes to Extensive Reading practices in      higher education: Why isn’t everyone doing it? RELC: Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 41(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368821036260

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

Ro, E. (2016). Exploring teachers’ practices and students’ perceptions of extensive reading approach in EAP reading classes. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.01.006

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. (2025). Extensive reading: What it is and what it is not (webinar). Extensive Reading-USA. https://www.englishusa.org/events/er-usa-pln-discuss-extensive-reading-what-it-is-and-what-its-not

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

Vasu, K. A., Mei Fung, Y., Nimehchisalem, V., & Md Rashid, S. (2020). Self-regulated learning development in undergraduate ESL writing classrooms: Teacher feedback versus self-assessment. RELC Journal, 53(3), 612–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220957782

Waring, R., & Husna, N. (2019). Expectations and experiences of Indonesian teachers who have, and have not done extensive reading. TEFLIN Journal, 30(2), 153–170. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v30i2/153-170

Widodo, H. P. (2010). Extensive reading in an ESL class in the United States: Some good points. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 7(1), 71–76. https://www.nus.edu.sg/celc/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/71-76widodo.pdf

Zhou, J., & Day, R. R. (2021). Online extensive reading in EAP courses. Reading in a Foreign Language, 33(1), 103–125. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/67395

Appendix A: Survey

 “Exploring Instructors’ Attitudes Toward Extensive Reading in Language Programs”

Q1 Please choose ONE answer.

☐ Yes, I agree to participate in the survey.
☐ Yes, I agree to participate in the survey and the interview.

Q2 If you have agreed to be interviewed, please enter your email address.

_______________________________________________________________

Q3 Demographic Characteristics: Gender

☐ Male   ☐ Female   ☐ Other

Q4 Where is your English language program located?

☐ A university or college in the United States
☐ A private institution or non-university/non-college setting in the United States.
☐ A university or college outside of the United States
☐ A private institution or non-university/college setting outside the United States.

Q5 Experience teaching reading in university- or college-based English language programs?

☐ 1-5 years   ☐ 6-10 years   ☐ 11-15 years   ☐ 16 years or more

Q6 Extensive reading—Attitudes, Practice, and Recommendations

 

	Definitely not	Probably not	Probably yes	Definitely yes
1. I know what extensive reading (ER) means.
2. I am familiar with research about extensive reading.
3. I believe that extensive reading has a positive effect on language acquisition.
4. I include extensive reading as part of my in-class teaching program.
5. I take time in class to train students in ER practices.
6. I provide my students with linguistically simplified ER materials.
7. I allow my students to select their own reading materials (e.g., books)
8. I have a system for monitoring my students’ reading.
9. I believe that ER reading comprehension should be assessed.
10. I believe there is a direct correlation between reading speed [resulting from ER] and reading comprehension
11. I would like to include (more) in-class ER activities but already have competing curricular demands that prevent me from doing so.

The following questions will give you the opportunity to share more about your experience. 

Q7 What comes to mind when you hear the term “Extensive Reading?”
Q8 How can extensive reading help students learn English? Please list 2-3 top benefits/ways.
Q9 What do you usually do to encourage students to engage with ER?
Q10 What do you do to monitor your students’ engagement with ER?
Q11 What makes it challenging for instructors in English language programs to implement ER? Please list 2-3 top challenges.
Q12 What do you think language program instructors should do—or not do—to promote (more) ER? Please be specific.
Q13 Please feel free to share any comments, anecdotes, or tips related to ER implementation.

Thank you for your time spent taking this survey.

[back]

Appendix B

Exploring Instructors’ Attitudes Toward Extensive Reading in Language Programs

Interview

Semi-structured questions to guide the interviews with U.S.-based ELP instructors

Dear esteemed colleague,

The present study investigates ER in US-based ELPs. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. I am interested in your experience based on your current or previous program/teaching experience. I’d like to capture your input on two guiding questions:

RQ1: How is extensive reading defined and operationalized in university and college-based English language programs (ELPs)?
RQ2: Why are instructors implementing or not implementing ER sufficiently in ELPs

Background information

• What’s your teaching experience in ELPs?
• What student population do you usually teach? Tell me about one class/level that you typically teach.
• How long have you taught ER in a U.S. higher education context?

Definition & Challenges

1. How do you define ER? What keywords automatically come to mind when you hear ER?
2. How have you ever heard of ER? How did you learn about ER? Graduate school, a particular program you taught in, your research and inquiry, or other reasons?
3. What factors influence your decision to include or not include ER in your teaching?
4. Seemingly, ER is not implemented/integrated sufficiently in US-based ELPs. Why do you think many ELPs aren’t implementing ER?

Thank you for your participation.

[back]

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.