97Extensive Reading Onboardingance strategies, thereby working against the goal of nurturing autonomous lifelong readers who read for enjoyment (Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCinto, & Turner, 2004; Assor & Kaplan, 2001). Motivation is always an important consideration with ER programs. Students must be convinced to ‘buy into’ the program and make the necessary commitments of time and attention. Successful on-boarding, i.e., getting students to begin and reach a level of active participation, is the result of both the learners’ sense of agency—‘‘a combination of the learner’s will, intent, and capacity to act in order to achieve specic goals and outcomes’’ (Mercer, 2015)—and the context and design of the educa-tional intervention. This requires aligning student and program goals, of course, but also being and staying aware of student motivation (and perfor-mance) as the program progresses. It further entails not only tracking students, but having some way to hold them accountable for reading that does not place undue strain on the administration, teachers, or the students themselves, so that their delicate in-trinsic motivation and emerging sense of agency of readers as readers is not dampened. This account-ability is a very important issue when ER is under-taken as an additive activity, and most ER programs feature a class, library, or personal reading record sheet to track progress, sometimes with a book re-port requirement. Some ER programs manage monitoring and re-cording by using minimally-intrusive online tech-nology such as the MReader software program of quizzes and short reports (Robb & Kano, 2013, Campbell & Weatherford 2013), or the Mobile Au-dience Response System (MOARS) of short self-re-port survey questions, which include responses to the book and reading time (Lake & Holster, 2014) to conrm reading and track student progress. Set-ting and monitoring specic reading word targets (individual or class targets) has also been employed successfully in Japan to determine progress, offer advice, and motivate students (Takase, 2010). But programs must decide how much proof they will re-quire of students actually having read the books.2. Deploying ER at university: promise and pitfalls This section describes a new ER program that was deployed with 123 students in an international liberal arts program at a private university in Japan. The decision was made to make use of additive ER without monitoring student reading—no quizzes or reports would be required. Both paper-based and electronic graded readers would be made available to facilitate ease of access. Borrowing books would be made as simple as possible (a sign-out sheet for paper books and automatic procedures for electronic readers) and students would be given the option of recording their reading on Reading Record Sheets. 2.1. ER program: design and implementation The original design of the English language pro-gram called for four 90-minute classes per week, plus an additional self-study session each week that would be used to for self-directed, autonomous learning, the specic content of which would be dis-cussed and decided with a counselor. Students would be encouraged (but not required) to make ER a regular part of their out-of-class self-directed learning. That is, ER would be presented as a possi-ble option for out of class study. The decision was also made not to actively track student reading or check that it was being done—no quizzes or reports, and no mandatory record-keeping by students would be required—in order to foster intrinsic motivation and a love of reading in a foreign language. No reading goals would be set for individual students or for the program, and neither ER participation nor reading progress would be set as assessment criteria.