Show, Don’t Tell

Show, Don’t Tell:
Developing a Creative Writing Community
in an EFL Context

Jared Michael KUBOKAWAᛵǽ஖
外国語として英語教育を行う大学（EFL）において，第二言語を学ぶ学生（L2）が，有意義な方法で自分を表現できる場はほとんどないと言ってよい。この論文は，Hanauer による「意味を持つ読み書き能力の教育法」（2012）を通して，そのような場の必要性を明らかにしようとしたものである。この論文は，㧡つの項目に分かれている。初めの第㧝項目では，
EFL における L2の読み書きの教育法について述べる。第㧞項目では，意味を持つ読み書き能力の教育法が L2に変容をもたらす力について述べる。
第㧟項目では，EFL における L2の実践の場について，及び，コミュニケーションの作文ワークショップ（Hanauer, 2012）において学生の相互学
習の有効性について論じる。第㧠項目では，日本での大学の一状況の経験に基づき，EFL における L2の実践の場を発展させるための可能な方法を示す。最後の第㧡項目では，L2の創作文コースの概要を示し，実践的な考えを提示する。

キーワード：第二言語（L2）の作文，創作文，実践の場，
意味を持つ読み書き能力，読み書き能力の教育法

1. Literacy Instruction (or lack thereof) in the EFL context
Non-English medium educational institutions in East Asia are filled with EFL writers

81

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 44struggling to make sense of composition strategies that students reared in English
medium academies often take for granted. North American institutions will drill the
five-paragraph essay into learners from a secondary school level and simple literary
devices such as simile, metaphor, hyperbole, personification, irony, imagery, and so on
are often taught from primary school. By contrast—although EFL students may transfer
knowledge of literacy instruction from their L1 education into their L2 studies—in
EFL contexts there is little or no explicit literacy instruction that does not involve thewriting and reading of academic prose. This paper argues that a remedy, for this lackof diversity in basic literacy instruction, is for L2 writing in EFL contexts to begin bystarting from the basic act of reading and writing simple, yet meaningful texts. In such apedagogy, the reading of peer produced poetic texts, the writing of poetic texts, and theact of participating in discourse with a community of fellow L2 writers provides a basic
structure from which to build learners’ literacy knowledge and achieve the final goal of
producing a sustained piece of academic prose.
The importance of reading to writing and vice-versa is axiomatic. Learners benefit fromengaging in classroom reading based-writing tasks and participating in workshops which
require them to read like writers (Ferris & Hedgecock, 2012). Learning to interact withtexts, read-as-writers, and produce close readings is imperative to literacy instruction—
whether in an L1 or L2 context. Ferris and Hedgecock (2012), based on the findings ofseveral researchers (Grabe, 2009; Grabe & Stoller, 2011, 2014; Hedgecock & Ferris,
2009; Hudson, 2007; Tsai, 2006), support these convictions of simultaneous reading andwriting proficiency:
Writing should not be isolated as a cognitive or academic activity, as theprocess fundamentally depends on writers’ purposeful interactions with texts,
with fellow readers and writers, and with literate communities of practice.
Research and practical experience overwhelmingly demonstrate that one cannot
become a proficient writer in any language without also developing an array ofliteracy skills, including the ability to comprehend written text both fluently andaccurately (p. 94).

This ability to “comprehend written text both fluently and accurately” is by far the mostdifficult concept for EFL learners considering their small amount of exposure to a variety

82

Show, Don’t Tellof authentic English texts (p. 94). Moreover, learners may feel disconnected from or
intimidated by texts written by native English speakers (NES). In the Japanese university
context of this paper, to overcome this difficulty, texts written by fellow L2 writers
were chosen as model texts which alleviated any undue stress caused by intimidation
or inadequacy produced from reading texts written by NES. From this basic structure,
further literacy can be achieved.

2. Hanauer’s (2012) meaningful literacy as a transformative experience
This paper does not try to argue that creative or expressive writing should overtake
academic writing; rather, to place value on the expressive use of language, language play,
and the pedagogy of literacy instruction alongside academic prose. Through Hanauer’s(2012) meaningful literacy methodology, he argues that when a language learner isconfronted with the need to personally express themselves in a language classroom, “thewhole perception of what learning a language is changes when authentic, meaningful,personal expression is at the center of literacy instruction (p. 110). This can be atransformative experience for L2 learners with substantial benefits. If a learner begins totake ownership of their own language learning, then effects on aspects such as motivation,
autonomy, and agency would potentially increase (Iida, 2012, 2016, 2017; Hanauer,
2010, 2012; Maloney, 2019). The act of writing a poem and the need to negotiate themeaning of this text to an interlocutor, Hanauer (2012) argues, is a powerful experience:“The moment when you really express your innermost thoughts and experiences in asecond language is a powerful one, and one that can qualitatively change a student’s
perception of the new language” (pp. 110–111). Arguably, this “change of perception” is atransformative experience and provides ownership of the language to a learner when “thelanguage ceases to be a tool and becomes a personal resource and an ‘owned’ language”(Hanauer, 2012, p. 111).
There are further arguments that L2 creative writing should be included alongsideacademic writing in EFL writing curricula because of the confidence boost it can offer
students of all levels (Maloney, 2019). Iain Maloney, a published author and university
EFL professor in Japan, espouses the benefits of L2 creative writing to lower level
students in a written interview: “Creative writing doesn’t require students to learn new

83

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 44

vocabulary or structures, but it does allow them to explore what they have already learned
and to use it in new and interesting ways” (Kubokawa, in press). Therefore, students neednot struggle with learning new daily language tasks, but rather can explore and solidify
previous language by utilizing creative writing.
Creative writing and specifically haiku poetry were chosen as an entry point to creating
a community of practice surrounding L2 writing in the context of the Japanese university
utilized in this paper. This was done for a number of reasons and at the forefront of thischoice was the location—Japan. L1 transfer of rhetorical strategies, knowledge of theform, and previous cultural knowledge involving the genre were common features when
Japanese students sat down to write haiku in English. Hanauer’s (2010) meaningful literacy
was also employed which situates the writer’s need to express themselves and negotiate
meaning as the context for pedagogy. Because the interactions between students wereabout the students’ own experiences—and how best to convey these experiences within
the genre of poetry—context naturally formed within the classroom. For the poetry itself,
due to space constraints, an explanation of haiku and its history cannot be undertaken
here; yet, it is important to note that nearly anyone can write a haiku in any language due
to its brevity and imagistic quality which focuses on common nouns and action verbs(Kubokawa, in press). Moreover, after a brief foray into traditional haiku employing afive-seven-five syllable structure, the original syllabic nuances were abandoned for amore modern form of the genre called shinhaiku or new haiku because of the focus on
meaning rather than constraints of form and meter. The shinhaiku form contains all theelements of traditional haiku (three lines, season word, caesura) but omits the syllabic
constraints. Once learners became familiar with shinhaiku and some basic literary
devices, short and long free verse poetry was introduced; learners were allowed to ‘play’with familiar lexis and grammatical forms in any way they saw fit. By employing poetry
as the genre and Hanauer’s (2010) meaningful literacy theories, the powerful world ofwriting in another language opened up to the L2 writers—a transformative experience.
The Japanese context has already been explored regarding the effects of Japanese haiku
writing on university L2 writers’ identity by Atsushi Iida at Gunma University (Iida 2016);
thus, this paper will not explore issues of identity in L2 haiku writing but does espouse
Iida’s findings. Iida’s studies have largely shown that L2 creative writing (specifically84

Show, Don’t Tellhaiku) offers students the opportunity to increase confidence and agency through the useof Hanauer’s theory of meaningful literacy (Hanauer, 2010; Iida, 2012, 2016, 2017). Iida’s
work in the Japanese context continues to contain both breadth and depth of knowledge.
Despite the positive discourse for L2 creative writing and haiku writing, there is little
evidence of the effectiveness of communities of practice and cooperative learning on thesubject of L2 writers in an EFL context.

3. Towards a community of practice: Cooperative learning in the
poetry workshop
Writing is inherently an individual act—unlike speaking which requires an interlocutorof some sort—yet when teaching writing to EFL students a cooperative learning approach
can be beneficial. As defined by Tan et al., (1999) cooperative learning is a variety ofconcepts and techniques for enhancing the value of student-student interaction. This
type of active learning forms students into groups with defined roles for individuals
and an overall task for the group to accomplish (Keyser, 2000). When creating theL2 writing community at a Japanese university, cooperative learning has been at thevanguard of the mission. Rather than adopting a competitive learning environment, as
can often be found in many academic communities, this L2 writing group strived for alearning experience that focused on improving attitudes towards the subject and raising
the self-confidence of lower level English learners. Although the writers do not usuallyparticipate in collaborative writing processes, a cooperative poetry workshop always
follows individual writing sessions.
The poetry workshop is a literacy event and an example of a read-to-write task which
encourages learners to interact with each other’s’ texts to contribute meaningfully totheir literacy development (Hanauer, 2010). This workshop community of L2 writers
provides significant support for learners to acquire the skills to understand and interpret
textual content while simultaneously bringing to their attention formal features such asorganization, lexical choice, grammatical structures (Ferris & Hedgecock, 2012). In theJapanese university context, students in the course were encouraged to notice and extract
new language from the texts of their peers creating a cooperative and literate communityof practice.

85

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 44Ferris and Hedgecock (2012) consider the need for “literate communities of practice” inwhich learners can have meaningful interactions with fellow writers and readers, yet theeffect of community on L2 writers in an EFL context has not been thoroughly explored(p. 94). Christopher Kelen at the University of Macau addresses literate communities
in an EFL context in East Asia by arguing for the necessity of process learning andpublication orientated outcomes in a university setting in Macau:
To teach Creative Writing in English to speakers of other languages is to marrythe creativity inherent in the processes of learning and of cultural crossing. To
teach Creative Writing in the university in East Asia means, I think, living the
dream of the creative classroom—that classroom where learning needs to be fun
to be effective, where the proof of learning (its “tangible deliverable outcome”)
is in creative products (Kelen, 2014, p. 101).

At the Japanese university in the context of this paper, the creative writing classroom not
only provides L2 writers motivation through agency and exploration, but the deliverable
outcomes provide writers with the awareness of audience and presentation. Hence, as
L2 writers have an audience in their mind when writing and firmly understand what thedeliverable outcome will be (publication and presentation), they are able to imagine thecommunity in which their piece of writing will exist. In addition, the cultural readinessof Japanese students willing to write English haiku met with the understanding of
the audience and the final deliverable outcome created a potent L2 writing workshop
community. The workshops were, as Kelen (2014) argues, fun and effective, an essential
in East Asia EFL contexts. This community was crucial to the success of the student
literary journal publications that were created in the Japanese university context.

4. A structure for creating an EFL writing community
Creative writing pedagogy all over the world often uses the old adage, “show, don’ttell” when instructing students on the use of sharing character details by using sensory
information rather than exposition. Yet, this article takes the aphorism one step further
and relates it to developing a creative community of writers within the EFL context ofa medium sized liberal arts university in Japan (Aichi University). In the true cavalierspirit, from experience in this context, it has been more productive to create deliverable

86

Show, Don’t Telloutcomes first, then show these outcomes to interested stakeholders rather than simply
tell stakeholders about possible ideas for literacy instruction. Hence, show the outcomes,
don’t simply tell others.
This “show, don’t tell” spirit included a semesterly publication of student creative work,a display of student’s writing known as the ‘haiku board’ as well as creating boutique
publications and holding poetry readings in the university’s autonomous learning center—the Language Café (LC). In addition, it was useful to create a group of stakeholders andparticipants around the L2 writers including LC staff, professors, and administratorsthat supported various aspects along the way. It was always more productive to haveparticipant stakeholders writing poems in English and to show them what the L2 writers
were creating, rather than simply tell.
When this project was started, there was no structure to undergird a foreign language
writing community at the university. The LC was chosen as the site to begin a communityof practice because it is an autonomous learning space dedicated to foreign language
instruction in the center of the university’s campus. In the past, the LC was used asa resource for gathering and collecting foreign language materials, and as a place forforeign language conversation practice, but it was never used as a space for a writing
community. For a further description of the LC at Aichi University see Lyons (2019) An
Investigation into the Language Café—A Needs Analysis.
The student writing resources and support that would normally exist in any given
university in North America were and mostly still are non-existent in the LC, such as awriting center for peer or instructor tutoring, thesis support, student publications, student
readings, distinguished speakers and scholars, fellow awards, conferences, competitions,scholarships for L2 student writers, and so on. In other words, the moment was ripe tobegin creating some sort of support network for L2 writers on campus.
The workshop process itself entails the defined role of writer, followed by the discussion
leader, and the student workshop participants who offer advice and support to the writerwith the aim of improving communication through the text. This small group workshop
environment develops the skills of English language learning in a holistic manner while

87

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 44

generating higher order thinking skills such as synthesizing, analyzing, evaluation, andapplication (Shyamala, 2015).
Below is an outline of the steps that were taken to create this community of L2 writers on
the campus of Aichi University:
1.

A call for poems—A flier was created; photocopies were made and distributed
to English teachers in a call for submissions. Posters were also put up around thecampus, distributed in English classes, and in the LC.

2.

Keep the pen moving—During the lunch hour many students often came to the
LC to practice English conversation. At this time, it was beneficial to explain
about and write English haiku together with students while urging other staff
members and teachers to get involved.

3.

Raising awareness—From this handful of lunch hour poems, with assistance,
the LC staff were able to create a poster board in the hallway leading to the
LC that displayed haiku written by students, teachers, and staff. The poems
were separated by the season which was represented in the text and decorated
accordingly. Many but not all of the haiku bore the name of the poet. It was thewriter’s choice whether to include their name or not.

4.

The creative writing course—In an English elective course, Communication
Skills, which takes place in the evenings in the LC, a curriculum was designedthat involves L2 creative writing, peer workshopping, peer assessment, andclose reading of other L2 poets. These poems from this course were the main
contributors to the literary journal. More about this course can be seen in
section five of this paper.

5.

Publishing a journal—After the Communication Skills course every semester, asmall literary journal was made from creative work that students submitted titled
Seasons: An EFL Literary Journal. The journal is distributed electronically andserves as the text for the following semester’s Communication Skills course thus
giving life to previous cohort’s work and acting as a peer model for fellow L2
writers; thus, solving the problem of intimidation of lower level L2 users fromusing NES authentic materials.

6.

Getting stakeholders involved—During the Communication Skills course, thestaff of the LC would often participate in the writing exercises as well as helping
out by making copies of drafts for poetry workshops, handling resources, and88

Show, Don’t Tellproviding feedback.
7.

Boutique publishing—For L2 writers who could not publish in the English
language student journal Seasons (LC staff, other stakeholders, professors, andFrench course participants (who were also writing haiku in French, technically
L3 writers)), the Communication Skills class published a photocopied and handfolded collection of poems just to share within this small group of writers andnot for public consumption. This was done as a ‘thank you’ gift for all of thehard work of staff as well as to allow the French students to recognize theiraudience and see their work in print.

8.

Poetry reading—During the final class of Communication Skills, the students
held a poetry reading in which they read from Seasons and from their own
personal journals. This created a final presentation and audience for their work.

9.

Sharing is caring—Seasons: An EFL Literary Journal has been shared withother universities in the region and writing instructors are showing the journal
to their students to provide motivation and inspiration for their L2 writing.

10. Dissemination—This article serves as a first step in disseminating information
about the L2 creative writing process and community of practice at Aichi
University’s Toyohashi Campus in hopes that the community will grow, andmore students, teachers, and other stakeholders will be interested in contributing
to the community.

In creating an EFL writing community with a cooperative learning approach as well
as utilizing Hanauer’s (2012) Meaningful Literacy approach, students began speaking
and writing about their own memories and emotions, participating in close readings,
and listening in small groups. Thus, the students’ work became the context of their own
learning. Hanauer (2012) supports this approach: “[Experiential w]riting instruction […]makes the writer the context of his or her own language use and learning, and directs aprocess in which written language is directed by the expressive needs of the writer” (p.
109). Hence, the discussion material became contextualized and personally meaningful
to students as they found a true need to negotiate meaning and thus communicate withothers. As well, the poetry was inspired by other L2 writers from previous cohorts which
created an active community in which reading and writing literacy could thrive.

89

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 44

5. The creative writing course
For the L2 creative writing course, a syllabus, and formative assessment program wasdeveloped for an entire fifteen-week semester for university-aged EFL students in acourse officially titled Communication Skills which is an English elective course. There
are six total assignments in the assessment program and each assignment contains its
own rubric which is open to student interpretation. The textbook for the course is always
the previous semester’s Seasons: An EFL Literary Journal which is made up solely of
EFL poetry written by the students’ peers. Students also have access to consecutive
years’ Seasons. Below, this paper will outline how this course serves as an example ofa formative assessment-based program with a cooperative learning that is undergirded
by both Hanauer’s (2012) meaningful literacy approach and catalyzed by Spiro’s (2014)
learner and writer voices approach.
First and foremost, this course utilizes a writing portfolio which is modeled after
Shohamy’s (1998) Multiplism theory of alternative assessment. Her alternative assessment
theories have created a framework from which to work from: peer to peer assessment,group (peer) assessment, self-assessment, student journaling, multiple drafting, andrubric based formal assessment. All of these various assessments culminate in a final
portfolio and small poetry reading “party” where students will read their creative work ina group setting; therefore, when students are drafting and editing their poems they must
consider how the poem reads and feels on the page to a single silent reader but also keep
in mind the auditory performance aspect as well.
The course begins by interlocking the creative discourse from previous semesters withthe current semester’s students. The different cohorts never meet physically; but rather,communicate through the discourse of original L2 poetry (Spiro, 2014). This class alsoutilizes Spiro’s (2014) reading-to-writing cycle where students learn to read texts as awriter in a creative writing context. Below are the four stages to Spiro’s four-part cycle:
1.

Choice: Students make their own selection of text from previous semesters’
Seasons: An EFL Literary Journal thus having ownership of the reading processfrom the start.

90

Show, Don’t Tell

2.

Articulation: Students are encouraged to articulate reasons for their choices(poetry reading task).

3.

Application: Students draw on personal experiences to write creative texts of
their own employing themes, techniques, and strategies that they valued most in
their chosen texts. They are also encouraged to apply insights from scaffoldedclass material, teacher feedback, and most importantly peer feedback.

4.

Reflection: Students reflect on what has been learned about themselves and one
another as they exchanged their creative writing with peers and analyzed thecreative work of previous cohorts. In doing so, they are actively participating inthe shaping of a reading/writing literacy community of practice that has a life
beyond their specific cohort (Spiro, 2014). Spiro’s (2014) process can also beviewed through the lens of Earl’s (2007) assessment theories in that assessment
is being used in many different ways by the teacher, peers, and the students
themselves—assessment of learning, assessment for learning, and assessment
as learning respectively.

Using a cooperative learning approach to a meaningful literacy (Hanauer, 2012)
methodology framework, university students read and write original texts in a processgenre writing approach including; shinhaiku, short and long form poetry, journals, andself and peer assessments in the form of reflections. Students will utilize close analysis
of creative discourse with the end task of designing a writing portfolio and establishinga unique writer’s authorial voice based on their lived experiences. At the end of thesemester, the class publishes a collection of poems (Seasons: An EFL Literary Journal)that will be used as the next semester’s textbook thus creating a community of literacy
that has life beyond the specific cohort.
The aim of such a course is to give learners the opportunity to develop literacy knowledge,
writing and recursive writing skills, to provide strategies for communicating about theirwriting, and to help foster the growth of a unique authorial voice; thus, increasing
emotional engagement, agency, and ownership of their English language use. This would
be useful to university students in their academic writing as well as for their confidence
when communicating both written and orally. This claim is supported by Hanauer (2015):“The potential value of this is that students may, as Spiro (2014), Hanauer (2011), andMaxim (2006) claim, achieve a sense of agency, ownership, and emotional connection

91

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 44

with the language they are learning” (p. 83) The students work towards the goal of
creating a unique authorial voice by utilizing close analyses of creative discourse as
well as peer-to-peer editing and workshopping with the end task of designing a writing
portfolio.

Conclusion
The creation of an L2 writing community in the EFL context of a Japanese university
can yield positive effects and aid in the final goal of producing a sustained piece of
academic prose; yet more needs to be done in terms of research involving communities
of practice, agency, ownership, and motivation. This paper strived to provide boththeoretical and practical knowledge in which future programs could undergird potential
writing communities and courses in underserved or underutilized EFL communities.
If such a community is intending to be built, ‘show, don’t tell’ will produce deliverable
outcomes and your community will certainly thrive. The research study associated withthis course has not yet been completed and plans to be published in 2022. Seasons: An
EFL Literary Journal can be viewed on the Institute for Language Education, Aichi
University website.
References
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford University Press.
Badger, R. G., & G. White. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal 54(2).
153–160.
Earl, L. M. (2007). Assessment as learning. In W. D. Hawley (Ed.), The keys to effective schools:
Educational reform as continuous improvement (pp. 85–98). Corwin Press.
Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (2013). Teaching L2 composition: Purpose, process, and practice, (3rd ed.).
Routledge.
Grabe, W. (2009). Reading a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge University
Press.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2011). Teaching and researching reading (2nd ed.). Longman/Pearson
Education.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2014). Teaching reading for academic purposes. In M. Celce-Murcia, D.
M. Brinton, & M. A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed., pp.
189–205). Heinle Cengage.
Hanauer, D. (2010). Poetry as research: Exploring second language poetry writing. John Benjamins.

92

Show, Don’t Tell
Hanauer, D. (2012). Meaningful literacy: Writing poetry in the language classroom. Language
Teaching, 45. 105–115.
Hanauer, D. (2014). The beauty of second language poetry. In D. Disney (Ed.), Exploring second
language creative writing: Beyond Babel (pp. 11–22). John Benjamins.
Hanauer, D. (2015). Measuring voice in poetry written by second language learners. Written
Communication, 32(1), 66–86.
Hedgcock, J. S., & Ferris, D. R. (2009). Teaching readers of English students. Routledge.
Hudson, T. (2007). Teaching Second Language Reading. Oxford University Press.
Iida, A. (2008). Poetry writing as expressive pedagogy in an EFL context: Identifying possible
assessment tools for haiku poetry in EFL freshman college writing. Assessing Writing 13(3),171–179.
Iida, A. (2012). Writing haiku in a second language: Perceptions, attitude, and emotions of second
language learners. SINO-US English Teaching 9, 1472–1485.
Iida, A. (2016). Identity in second language writing: Exploring an EFL learner’s study abroad
experience. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 1–14.
Iida, A. (2017). Expressing voice in a foreign language: Multiwriting haiku pedagogy in the EFL
context. TEFLIN Journal, 28(2), 260–276.
Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Holubec, E. J. (1998). Cooperation in the Classroom. Allyn andBacon.
Kelen, C. (2014). Learner and writer voices: Learners as writers and the search for authorial voice. In
D. Disney (Ed.), Exploring second language creative writing: Beyond Babel (pp. 75–101). John
Benjamins.
Keyser, W. M. (2000). Active learning and cooperative learning: Understanding the differences andusing both styles effectively. Research Strategies, 17, 35–44.
Kubokawa, J. (in press). An interview with Iain Maloney. Journal of Literature in Language Teaching.
Kubokawa, J. (in press). JALT 2020 Grand Forum Conference Proceedings. JALT Publications.
Lee, I. (2010). Writing teacher education and teacher learning: Testimonies of four EFL teachers.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(3), 143–157.
Lyons, P. (2018). An Investigation into the Language Café—A Needs Analysis. Language and Culture
Institute for Language Education Aichi University Journal 39.
Maloney, I. (2019). The place of creative writing in an EFL university curriculum. Bulletin of Nagoya
University of Foreign Studies, 229–251.
Maxim, H. (2006). Giving beginning adult language learners a voice: A case for poetry in the foreign
language classroom. In J. Retallick & J. Spahr (Eds.), Poetry and pedagogy: The challenge of thecontemporary (pp. 251–259). Palgrave Macmillan.
Shohamy, E. (1998). Evaluation of learning in second language acquisition: A Multiplsm perspective.
In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages (pp. 238–261). MLA.
Shyamala, R. M. (2015). HOTS in writing skills in the classroom among students in a secondary
school in Seremban, Malaysia. Seminar Penyelidikan Pendidikan Kebangsaan (APPK), 9–24.
Spiro, J. (2014). Learner and writer voices: Learners as writers and the search for authorial voice. In

93

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 44

D. Disney (Ed.), Exploring second language creative writing: Beyond Babel (pp. 23–40). John
Benjamins.
Tan, G., Gallo, P. B., Jacobs, G. M., & Lee, C. K. (1999). Using cooperative learning to integrate
thinking and information technology in a content-based writing lesson. The Internet TESLJournal, 1–14.
Tsai, J. M. (2006). Connecting reading and writing in college EFL courses. The Internet TESL Journal
15. Retrieved October 8, 2008, from http://iteslj. org/Articles/Tsai-Reading-Writing Connection.
html.
Xiao, T., & Liu, Y. (2015). A stylistic analysis of Jin Yong’s and Gu Long’s fictions based on text
clustering and classification. No. 5. 167–177.

94