







































Microsoft Word - 6. Ehsan Namaziandost


60

Texts with Various Levels of Hardness, Reading Comprehension and Reading

Motivation

Ehsan Namaziandost, Mehdi Nasri, Fariba Rahimi Esfahani 

Department of English, Faculty of Humanities, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran

Article Info

________________
Article History:
Received in 21 June

2019

Approved in 29 July

2019

Published in 29 July

2019

________________
Keywords: Comprehensible
Input; Extensive reading;
Foreign language reading
motivation; Input; Reading
comprehension; Text difficulty
level
____________________

Abstract

___________________________________________________________________
Considering the vital role of comprehensible input, this study attempted to compare

the effects of input with various difficulty levels on Iranian EFL learners’ reading

comprehension and reading motivation. To fulfil this objective, 54 Iranian pre-

intermediate EFL learners were selected from two intact classes (n = 27 each). The

selected participants were randomly assigned to two equal groups, namely “i+1”

(n=27) and “i-1” group (n=27). Then, the groups were pretested by a researcher-made

reading comprehension test. After carrying out the pre-test, the treatment (i.e.,

extensive reading at different levels of difficulty) was practiced on the both groups.

The participants in “i+1” group received reading passages beyond the current level,

on the other hand, the “i-1” group received those reading passages which were below

their current level. After the instruction ended, a modified version of pre-test was

conducted as posttest to determine the impacts of the treatment on the students’

reading comprehension. The obtained results indicated that there was a significant

difference between the post-tests of “i+1” and “i-1” groups. The findings showed that

the “i+1” group significantly outperformed the “i-1” group (p < .05) on the post-test.

Moreover, the findings indicated that “i+1” group’s motivation increased after the

treatment. The implications of the study suggest that interactive type of input is

beneficial to develop students’ language skills.

© 2019 Universitas Negeri Semarang

 Correspondent Address: ISSN 2252-6706
B3 Building FBS Unnes

Sekaran, Gunungpati, Semarang, 50229

E-maile.namazi75@yahoo.com

ELT FORUM 8 (1) (2019)

Journal of English Language Teaching

http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/elt



E. Namaziandost, M. Nasri, & F. R. Esfahani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

61

INTRODUCTION

There is a consensus of agreement among the researchers that input is vital for language learning to come

about but they may not have analogous opinions about the way it is utilized by learners (Gass & Selinker,

2008). Input may be operationally described as “oral and/or written corpus of target language to which

second language (L2) learners are subjected via different sources, and is perceived by them as language

input” (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 26). According to Ellis (2012), input-based instruction “includes the

utilization of the input that learners are presented to or are needed to process” (p. 285). In this procedure,

through presentation to language input, if students discover the way language works or the way language

is rehearsed in workplace, or handicraft target condition, learning will be occurred (Basturkmen, 2006).

Thus, it can be deduced that input is of fundamental significance for language learning abilities particularly

reading.

Reading is seen as “an essential expertise for EFL learners to enhance their language ability”

(Chiang, 2015, p. 11). Reading is characterized as “a fluent process of readers joining information from a

text and their own background knowledge to fabricate meaning” (Nunan, 2003, p. 68). It gives chances to

foreign language learners to be presented to English in circumstances that language input is entirely

restricted (Lao & Krashen, 2000; Namaziandost, Rahimi Esfahani, & Ahmadi, 2019; Wu, 2012).

In recent years, extensive reading (ER) has gained particular consideration as an impressive and

undertaking way of expanding foreign language skills (Yamashita, 2013). ER aims “to progress good

reading habits to form knowledge of vocabulary and grammar and to encourage a liking for reading”

(Richards & Schmidt, 2010, p. 194). The major purpose in ER is to reach at a general understanding of

what is read (Richards & Schmidt, 2010). ER is for general comprehending in which “the minimum 95%

comprehension figure” (Meng, 2009, p. 134) is admissible and the reading velocity is below 100 to 150

words per minute (Mikeladze, 2014). Truly, some studies (e.g., Bell, 2001; Chiang, 2015; Hitosugi & Day,

2004; Iwahori, 2008; Leung, 2002; Namaziandost & Ahmadi, 2019; Tanaka, 2007) have presented that

ER significantly enhanced foreign language reading comprehension and general proficiency.

One of the best bountiful sources for providing language input for EFL learners is through extensive

reading (ER) (Day & Bamford, 1998; Krashen, 1982; Nasri, Biria, & Karimi, 2018). As indicated by

Krashen (1982), the input to which learners are presented ought to be a little above their current level of

competence, ‘i + 1,’ in which ‘i’ alludes to the present language capacity of learner, though ‘1’ alludes to

the input that is somewhat above the learners’ present language ability. On the other hand, Day and

Bamford (1998) suggested a diverse model on the hardness level of the input. Based on this hypothesis,

“ER is efficacious if it furnishes students with input which is marginally beneath their current level of

competence (i.e., ‘i-1’)” (Day & Bamford, 1998, p. 36). This way language learners can swiftly develop

their reading certainty, reading fluency and construct sight words and high-frequency words.

However, a glance to the prior literature divulges that there are rare studies on the impacts of these

two viewpoints (i.e., ‘i + 1’ and ‘i - 1’) on EFL learners’ reading comprehension and reading motivation.

To cover the extant gap, the current study tried to focus on this theme by inspecting how Krashen’s input

hypothesis through ‘i + 1’ and ‘i - 1’ materials may impress EFL students’ reading comprehension and

reading motivation.

Reading comprehension has been defined by researchers as "a critical part of the multifarious

interplay of mechanisms involved in L2 reading" (Brantmeier, 2005, p. 52). For many students, reading is

presumed as the beneficial dexterity that they can utilize inside and outside the classroom. It is additionally

the skill that can preserve the lengthy time. According to Allen and Valette (1999), “reading is not only

allotting foreign language sounds to the written words, but also the comprehension of what is written" (p.



E. Namaziandost, M. Nasri, & F. R. Esfahani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

62

249). Miller (2008) characterized "Reading comprehension as the ability to comprehend or to get meaning

from any kind of written materials” (p. 8).

Furthermore, Papalia (2004) believed that reading comprehension in prevalent utilization and more

particularly in referral to training and psychology has approximately identical meaning as comprehending

the massage of the text. Grellet (1981) guaranteed that "reading comprehension is getting written text

means extricating the needed information from it as effectively as feasible" (p. 3). Grellet additionally

believed that “reading comprehension is not sufficient to comprehend the epitome of the text but further

voluminous information is indispensable too” (p. 13).

Wood (2005) confirmed reading included understanding meaning from the written words. Janzen

(1996) declared that “reading comprehension as the capacity to learn lexical data (i.e., semantic data at

the word level and infer sentences and discourse elucidations but reading on graphic regarding

development touching through the eye” (p. 8). Webster's Collegiate Dictionary considered reading

comprehension as "the valence of mind to see and comprehend the meaning imparted by the content."

Regarding the mentioned points, reading widely is an individual movement which depends on the

students' fondness (Nasri & Biria, 2017; Nation, 1997). Extensive reading (ER) boosts reader’s reading

aptitudes and it is shortsighted to urge EFL students to peruse better through ER which is enchanting to

them (Azadi, Biria, & Nasri, 2018; Nuttal, 2000). The principle objective of an Extensive reading plan is

to give a circumstance to students to appreciate reading a foreign language and new real messages quietly

at their own velocity and with satisfactory comprehension (Day & Bamford, 1998). “ER is bolstered by

Krashen’s (1982, 1994) input hypothesis, affective filter hypothesis, and delight hypothesis” (Bahmani &

Farvardin, 2017, p. 6).

Reading extensively is an individual activity which is based on the learners’ interest (Nation, 1997).

ER enhances reader’s reading skills and it is easy to teach EFL learners to read better through ER which

is enjoyable to them (Hosseini, Nasri, & Afghari, 2017; Namaziandost, Nasri, & Rahimi Esfahani, 2019;

Nuttal, 2000). The fundamental objective of an ER program is to provide a situation for learners to enjoy

reading a foreign language and unfamiliar authentic texts silently at their own pace and with sufficient

understanding (Day & Bamford, 1998). ER is supported by Krashen’s (1982, 1994) input hypothesis,

affective filter hypothesis, and pleasure hypothesis.

According to Krashen’s (1982) input hypothesis, adequate exposure to comprehensible input is

essential for language learners to learn the language. According to this hypothesis, the input to which

learners are exposed should be a little beyond their current level of language competence, i.e., ‘i+ 1.’ Based

on this hypothesis, when learners frequently and repeatedly meet and concentrate on a large number of

messages (input) which is a little beyond their level of competence, they gradually acquire the forms.

Furthermore, based on Krashen’s affective filter hypothesis (1982), language acquisition occurs in low-

anxiety situations. Foreign language learners with a low affective filter (e.g., anxiety) will attain the

language acquisition or comprehension more easily (Huang, 2001; Namaziandost, Abedi, & Nasri, 2019).

In the same vein, Krashen (1994) proposed the pleasure hypothesis, arguing that the pleasurable activities

are effective and facilitating for language and literacy development. Based on this hypothesis, ER provides

a low-anxiety situation for learners to learn a foreign language. Krashen’s hypotheses have encouraged

different universities and institutions to do research in ER and utilize ER programs in foreign language

teaching (Chiang, 2015).

The Input Hypothesis directs the question of how we get language. This speculation expresses that

we obtain (not learn) language by comprehending input that is a little past our current level of procured

capability (Krashen & Terrell 1983; Namaziandost, Rahimi Esfahani, Nasri, & Mirshekaran, 2018). This

has been lately declared perspicuously by Krashen (2003a): “we procure language in just one way: when



E. Namaziandost, M. Nasri, & F. R. Esfahani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

63

we comprehend messages; that is, when we acquire “comprehensible input” (p. 4). This potent allegation

is rehashed in different spots where Krashen expresses that ‘comprehending inputs is the main way

language is obtained’ and that ‘there is no individual variety in the key procedure of language

procurement’ (Krashen 2003a, p. 4). Consequently, Krashen frequently utilizes the term ‘comprehension

hypothesis’ (2003a) to allude to the Input Hypothesis, contending that ‘perception’ is a superior depiction

as only input is not sufficient; it must be comprehended.

Thus, based on Krashen’s (1982) input hypothesis, adequate presentation to understandable input

is essential for language students to learn language. In light of this speculation, the input to which students

are uncovered ought to be a little past their current level of language ability, i.e., ‘i + 1’. Considering

Krashen’s perspective, when learners constantly and repeatedly confront and concentrate on an expansive

quantity of input which is a little higher than their level of capability, they inchmeal obtain the structures.

Krashen’s input hypotheses have motivated different universities and institutions to accomplish researches

and studies in ER and utilize ER programs in teaching TEFL (Bahmani & Farvardin, 2017; Chiang, 2015;

Hashemifardnia, Namaziandost, & Sepehri, 2018).

Day and Bamford (1998), in particular, suggested a modern scheme which is diverse from

Krashen’s (1982) input hypothesis. Based on this scheme, “ER is advantageous if it furnishes the

students with input which is somewhat beneath their current level of competence (i.e., ‘i-1’)” (Bahmani &

Farvardin, 2017, p. 4). Moreover, “‘i-1’ creates a condition for automaticity educating and extending a

huge sight vocabulary rather than learning new target structures” (Mikeladze, 2014, p. 5). Truth to be told,

‘i-1’ is considered as the learners’ tranquility zone where they can rapidly construct their reading certainty

and reading fluency (Chiang, 2015; Namaziandost & Nasri, 2019).

All of researchers and teachers accepted that motivation is a basic factor to enhance reading

comprehension. As indicated by Dornyei (2001), the meaning of motivation is very intricate and

obscurant because it is t is made out of various models and hypotheses. As discussed by Protacio (2012),

“reading problems occur partly due to the fact that people are not motivated to read in the first place” (p.

11). Moley Bandré, and George (2011) explain that, motivation happens when “students develop an

interest in and form a bond with a topic that lasts beyond the short term” (p. 251). Furthermore, Guthrie

and Wigfield (2000, p.405) propound that “reading motivation is the individual’s personal objectives,

values, and beliefs regarding the topics, processes, and outcomes of reading”. Considering this delineation,

one would come to two principle consequences: The first is that reading motivation refers to putting

together of various dimensions of motivation in an intricate route. The second is the type of agency people

have over it since they can manipulate, unify and divert their motivation to read in terms of their credence,

worthiness and objectives (Wigfield & Tonks, 2004). “Not only does reading motivation relate to reading

comprehension, but it also relates to both the amount of reading and students’ reading achievement”

(Guthrie & Wigfield, 2005, p. 76). Guthrie et al. (2006, p.232) elucidate that “reading motivation

correlates with students’ amount of reading”. For this purpose, Guthrie and Wigfield (2005) emphasize

the perspective that “reading motivation is domain-specific as it belongs to a status that necessitates an

emotional reaction particular to a reading material, and that would metamorphose based on the diversity

of activities inaugurating it” (p.89).

Pachtman and Wilson (2006) expressed that it is crucial to propel students to read by giving them

chances to choose their interest materials. In other words, readers need to read more when they are

allowed to choose their reading materials since they should find out that reading is a pleasurable action.

As indicated by Hairul, Ahmadi, and Pourhosein (2012), reading motivation is the substantial measure of

motivation that learners need to focus their positive or negative feelings about reading. For example,

students who read for joy and utilizing ways to help their understanding are amazingly roused readers.



E. Namaziandost, M. Nasri, & F. R. Esfahani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

64

Students of this sort regularly view reading as a vital factor in their daily exercises, acknowledge difficulties

in the reading procedure and are probably going to be effective readers.

Hairul, Ahmadi, and Pourhosein (2012) believed that reading motivation greatly affects reading

appreciation. The researchers proceeded with that reading motivation impacts all parts of motivation and

reading appreciation procedures in various conditions. They additionally accentuated that learners'

inspiration totally influences their understanding; it implies that learners with more stronger reading

inspiration can be relied upon to read more in more extensive territory. As indicated by Hairul, Ahmadi,

and Pourhosein (2012), a standout amongst the most essential components which help students read more

is reading inspiration and it importantly affects reading perception. In this manner, numerous researchers

have been very much aware of the noteworthiness of inspiration in the objective language learning and

how inspiration expands appreciation among language students.

Prior researches have checked the impacts of ER on EFL reading comprehension and vocabulary

learning. Bell (2001) carried out a two-semester study on young adult students at the elementary level in

Yemen to compare the impacts of ER and intensive reading on reading speed and reading comprehension.

This study was run over two semesters. The researcher divided students into two groups: an experimental

group (n = 14) and a control group (n = 12). The experimental group received an ER program and read

graded readers; these students had access to 2000 graded readers in the British Council library. On the

other hand, the control group received the intensive reading program, read short passages and filled the

tasks. The researcher measured students’ reading speed by utilizing two reading tests, and for measuring

their reading comprehension he utilized three various texts with three types of questions (cloze, multiple-

choice, and true-false). The two groups enhanced both in speed and reading comprehension, but the ER

program based on graded readers was much more effective to the enhancement of reading speed than the

intensive reading program. The outcomes of the reading comprehension test also indicated that the

learners in the extensive group got higher scores than students in the intensive group.

Chiang (2015) researched the impacts of different text difficulty on L2 reading perceptions

and reading comprehension. To give the ideal test to L2 reading, comprehensible input hypothesis

hypothesizes that selecting text somewhat more difficult than the student's present level will improve

reading perception. Fifty-four freshman from one college in central Taiwan were arbitrarily separated into

two groups. Level 3 and level 4 Oxford Graded Readers were given to the learners in the ‘i -1’ group while

students in the ‘i + 1’ group were equipped with level 5 and level 6. Quantitative data were collected

through the English Placement Test and the Reading Attitudes Survey. Findings from the pretest and

posttest of the Reading Attitudes Survey propose that the i-1 group has achieved significantly in reading

attitudes, while no difference in reading attitude was recognized with the i + 1 group. The outcomes

additionally indicated that diverse hardness levels of reading text did not significantly influence

participants’ reading comprehension.

Bayat and Pomplun (2016) aimed to indicate how several eye-tracking features within reading are

influenced by different primary agents, as individual discrepancies, the hardness level of the text, and the

topic of the text. To this end, they directed an eye-following experiment with 21 participants who read six

sections with various points. For each topic, metamorphosis in three factors were assessed: the mediocre

obsession term, the student estimate, and the normal rapidity of reading. The Flesch reading ease score

was utilized as a measurement for the hardness level of the content. Examination of difference is utilized

as a part of request to break down determinant factors related with content attributes, containing the

difficulty level and the point of the content. The findings showed that during the reading of entries with

comparable difficulty levels, the point of the content has no noteworthy impact on mediocre obsession



E. Namaziandost, M. Nasri, & F. R. Esfahani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

65

span and mediocre understudy estimate, though a critical effect overall speed of reading is watched.

Additionally, individual properties have a primary effect on eye-movement demeanor.

Ahmadi (2017) attempted to consider the effect of reading motivation on reading comprehension.

In his paper, he explained the terms reading motivation, different types of motivation, reading

comprehension, and different models of reading comprehension. The review of this study showed that

reading motivation had a considerably positive effect on reading comprehension activities.

Recently, Bahmani and Farvardin (2017) examined the impacts of various text difficulty

levels on foreign language reading anxiety (FLRA) and reading comprehension of English as a

Foreign Language (EFL) learners. To fulfil this objective, 50 elementary EFL learners were chosen from

two intact classes (n = 25 each). One class was considered as ‘i + 1’ and another as ‘i-1’. The participants

in each class practiced extensive reading at diverse levels of difficulty for

two semesters. A reading comprehension test and the FLRA Scale were administered before and after the

treatment. The outcomes indicated that both text difficulty levels significantly enhanced the participants’

reading comprehension. Moreover, the results revealed that, the ‘i + 1’ group’s FLRA augmented, while

that of the ‘i - 1’ group diminished.

However, to the best of the researchers’ knowledge, rare studies, if any, have been carried out on

the impacts of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (i.e., ‘i + 1’ and ‘i - 1’) on EFL learners’ reading comprehension

and reading motivation. To reach the purposes of the study, this study attempted to response the following

research questions:

RQ1: Are there any significant differences between and within the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i - 1’ groups’

reading comprehension after implementing the treatment? If so, which group has higher reading

comprehension in English?

RQ2: Are there any significant differences between and within the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i - 1’ groups’

reading motivation after implementing the treatment? If so, which group has higher motivation towards

reading in English?

METHODS

Design

a quasi-experimental approach was utilized in this study gather data from 54 EFL learners to check the

potentially various impacts of using ‘i + 1’ versus ‘i - 1’ readers on reading motivation and reading

comprehension. To this end, the reading motivation and reading comprehension of the participants were

quantitatively measured prior to and after the intervention of ER through the Foreign Language Reading

Motivation and the FCE (First Certificate in English).

Participants

Fifty-four EFL learners (25 males and 29 females) from a private language institute in Ahvaz, Iran, took

part in this study. The participants’ ages ranged from 16 to 21. American Headway 1 (Soars & Soars,

2010) was the textbook taught to the participants. According to the Common European Framework of

Reference (CEFR) classification, American Headway 2 is appropriate for the B1 level. To ensure the

participants’ proficiency level, CEFR Headway placement test (2012) was performed to all participants,

and their score ranged between 66 and 74, which is equal to B1 level. The participants were chosen from

two intact classes. Each class was assigned to a group (i.e., ‘i + 1’ or ‘i - 1’). The ‘i + 1’ group (n = 27) read

graded readers stories which were beyond their level of proficiency, whereas the ‘i - 1’ group (n = 27) read

graded readers stories which were below their level of proficiency. The participants read graded readers



E. Namaziandost, M. Nasri, & F. R. Esfahani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

66

along with their classroom materials. Per week, 35 minutes of class time was devoted to the participants’

narration of the novels they had already read.

Instruments

CEFR Headway Placement Test

CEFR Headway placement test is designed to provide a useful tool to estimate the participants’ level at

which they should begin or continue their English language studies (Bahmani & Farvardin, 2017). This

test was selected because the participants were studying American Headway. Moreover, the American

Headway book, CEFR Headway placement test (2012) and Oxford Bookworm Series (the graded readers

in this study) were classified based on CEFR. It could be a big help to determine the probable ‘i’ of

participants (Bahmani & Farvardin, 2017). CEFR Headway placement test (2012) comprised of 100

multiple-choice items with three sections, including 50 vocabulary, 25 grammar and 25 reading

comprehension items. The findings were compared with the band score of CEFR Headway placement

test (see Table 1).

Table 1 Band score of CEFR Headway placement test

Test result CEFR level

0-40 A1- low

41-48 A1- high

49-56 A2- low

57-65 A2- high

66-74 B1- low

75-83 B1-low-medium

84-92 B1- medium-high

93-100 B1- high

Graded Readers

The reading materials in this study were the Oxford Bookworms Series published by Oxford University

Press. The Oxford Bookworms Series classifies books into seven levels. Table 2 indicates the word counts

and CEFR levels in the Oxford Bookworms series.

Table 2 Word counts and CEFR levels in the Oxford Bookworms Series

Book levels Word counts CEFR levels

Starter 250 A1

Level 1 400 A1/A2

Level 2 700 A2/B1

Level 3 1,000 B1

Level 4 1,400 B1/B2

Level 5 1,800 B2

Level 6 2,500 B2/C1

To make sure what level is appropriate, nine EFL learners at the pre-intermediate level and four

EFL teachers were asked to read the Oxford Bookworms Series at various levels. After studying the books,

all teachers agreed that for the pre-intermediate level learners, Starter, Level, and Level 2 were really easy,



E. Namaziandost, M. Nasri, & F. R. Esfahani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

67

and Levels 4, 5 and 6 were both grammatically and lexically difficult. According to the teachers, Level 3

was considered suitable for the pre-intermediate level. The learners also reported that Level 3 was

comprehensible for them. Level 3 equals to levels B1 in CEFR. Therefore, Level 3 was determined as the

appropriate level for the participants. Accordingly, the ‘i - 1’ group was proposed to read Levels 1 and 2

and the ‘i + 1’ group was suggested to read Levels 4 and 5. The participants were required to read two

books at each level throughout the study.

Reading comprehension test

The reading comprehension part of the Cambridge First Certificate in English (FCE, 2008) was used to

measure the participants’ reading comprehension ability. This part comprised of three reading passages

which include both macro and micro questions, such as the expression of opinion, attitude, purpose, main

idea, detail, tone and gist. The reading section of the FCE includes 30 items that should be replied in 30

minutes. This study utilized two equivalent versions of the FCE, one as a pretest and the other as a posttest.

A Parson correlation coefficient between the two equivalent forms of the FCE was calculated as 0.936

which indicated a high reliability between the two versions of the test.

The Motivation for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ)

Another instrument utilized in the present study was a modified sample of Motivation for

Reading Questionnaire (MRQ). MRQ was expanded by Dr. Allan Wigfield and Dr. John Guthrie from

University of Maryland in 1997. Wigfield and Guthrie utilized the MRQ on a group of students at one

mid-Atlantic state school during implementation of Concept-Oriented Reading teaching. Factor analyses

carried out by Wigfield and Guthrie affirmed the essence of construct validity which backups eleven

factors for the total 53 -item in this MRQ. There was an affirmative relevance of maximum segments of

reading motivation with low - to high levels. They additionally asserted that their questionnaire has a

reliability range from .43 to .81. In this research, the researchers had selected 30 items of the entire 53

items in the questionnaire because solely eight aspects of total eleven aspects of reading motivation were

identified to measure. They are: reading efficacy, reading challenge, reading curiosity, reading

involvement, importance of reading, reading word avoidance, social reasons for reading, and reading for

grades. MRQ was a five-point Likert scale questionnaire made up of five options: 1 for ‘I strongly agree’,

2 for ‘I agree’, 3 for ‘I don’t know’, 4 for ‘I disagree’, and 5 for ‘I strongly disagree’. The MRQ was given

to participants twice, one before the treatment and once after the treatment.

Data Collection Procedure

Fifty-four pre-intermediate EFL learners were participated in this study. In the first week, the CEFR

Headway placement test was performed to specify the participants’ proficiency levels. This test

additionally helped the researchers detemine the probable participants’ ‘i.’ In the second week, the MRQ

and the reading comprehension test were carried out in 80 minutes. Based on the outcomes of the CEFR

Headway placement test (2012), the ‘i + 1’ group were assigned to read graded readers at Levels 4 and 5,

and the ‘i - 1’ group were assigned to read Level 1 and Level 2 graded stories. There was a small library

and bookstore in the language institute to provide the participants with the graded readers. It was also

proposed that if they would not find the book of their interest, they could find them from other libraries

and bookstores outside.

The number of pages the participants required to read was specified at the outset of each week. At

the end of each week, 20 minutes of the class was allocated for their reports. The participants were given



E. Namaziandost, M. Nasri, & F. R. Esfahani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

68

time to talk about various parts and the characters of the novels, their ideas about the end of the novels,

and even provided some comments regarding the novels. In the first semester, the ‘i + 1’ group read two

graded readers at Level 4 which were one level beyond their ‘i’, and in the second semester, they read two

graded readers at Level 5. On the other hand, in the first semester, the ‘i - 1’ group read two graded readers

at the Level 1 which was two levels below their ‘i’ and in the second semester, they read two graded readers

at Level 2 which was one level below their ‘i.’ Finally, after a three-month involvement in this study, the

findings of these two various ways were compared with each other. In the last week of, the participants

received an immediate posttest. They responded the MRQ and an equivalent version of the reading

comprehension test in one session. The procedure was like the pretest.

Data Analysis

Collected data through the aforesaid procedures were analyzed by using Statistical Package for Social

Science (SPSS) software version 25. Firstly, Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test was run to check the

normality of the data. Then, two independent samples t-tests were done to figure out if there was any

significant difference between the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i - 1’ groups in terms of reading comprehension and

MRQ. At the end, two 2 x 2 mixed analysis of variance (ANOVAs) were run to discover significant

interaction impacts between time and group from the reading comprehension test and the MRQ.

Furthermore, independent samples t-tests were run to test the simple main impacts of group on the pretests

and the posttests. Paired samples t-tests were also done to further follow up on the simple main impacts

of time on MRQ and reading comprehension for both groups. To indicate the practical significance, for

all of the t-tests, effect sizes (Cohen’s ds) were computed.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The previous section included a delineation of the methodology which was utilized to respond the research

questions of this study, which are rewritten here for reasons of convenience: (a) Are there any significant

differences between and within the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i - 1’ groups’ reading comprehension after implementing

the treatment? If so, which group has higher reading comprehension in English? and (b) Are there any

significant differences between and within the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i - 1’ groups’ reading motivation after

implementing the treatment? If so, which group has higher motivation towards reading in English?

Results of Normality Tests

Before conducting any analyses on the pretest and posttest, it was indispensable to peruse the normality

of the distributions. Thus, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality was run on the data acquired from the

above-mentioned tests. The consequences are presented in Table 1:

Table 3. One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test (Groups' Pretests, Post-tests, and MRQ)

Kolmogorov-Smirnova

Statistic df Sig.

i+1 pretest .165 27 .058

i+1 posttest .192 27 .298

i-1 pretest .215 27 .098

i-1 posttest .223 27 .092

i+1 MRQ (Before Treatment) .186 27 .187

i+1 MRQ (After Treatment) .220 27 .086



E. Namaziandost, M. Nasri, & F. R. Esfahani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

69

i-1 MRQ (Before Treatment) .218 27 .772

i-1 MRQ (After Treatment) .173 27 .183

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

The p values under the Sig. column in Table 3 determine whether the distributions were normal or

not. A p value greater than .05 shows a normal distribution, while a p value lower than .05 demonstrates

that the distribution has not been normal. Since all the p values in Table 1 were larger than .05, it could

be concluded that the distributions of scores for the pretest, posttest, and MRQ obtained from both groups

had been normal. It is thus safe to proceed with parametric test (i.e. Independent and Paired samples t-

tests and mixed-ANOVA in this case) and make further comparisons between the participating groups.

Table 4 displays the means and standard deviations of the participants’ scores on the reading

comprehension tests and the MR questionnaire before and after the study.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the ‘i - 1’ and ‘i + 1’ groups’ responses to reading comprehension test

and MRQ

Pretest Posttest

Reading

Comprehension

MRQ Reading

Comprehension

MRQ

Groups N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

i+1 27 9.37 1.66 52.96 4.72 13.07 2.05 58.11 5.83

i-1 27 9.22 1.05 51.07 6.89 11.48 .096 50.37 3.66

To answer the first research question, one mixed 2 x 2 ANOVA with two main factors, time (i.e.,

reading comprehension pretest and posttest) and group (i.e., ‘i + 1’ and ‘i - 1’) was run to examine whether

there were significant interaction effects between difficulty levels. Furthermore, independent samples t-

tests were run to check the simple main impact of group on the reading comprehension pretest and the

posttest, respectively. Finally, paired samples t-tests were done to investigate the simple main impact of

time for each group. Tables 5and 6 shows the results of the mixed ANOVA on the reading comprehension

tests.

Table 5. Results of mixed-ANOVA on reading comprehension pretest and posttest with time and group

factors

Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts

Source Type III

Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig. Partial Eta

Squared

time 240.009 1 240.009 107.445 .000 .674

time * Groups 14.083 1 14.083 6.305 .015 .108

Error(time) 116.157 52 2.234

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source Type III

Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig. Partial Eta

Squared



E. Namaziandost, M. Nasri, & F. R. Esfahani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

70

Intercept 12566.898 1 12566.898 5496.122 .000 .991

Groups 20.454 1 20.454 8.945 .004 .147

Error 118.898 52 2.287

The results indicated that the main impact of the text difficulty level was not significant [F (1, 52)

= 8.945, p = .004, partial eta squared = .147], proposing a significant difference in the reading

comprehension scores of the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i - 1’ groups. Moreover, there was a significant interaction

between difficulty level and time [F (1, 52) = 6.305, p = .015, partial eta squared = .108], suggesting that

over the course of two semesters, the changes in scores from the reading comprehension differed

significantly between the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i - 1’ groups. There was also significant main impact of time [F

(1, 52) = 6.305, p = .000, partial eta squared =. 674], suggesting a substantial difference in the reading

comprehension scores across two periods. Next to a mixed ANOVA, two independent samples t-tests

were run as follow-up tests to check the simple major impact of group on the pretest and the posttest,

respectively (Table 6).

Table 6. Independent samples t-tests on reading comprehension pretest and posttest scores

Mean

difference

Std. error

difference

T Df P Cohen’s d

Pretest .14815 .37924 .391 52 .698 0.106358

posttest 1.59259 .43705 3.644 52 .001 0.991757

As Table 6 illustrates, the findings indicated that there was no significant difference between the

two groups on the pretest (t = .391, p = .698, d = 0.106358), showing that both the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i - 1’

groups were at a similar baseline prior to the experiment. Moreover, the outcomes show a significant

difference between the two groups in their posttests (t = 3.644, p = .001, d = 0.991757) after the

intervention. Furthermore, paired-samples t-tests were run as follow-up tests to check the simple main

impact of time for each group (Table 7).

Table 7. Paired samples t-tests of both groups (reading comprehension pretest and posttest)

Mean differences SD SEM t df p Cohen’s d

i+1 3.70370 2.64306 .50866 7.281 26 .000 1.978905

i-1 2.25926 1.39622 .26870 8.408 26 .000 2.239838

As illustrated in Table 7, the findings propose that both groups’ reading comprehension was

significantly progressed at the end of this study (t = 7.281, p = .000, d = 1.978905 for the ‘i + 1’ group’s

reading comprehension; t = 8.408, p = .000, d = 2.239838 for the ‘i - 1’ group’s reading comprehension).

That is, the reading comprehension of the ‘i - 1’ and the ‘i + 1’ groups significantly enhanced after the

intervention of ER. Cohen (1988) expressed that the impact size (Cohen’s d) of 0.2 is small; 0.5 is

moderate; and 0.8 is high. Cohen’s effect size values of the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i - 1’ groups’ paired samples t-

tests are d = 1.978905 and d = 2.239838 for reading comprehension, respectively, proposing high practical

significance. To response the second research question, first, a mixed ANOVA was run to assess the

impact of two discriminatory text difficulty levels (‘i + 1’ vs. ‘i - 1’) on participants’ scores from the MRQ

before and after the treatment (Table 8).



E. Namaziandost, M. Nasri, & F. R. Esfahani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

71

Table 8 Results of mixed-ANOVA on MRQ before and after treatment with time and group factors

Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts

Source Type III Sum

of Squares

df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta

Squared

time 133.333 1 133.333 3.355 .073 .061

time * Groups 231.148 1 231.148 5.816 .019 .101

Error(time) 2066.519 52 39.741

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source Type III Sum

of Squares

df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta

Squared

Intercept 304857.815 1 304857.815 16089.782 .000 .997

Groups 625.926 1 625.926 33.035 .000 .388

Error 985.259 52 18.947

As Table 8 indicated, there was significant interaction between difficulty level and time [F (1, 52)

= 5.816, p = .019, partial eta squared = .101], suggesting that over the course of the treatment period, the

changes in scores from the MRQ differed significantly between the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i - 1’ groups. There was

no significant main effect of time [F (1, 52) = 3.355, p = .073, partial eta squared = .061], proposing no

substantial difference in the MRQ scores across the two periods. Moreover, the major impact of the text

difficulty level was significant [F (1, 52) = 33.035, p = .000, partial eta squared = .388], suggesting a

difference in the MRQ scores of the two text difficulty levels. After the mixed ANOVA, two independent

samples t-tests were run to check the simple main impact of group on the pretest and the posttest,

respectively (Table 9).

Table 9. Independent samples t-tests on MRQ before and after treatment

Mean

difference

Std. error

difference

T Df P Cohen’s d

Pretest 1.88889 1.60963 1.173 52 .246 0.319386

posttest 7.74074 1.32528 5.841 52 .000 1.589669

As Table 9 shows, the findings indicated that there was no significant difference between the two

groups before the treatment (t = 1.173, p = .246, d = 0.319386), suggesting that both the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i

- 1’groups were at a similar baseline of MR prior to the experiment. The outcomes also show a significant

difference between the two groups in their posttests (t = 5.841, p = .000, d = 1.589669) after the treatment.

In other words, the ‘i + 1’ group was found to have greater increases in their MRQ scores. Furthermore,

Cohen’s effect size value of the groups’ independent t-tests on the posttest is d = 1.589669 showing high

practical significance. Paired-samples t-tests were also conducted as follow-up tests to check the simple

main impact of time for each group (Table 10).



E. Namaziandost, M. Nasri, & F. R. Esfahani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

72

Table 10. Paired samples t-tests of both groups (MRQ before and after treatment)

Mean differences SD SEM t df p Cohen’s d

i+1 -5.14815 8.86525 1.70612 -3.017 26 .006 0.969698

i-1 .70370 8.96495 1.72531 .408 26 .687 0.127414

As illustrated in Table 10, the findings propose that the ‘i + 1’groups’ reading motivation was

significantly progressed at the end of this study (t = -3.017, p = .006, d = 0.969698), whereas the ‘i - 1’

groups’ FLRA was significantly decreased after the intervention (t = .408, p = .687, d = 0.127414).

Cohen’s effect size values of the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i - 1’groups’ paired samples t-tests are d =0.969698 and d

= 0.127414 for reading motivation, respectively) proposing high practical significance for the ‘i + 1’ group

and moderate practical significance for the ‘i - 1’ group. In summary, the text difficulty significantly

affected the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i - 1’ participants’ FLRA. The findings imply that the ‘i + 1’ group had greater

increases in their MRQ scores.

In brief, the present study aimed to see whether using the i+1 and i-1 could improve the reading

comprehension of EFL learners, and whether there was a difference between the learners’ motivation in

this regard or not. The outcomes of the study indicated that this i+1 significantly improved reading

comprehension of the learners in the experimental group; moreover, the motivation of the experimental

group (i+1) was increased after the treatment. Consistent exposure to the input (i.e., graded readers) over

the treatment period seemed to have had an important effect on improving participants’ reading

comprehension. It could be possible that consistent exposure to written input facilitated the participants’

incidental vocabulary learning (Mikeladze, 2014; Waring & Takaki, 2003).

The obtained results may be due the significant role of inputs which the students had received before

they produced the language. The comprehensible inputs which the students were subjected to before

producing the language greatly helped the students to be able to read English more efficiently. It can be

deduced that comprehension proceeds the production.

Students of the experimental group had improvement on the post-test thanks to the treatment they

had received. The researcher found that the classes were more challenging and the students were more

involved in learning to understand the reading texts. The improvement of the students can be attributed

to the ‘i + 1’ reading texts as Krashen (1982) states input which is somewhat above the present level of

competence of the language learner can be conducive to learning. If i is the language learner’s current level

of competence in the foreign language, then i+1 is the following prompt advance along the improvement

continuum. Accordingly, if the objective is to help the language student advance in their task, it is basic

to furnish the learner with comprehensible input [i +1].

The researcher observed that the students were more motivated to read and understand the

texts that were more difficult for them, they seemed curious to know the meaning of unfamiliar

words and phrases, consequently, they asked the researcher to provide the meaning of unknown

words, phrases, and sentences, and this attempt led to their success in reading comprehension.

More significantly, based on the comparison made between two groups of varying text difficulty,

the i+1 group performed better in reading comprehension and gained better results at the end of the study.

This finding is in line with Krashen’s (1982) input hypothesis. According to Krashen (1982), it was

expected to observe the development of reading comprehension only in the ‘i + 1’ group. For that reason,

the similar development in the ‘i - 1’ group’s reading comprehension seems skeptical. The results of

statistical analysis accepted such an idea and showed that reading the ‘i - 1’ materials did not improve



E. Namaziandost, M. Nasri, & F. R. Esfahani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

73

participants’ reading comprehension. This finding is in contrast with Chiang’s (2015) research in which

the ‘i - 1’ group’s reading comprehension was developed. The results can be due to using ‘i + 1’ materials

which provided a situation for participants to expand their reading comfort zone in which they had the

opportunity to build up their reading confidence and develop a large sight vocabulary rather than learning

new linguistic elements (Day & Bamford, 1998).

This study is supported by Bahmani and Farvardin (2017) who discovered the effectiveness of

different text difficulty levels on FLRA and reading comprehension of EFL learners. The final findings

uncovered that both text difficulty levels significantly enhanced the participants’ reading comprehension.

The outcomes additionally revealed that, the ‘i+ 1’ group’s FLRA enhanced, while that of the ‘i - 1’ group

lessened.

The results of this study also revealed that there was significant effect of time suggesting substantial

difference in the reading comprehension scores across two periods. However, regarding the other previous

studies, time might be less crucial in affecting participants’ reading comprehension. Whether the time of

intervention was two months (Mason & Krashen, 1997), five months (Tanaka, 2007) or even one year

(Chiang, 2015), reading comprehension increased. It might be possible to identify more obvious

differences in reading comprehension between the two groups if the duration of participation in ER could

be extended.

To sum up, the positive effect of i+1 viewed in this study can be ascribed to the vital role of

comprehensible language input providing learners with linguistic data that they are able to understand. In

the field of SLA, there is a mimic metaphor about language input proposed by VanPattn (2003) “input is

to language acquisition what gas is to a car”. There is language input that is better than other input, just

like there is high octane gas that is better than low-octane gas. The “better input” here is comprehensible

and meaning bearing. The more comprehensible and meaning –bearing the input is, the more likely it will

be turned into intake that learners are able to internalize into their cognitive systems.

In contrast to the common belief that easy materials may increase the motivation of EFL

learners, this study proved that the more difficult materials could increase Iranian EFL learners’

motivation towards reading English. It can be claimed that difficult materials have discovery

nature, meaning that, students want to discover and understand new things. In addition, students

may do not have much more motivation to learn easy and ordinary materials without rich content.

These results are congruent with former study (Chiang, 2015; Tanaka, 2007). Constant offering

to the input (i.e., i+1) over times appears to have had a significant impact on developing

learners’ reading comprehension.

CONCLUSION

This study compared the effects of i+1 and i-1 materials on Iranian EFL learners’ reading comprehension

and reading motivation. The findings revealed that i+1 group outperformed the i-1 group. i+1 material

increased reading comprehension and reading motivation of the participants. In addition, it can be

concluded that the materials of EFL English textbooks should be one level higher than the current level

of the students to motivate and challenge them. This study comes to the conclusion that the input

hypothesis of Krashen (1982) “learners progress in their knowledge of the language when they

comprehend language input that is slightly more advanced than their current level” is valid.

The other conclusion which can be drawn from this study is the importance of the EFL

learners’ motivation. The motivation of the students should be increased to learn English language

more easily since motivation directs behavior toward particular goals, it will augment students'

time on task and is additionally a momentous factor having effect on their learning and development.



E. Namaziandost, M. Nasri, & F. R. Esfahani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

74

Motivation boosts cognitive processing. Motivation specifies whether a student will pursue a task (even a

difficult one) with enthusiasm or a lackluster attitude. So, it is important to recognize aspects that foster

internal motivation in English language learning.

This study provides some implications for teachers who are interested in using ER in their classes.

Teachers can take benefit of the ‘i + 1’ or the ‘i - 1’ in ER as a supplementary activity in English courses.

This study suggests that ER is effective in improving EFL learners’ reading comprehension, and helpful

in enhancing vocabulary, grammar and reading speed regardless of the level of materials learners choose.

This study indicates whether the learners choose easier or harder ER materials, they gain more or less

similar results in reading comprehension. According to this study, choosing novels based on the

participants’ own interests can encourage them to eagerly participate in ER program. Ideally, teachers

should consider the value of self-selected materials as a key to a successful implementation of ER.

There are, however, some limitations in the study. First, there were 54 participants in the current

study. In order to gain more evidence about the influence of text difficulty on participants’ FLRM and

reading comprehension, more participants are recommended. Second, lack of random sampling was one

of the limitations of the study. Random sampling will provide more concrete evidence for the effects of

text difficulty on FLRM and reading comprehension. It is recommended to invite larger samples of

learners in order to provide an opportunity for selecting them randomly. Third, future research can be

replicated in ESL contexts. Fourth, in the current study, participants read four novels. Future research

needs to provide a big stock of books and also ask participants to read more to maximize the effects of ER.

Fifth, future research can focus on the effects of the ‘i + 1’ and the ‘i - 1’ hypotheses on other areas of

language learning like grammar. Finally, time commitment is important for ER to be reasonably

successful; this study lasted for three months which may not be enough for full benefits of ER. Future

studies can gain better results if learners participate in ER program for a longer time.

REFERENCES

Ahmadi, M. R. (2017). The Impact of Motivation on Reading Comprehension. International Journal of

Research in English Education (IJREE), 2(1), 1-7

Allen, E., & Vallette, R. (1999). Classroom Techniques: Foreign Languages and English as a

Second Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Azadi, G., Biria, R., & Nasri, M. (2018). Operationalising the Concept of Mediation in L2

Teacher Education. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(1), 132-140.

Bahmani, R., & Farvardin, M. T. (2017). Effects of different text difficulty levels on EFL learners’

foreign language reading anxiety and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign

Language, 29(2), 185–202.

Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of Children’s Motivation for Reading and

their Relations to Reading Activity and Reading Achievement. Reading Research

Quarterly, 34, 452-477. International Reading Association.

Basturkmen, H. (2006). Ideas and options in English for specific purposes. London: The University of

Auckland: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bayat, A., & Pomplun, M. (2016). The influence of text difficulty level and topic on eye movement

behavior and pupil size during reading. 2016 2nd International Conference of Signal

Processing and Intelligent Systems (ICSPIS).

Bell, T. (2001). Extensive reading: Speed and comprehension. The Reading Matrix, 1(1), 1–13.



E. Namaziandost, M. Nasri, & F. R. Esfahani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

75

Brantmeier, C. (2005). Anxiety about L2 reading or L2 reading tasks? A study with advanced

language learners. The Reading Matrix, 5(2), 67–85.

CEFR Headway placement test. (2012). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chiang, M. (2015). Effects of varying text difficulty levels on second language (L2) reading

attitudes and reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 39(4), 1–21.

doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12049.

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

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow. England: Longman.

Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and pedagogy. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

First Certificate in English. (2008). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gass, S.M., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York:

Routledge.

Grellet, F. (1981). Developing Reading Skills. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Guthrie, J. T., & Knowles, K. T. (2001). Promoting Reading Motivation. In Ludo Verhoeven

& Catherine E. Snow (Eds.), Literacy and Motivation: Reading Engagement in

Individuals and Groups (pp.145-160). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and Motivation in Reading. In Michael

Kamil, Peter P. Mosenthal, David P. Pearson, & Rebecca Barr (Eds.), Handbook of

Reading Research, Volume III (pp.403-422). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2005). Roles of Motivation and Engagement in Reading

Comprehension Assessment. In Scott G. Paris & Steven A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s

Reading Comprehension and Assessment (pp.187-213). Mahwah, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., McCann, A. D., Wigfield, A., Bennett, L., Poundstone, C. C.,

Rice, M. E., Faibisch, F. M., Hunt, B., & Mitchell, A. M. (1996.) Growth of literacy

engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies during concept-oriented reading

instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(3), 302–332. International Reading

Association.

Hairul, N. I., Ahmadi, M. R., & Pourhosein Gilakjani, A. (2012). The Role of Reciprocal Teaching

Strategy as an Important Factor of Improving Reading Motivation. Elixir Edu. Tec, 53(3)

11836-11841.

Hashemifardnia, A., Namaziandost, E., & Sepehri, M. (2018). The effectiveness of giving grade,

corrective feedback, and corrective feedback-plus-giving grade on grammatical accuracy.

International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 8 (1), 15-27.

Hitosugi, C. I., & Day, R. R. (2004). Extensive reading in Japanese. Reading in a Foreign Language, 16,

20–39.

Hosseini, E. Z., Nasri, M., & Afghari, A. (2017). Looking beyond teachers’ classroom behavior: novice

and experienced EFL teachers’ practice of pedagogical Knowledge to Improve Learners’

Motivational Strategies. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 4(8), 183-200



E. Namaziandost, M. Nasri, & F. R. Esfahani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

76

Huang, H. (2001). Chinese university foreign language students’ anxiety about reading in English

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest dissertations and Theses database. (ProQuest

No. 3051922).

Iwahori, Y. (2008). Developing reading fluency: A study of extensive reading in EFL. Reading in a

Foreign Language, 20, 70–91.

Janzen, J. (1996). Teaching strategic reading. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 6-9.

Krashen, S. & T.D. Terrell. (1983). The natural approach: language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford:

Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: PrenticeHall.

Krashen, S. (1994). The pleasure hypothesis. In J. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on

languages and linguistics (pp. 299–322). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Krashen, S. (2003a). Explorations in language acquisition and use: the Taipei lectures. Portsmouth:

Heinemann.

Krashen, S.D. (2004). The power of reading (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly,

40(1), 59-81.

Lao, D., & Krashen, S. (2000). The impact of popular literature study on literacy development in

EFL: More evidence for the power of reading. System, 28, 261–270. doi:10.1016/s0346-

251x (00)00011-7.

Lee, L., & Gundersen, E. (2003). Select readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Leung, C. Y. (2002). Extensive reading and language learning: A diary study of a beginning learner of

Japanese. Reading in a Foreign Language, 14, 66–81.

Liz & Soars, J. (2011). New Headway, Upper-Intermediate (B2), Fourth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Meng, F. (2009). Developing students’ reading ability through extensive reading. English Language

Teaching, 2, 132–137. doi:10.5539/elt.v2n2p132.

Mikeladze, T. (2014). Extensive reading. Telavi: Telavi Lakob Gogebashvili State University.

Mikeladze, T. (2014). Extensive reading. Telavi: Telavi Lakob Gogebashvili State University.

Miller, D. (2008). Reading with Meaning Teaching Comprehension in the Primary Graders.

Portland: Stenhouse. pp.53-157.

Moley, P., Bandré, P., & George, J. (2011). Moving beyond readability: Considering choice, motivation

and learner engagement. Theory into Practice, 50 (3), 247-253.

Namaziandost E., & Nasri, M. (2019). A meticulous look at Long’s (1981) interaction hypothesis: does it

have any effect on speaking skill? Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 6(2), 218-

230.

Namaziandost, E., & Ahmadi, S. (2019). The Assessment of Oral Proficiency through Holistic and

Analytic Techniques of Scoring: A Comparative Study. Applied Linguistics Research Journal, 3(2),

70–82.

Namaziandost, E., Abedi, P., & Nasri, M. (2019). The Role of Gender in the Accuracy and Fluency of

Iranian Upper-intermediate EFL Learners’ L2 Oral Productions. Journal of Applied Linguistics

and Language Research, 6(3), 110-123

Namaziandost, E., Nasri, M., & Rahimi Esfahani, F. (2019). Pedagogical Efficacy of Experience-Based

Learning (EBL) Strategies for Improving the Speaking Fluency of Upper-intermediate Male and

Female Iranian EFL Students. International Journal of Research in English Education, 4(2), 29-41.



E. Namaziandost, M. Nasri, & F. R. Esfahani / ELT Forum 8 (1) (2019)

77

Namaziandost, E., Rahimi Esfahani, F., & Ahmadi, S. (2019). Varying levels of difficulty in L2 reading

materials in the EFL classroom: Impact on comprehension and motivation. Cogent Education, 6,

1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1615740

Namaziandost, E., Rahimi Esfahani, F., Nasri, M., & Mirshekaran, R. (2018). The Effect of Gallery Walk

Technique on Pre-intermediate EFL Learners’ Speaking Skill. Language Teaching Research

Quarterly, 8, 1–15.

Nasri, M. & Biria, R. (2017). Integrating multiple and focused strategies for improving reading

comprehension and l2 lexical development of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. International

Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 6(1), 311-321.

Nasri, M., Biria, R., & Karimi, M. (2018). Projecting Gender Identity in Argumentative Written

Discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 7(3), 201-205

Nation, P. (1997). The language teaching benefits of extensive reading. The Language Teacher, 21 (5), 13-

16.

Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English language teaching. Boston: International Edition.

Nuttal, C. (2000). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. Hong Kong: Macmillan Publishers

Limited.

Pachtman, A. B., & Wilson, K. A. (2006). What Do the Kids Think? The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 680-

684.

Papalia, A. (2004). Titled from Interactive Languages Teaching. Harvest University.

Cambridge University Press.

Protacio, M. (2012). Reading motivation: A focus on English learners. Read Teach, 66 (1), 69- 77.

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4th ed.).

Great Britain: Longman.

Soars, J., & Soars, L. (2010). American headway 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tanaka, H. (2007). Increasing reading input in Japanese high school EFL classrooms: An empirical

study exploring the efficacy of ER. The Reading Matrix, 7(1), 115–131.

Wigfield, A., & Tonks, S. (2004). The Development of Motivation for Reading and How It Is

Influenced by CORI. In John T. Guthrie, Allan Wigfield and Kathleen C. Perencevich

(Eds.), Motivating Reading Comprehension: Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction

(pp.249-272). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wu, J. (2012). The influence of extensive reading on junior high school students’ reading

motivation and reading performance in Taiwan (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest dissertations and Theses database. (ProQuest No. 1511139).

Yamashita, J. (2013). Effects of extensive reading on reading attitudes in a foreign language. Reading in

a Foreign Language, 25, 248–263.


