ER is probably unfamiliar to many students entering your class. Any key points about how you "sell" ER to students? Orientation? Explanation of purpose/goals? Getting them into the books, etc.?

Yes, an orientation is absolutely necessary. In fact, each student in my course gets a Free Voluntary Reading (FVR) textbook, which I mentioned earlier. This book is an improved version of the pamphlet that I wrote a long time ago which is on the Extensive Reading website http://www.extensivereading.net/er/start.html. This book contains an explanation of the Comprehension (Input) Theory with its five supporting hypotheses, what the reading method is like, what students will be asked to do for the course, the evidence of the effects and efficiency of the reading and story-listening methods from research, and lastly the testimonials from former students. I want them to know before they start my course that the method has scientific evidence, and that it is not just my personal preference. I included all my research findings in there-I think it is about 16 studies. I talk about my studies as I think that the students are probably not interested in studies done in Singapore or England. The studies have been done here in Osaka using students who are just like them.

I ask my students to read the above textbook and write a reflection of the book and the course. Every year they tell me that they agree with the theory, and they are willing to cooperate with my guidance. They say they want to be like the former students who succeeded in the reading class. Most of them tell me that they failed in their past attempts to become good at English, and that therefore they would like to try this time with FVR and story-listening. I find this orientation very necessary for a rewarding ER course. When they do not understand its significance, accept it, and decide to cooperate with the teacher, they will soon complain and not read.

For example, I did a study with Masuko Ikeda at Tezukayama University in Osaka about 10 years ago. She was having trouble with her students. Her students complained and did not read much. Her ER group did better than her IR group but did not gain as much as my ER group at IBU. She wondered why it was so as the level of the students seemed to be similar, and what we concluded was that her students were not happy with what she was asking them to do. Her students did not understand the theory behind the method, why they were asked to read easy books and were not doing grammar exercises or speaking activities. They needed to understand the theory - they needed to understand the fundamental differences between the two approaches, skill-based and comprehension-based, why they needed to read a lot, what the outcome of their efforts would be if they cooperated, and how other students had benefited from the method.

I shouldn't paint too rosy a picture here. Although at the beginning students say they understand, and I think the information goes a long way toward making them willing to try, students also tell me later that they did not really believe me until they actually saw their improvements with the method. In the first semester they say they will try to cooperate, but many are still skeptical. However, at the end of the semester they have a chance to find out how much they improved by taking the post-test which is very similar to the pre-test. At the post-test they realize that they can read faster, write more, and know a lot more words. They realize that English words flow out while writing a summary in English while they could not squeeze much English out of their head when they took the pre-test. They also notice that they can read books one or two levels higher at the end of the first semester with faster speed. Then they know that this method is working.

3