Mintra Puripunyavanich<\/strong> 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 \u201cextensive reading.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n Keywords<\/em><\/strong>: implementation of extensive reading, assessing extensive reading, foundation English courses, higher education<\/p>\n 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).<\/p>\n 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\u2019 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.<\/p>\n Extensive reading involves reading large quantities of material suited to the students\u2019 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 \u201ctexts must be well within the learners\u2019 reading competence in the foreign language\u201d (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.<\/p>\n 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\u2014how 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 \u2018ER\u2019. 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\u2019 practices explored in this study.<\/p>\n 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).<\/p>\n Several studies have investigated teachers\u2019 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\u2019 aims of ER implementation or whether there were any relationships among such aims, thus leaving room for further investigation.<\/p>\n 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\u2019 reasons for implementing ER nor collected qualitative data to enrich the investigation.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Collectively, these studies suggest that ERPs with self-regulated learning, interactive elements, and digital components can enhance reading comprehension and motivation in higher education.<\/p>\n Puripunyavanich and Waring (2024) found 83% of the ER practitioners in Japan, Mongolia, Thailand, and Vietnam generally assessed ER in order to recognize students\u2019 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\u2019s opinions on themes was more effective for students at the intermediate level (Kim, 2019). Research shows that assigning scores, which contribute to students\u2019 total course grade, for ER activities can motivate students extrinsically (e.g., Puripunyavanich, 2021; Sek et al., 2021). Tamrackitkun (2010) recommended allocating 5\u201310% 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\u2019 attitudes toward reading, research indicates it has no negative effect on learners\u2019 perceptions (Robb & Kano, 2013; Stoeckel et al., 2012). Assessment, thus, ensures ER remains a valued and integrated aspect of education.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s (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\u2019s (2024) study provided evidence that ER practitioners in Japan, Mongolia, Thailand, and Vietnam also used IR materials for doing ER.<\/p>\n 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\u2019 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.<\/p>\n The study investigates the following research questions:<\/p>\n This research used a mixed methods design, where quantitative and qualitative approaches complement each other (D\u00f6rnyei, 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\u2019s findings. These research instruments are explained in the instruments section.<\/p>\n 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\u2014reading, writing, listening, and speaking\u2014but some universities may focus on just one or two skills. As part of teaching reading in an FE course at the author\u2019s university, for instance, students are usually required to read four reading passages in four units in the main textbook (Evolve Level 5<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n This study examined EFL university teachers\u2019 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).<\/p>\n 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\u2019 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<\/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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Appendix A<\/a> shows the MHESI divides higher education institutions into seven categories: autonomous universities, public universities, former teacher\u2019s colleges (Rajabhat universities), former technical colleges (Rajamangala universities), private universities, private institutes, and colleges.<\/p>\n The questionnaire participants were divided into two groups: Group A (55.56%, n<\/em> = 35) comprising the participants who had less experience with ER implementation, ranging between 0.5 and 5 years, and Group B (44.44%, n<\/em> = 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.<\/p>\n Table 1. Questionnaire Participants\u2019 Affiliation Information<\/strong><\/p>\n 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Table 2. Interview Participants\u2019 Demographic Background<\/strong><\/p>\n The study employed two research instruments: an online questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The questionnaire included 48 questions across five sections: Part 0: Participant\u2019s confirmation of qualification, Part 1: Participant\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Six semi-structured interview questions were used to explore the participants\u2019 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\u2019s alpha of 0.924. Relevant questionnaire and interview items are provided in Appendix B<\/a>.<\/p>\n A research participant recruitment poster and a Google Forms questionnaire link were posted and shared via email, Facebook, MHESI\u2019s 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\u2019s university and participants signed consent forms prior to interviews. Conducted in Thai, the interviews lasted 40\u201372 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.<\/p>\n Quantitative data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 29 for both descriptive and inferential statistics. Specifically, an independent-samples t<\/em>-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<\/em> = .092). Thus, parametric statistics, including the independent-sample t<\/em>-test and Pearson correlation, were used. The degree of correlation was interpreted following Turney (2022). In addition, percentages were used to answer RQs3\u20135.<\/p>\n 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).<\/p>\n
\nChulalongkorn University Language Institute, Thailand
\n<mintra.p![\"atmark\"](\"http:\/\/www.tesl-ej.org\/atmark.png\")
chula.ac.th><\/p>\nAbstract<\/h3>\n
Literature Review<\/h3>\n
Extensive Reading (ER)<\/h4>\n
EFL Teachers\u2019 Aims and Practices of Implementing Extensive Reading<\/h4>\n
The Implementation of Extensive Reading in Foundation English Courses in Thailand<\/h4>\n
Assessment of Extensive Reading<\/h4>\n
Reading Materials<\/h4>\n
Research Questions<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
Methodology<\/h3>\n
Research Design<\/h4>\n
Research Context<\/h4>\n
Participants and Sampling Methods<\/h4>\n
\n\n
\n Institution type<\/strong><\/td>\n Autonomous universities<\/strong><\/td>\n Public universities<\/strong><\/td>\n Former teacher\u2019s colleges<\/strong><\/td>\n Former technical colleges<\/strong><\/td>\n Private universities<\/strong><\/td>\n Private institutes<\/strong><\/td>\n Total<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Group A<\/td>\n % (n<\/em>)<\/td>\n 51.43% (18)<\/td>\n 2.86% (1)<\/td>\n 17.14% (6)<\/td>\n 2.86% (1)<\/td>\n 20.00% (7)<\/td>\n 5.71% (2)<\/td>\n 100% (35)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Group B<\/td>\n % (n<\/em>)<\/td>\n 39.29% (11)<\/td>\n 10.71% (3)<\/td>\n 25.00% (7)<\/td>\n 3.57% (1)<\/td>\n 10.71% (3)<\/td>\n 10.71% (3)<\/td>\n 100% (28)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n\n
\n Pseudonym <\/strong><\/td>\n Years of implementing ER<\/strong><\/td>\n Institution type<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lalin<\/td>\n 8 weeks<\/td>\n Autonomous university<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Warit<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n Autonomous university<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Natcha<\/td>\n 3<\/td>\n Former technical college<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Nada<\/td>\n 3<\/td>\n Former teacher\u2019s college<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 5.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Picha<\/td>\n 4<\/td>\n Former teacher\u2019s college<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 6.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Airin<\/td>\n 4<\/td>\n Autonomous university<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 7.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Bhurin<\/td>\n 5<\/td>\n Private university<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 8.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Praewa<\/td>\n 20<\/td>\n Private institution<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Research Instruments<\/h4>\n
Data Collection and Analysis<\/h4>\n
Results<\/h3>\n