名古屋外国語大学論集第4号

2019年2月

Research Note

The Place of Creative Writing
in an EFL University Curriculum
Iain MALONEY

Abstract
When L2 writing is taught at university level in Japan, the direction of travel
tends to be towards academic, expository forms. Students are taught to writein academic modes with a heavy emphasis on correct citation and referencing.
While this is a necessary part of L2 acquisition, it is not the whole story. This
singular focus ignores two rich and vital aspects of linguistic development:
creativity and self-expression.
This article puts forward the argument for creative writing (CW) to be
included alongside academic writing in any four-skills curriculum, for any age
and level, but with a special emphasis on university level students. The article
discusses definitions of creative writing and reasons for creative writing’s persistent absence from many courses, before moving on to analyse the different ways
in which creative writing benefits the L2 learner, drawing evidence from ESL/EFL contexts and previous studies in the fields of writing and developmental
psychology.

229

Introduction
Despite growing understanding and acceptance within the ELT community,
evidenced by a steady increase in papers on the subject as well as specific issuesof journals such as The Journal of Literature in Language Teaching, the useof CW in teaching English to L2 students remains, as Bussinger (2013) notes,
something of an outlier when curriculum is constructed. Many universities lackany creative writing across all levels. This is the result of a number of misapprehensions and lingering prejudice, which this essay will go on to examine.
Firstly, teachers’ bias for academic (formal) modes over creativity limits thescope for CW within the curriculum. Smith (2013) and Spiro (2012) ascribe
this in part to a superficial assessment of students’ needs balanced against time
constraints. An evaluation is made where writing a persuasive essay is seen as
more relevant to the student’s academic development and has more relevance totheir future careers than writing a short story. This is a circular argument. The
department grades based on the production of essays and a final thesis, therefore
all writing classes must bend towards this goal. Monteith (1992) goes further inassigning a long-standing divide within ELT between creativity and discipline:“‘creative’, ‘free’, and ‘improvised’ are counterpointed with ‘formal’... there isno suggestion of a balanced or disciplined structure to creative work” (p. 15).
Liao (2012), Badger and White (2000), and Bilton and Sivasubramaniam (2009)
all argue that an institutional bias towards product and process writing pushes
the emphasis of writing courses onto formal structures. Courses tend to devote
time and effort to developing practical skills and ‘correct’ L2 reproduction(Iida, 2013) while relegating creativity and voice to a bit part, if not erasing
them entirely.
Secondly, the very word ‘creative’ can be pejorative. Monteith (1992) points
to phrases such as ‘creative accounting’ where ‘creative’ implies deception, evenimmorality or illegality. Creative is also seen as synonymous with play — flippant, trivial, unfit for the serious corridors of academia and even “encourages
230

The Place of Creative Writing in an EFL University Curriculum ■self-indulgence” (Light, 2003, p. 260). Writing an acrostic poem on the subjectof happiness is fun; discussing violence in the media is important. Such connotations are heavy baggage for the word to carry, and feed into and reinforce
prejudice.
A third, more serious objection to CW in ELT is that creativity with language
requires a high level of knowledge, experience and integration with the target
language. M. Schrader (2000) posits that errors in language production are taken
as evidence of incompetence, with competence being a prerequisite for literary
production. The argument as he outlines it, is that time and effort would be better
spent banishing errors from their discourse than playing with poems and stories.
As Liao (2012) points out, and as I have discovered through discussions with mystudents and via feedback questionnaires at the end of term, even students candismiss creative writing as irrelevant. Students have written in end of semester
feedback forms I have given out, that “I’m not interested in those forms ofwriting”, or that the subject is beyond them: “It’s too difficult to express my
feeling in detail.”This article argues that these objections are based on misunderstandings
and a false dichotomy. CW does not need to clash with or seek to replace academic/professional writing. Rather it is complimentary: a useful tool in language
acquisition and development and a key part of language absorption, allowing
the student to move from simple reproduction to self-expression, regardless of
their objective linguistic level.

What is Creative Writing?
It is helpful in the beginning to define terms. One of the main obstacles to
CW acceptance is an incomplete understanding of what CW is and what isencompassed in its embrace. Maley (2012) laid out the key differences between
expository and creative writing:231

Table 1: Maley, 2012.

Expository writing

Creative writing

Instrumental

Aesthetic

Facts

Imagination

External control

Internal discipline

Conventions

Stretching rules

LogicalIntuitive

Analytical

Associative

Impersonal

Personal

Thinking mode

Feeling mode (plus thinking!)

Appeal to the intellectAppeal to the senses

Avoidance of ambiguity

Creation of multiple meanings

Table 1 shows a comparison of the differences between expository and creative
writing. A key difference lies in the fourth strata — the source of “rules andconventions” (Maley, 2012, para. 6). While academic writing rests on a bedrockof agreed constrictions such as APA and MLA, CW appeals to internal and intuitive constraints, relying on coherency and effect to guide structure and direction.
The desired product differs dramatically between the two forms, with CW being
aesthetic, emotional and necessarily ambiguous, and expository aiming for theimpersonal, analytical and objective. Academic essays have an agreed structure
and a word limit is sensible; CW work is as long as it needs to be. However, toassume that implies a lack of order is false. As Maley (2012) points out, artistic
invention requires boundaries and regulation. The existence of rigid poetic
forms, such as the sonnet or sestina, is to channel and focus creativity. Even
‘free verse’ has its strictures. Iida’s (2010) use of the haiku as a creative teaching
aid shows this dichotomy, that students be free and creative in one of the mostlimiting poetic forms in existence – the 5-7-5 syllable haiku structure.
In fact, CW encompasses more than the purely artistic and aesthetic. While232

The Place of Creative Writing in an EFL University Curriculum ■academic writing tends to mean writing from the short essay to the substantial
dissertation, Hyland (2002) defines CW as incorporating fiction (long and short),
poetry, writing for screen and stage and creative non-fiction. Beyond this, CW
casts its net across all manner of practical and vital forms such as “writing anemail message, responding to course content in a dialogue journal, writing a
letter to a classmate... producing a homepage, to writing a shopping list or a listof instructions” (Homstad & Thorson, 2000, p. 11).
CW therefore can be freed from the assumption that it is all fiction, fantasy
and fairies, and is in fact the main form of writing students will engage inoutside the classroom and in their future careers. Only a minority will go on to
produce postgraduate dissertations and doctoral submissions. Many more will
be called upon to correspond with colleagues and friends, clients and employers.
During future work they may have to write reports about business trips, pitch
ideas to colleagues, and even organise social team-building events. They may
be required to correspond with offices around the world and keep up friendly
relations beyond the stating of business needs and questions. In an era when an
online presence is all but obligatory, this generation and the next will be required
more than any other to engage with the world through written language that iscreative in nature.
In the second row, Maley balances ‘facts’ against ‘imagination’. Brooks andMarshall (2004), cited by Tok and Kandemir (2015), go further, suggestingoriginality of thought trumps truthfulness in CW. Originality of thought is rarely
encouraged when producing academic essays. Rather, emphasis is given to supportable statements in quasi-original formulations. Where the aim of academic
writing is to teach students how to express and organise ideas within an accepted
format, Pelcova (2015) writes, self-expression is the aim of creative writing.
While academic essays may take the form of an argument with the student
choosing one side or another (usually through personal sympathy with that side),creative writing predominantly arises from the student’s own perspective and233

is, in Dell’s (1964) definition, usually expressed in the first person (certainly atearly stages — characterisation requires more complex skills than writing basedon direct personal experience). As a result, facts — and supporting evidence correctly cited — are irrelevant. In the CW classroom students are invited to do whatmany of them find the most challenging yet what is often their most frequently
stated linguistic ambition — what M. Schrader (2000) describes as expressing
what they themselves think and feel free from the “emotionally stressful situationof direct oral communication” (pp. 56–57).
To reiterate, this is not done in a free way, where the work produced is little
more than a formless primal scream. Rather the well-organised CW curriculum
will teach the students how to most effectively communicate their inner world in
their second language, something we take for granted in our native language but
which the inability to do is a frustration known by all language learners. Whether
through poetic forms, email exchanges or narratives, students are taught to“form and shape the raw material of experience into an artistic and compellingly
executed format” (Schultz, 2001, p. 95). Schultz (2001) further argues that bywriting L2 in this way students are given a safe space in which to experiment,
not only with language but also with identity.
Bussinger’s 2013 study illustrates this clearly. He takes his university students
from the comfortable and familiar world of talking about themselves througha series of steps and activities, to producing a work of fiction derived fromtheir own interests and experiences, and built around work with sense-based
vocabulary and dialogue. Rather than set off on a blind path of discovery andinvention, CW taught correctly gives the students the chance to experiment andprogress in a safe, controlled environment.
As this essay will explore further, this is not an inconsequential conclusion.
Language plays a key role, as Maybin (2006) demonstrates, in shaping ouridentity as children. Once we become adults our identity is — usually — fixed.
L2CW can bridge the gap caused by students’ inability to conform their ‘native’234

The Place of Creative Writing in an EFL University Curriculum ■identity with the new language. Bridging this gap not only leads to increased
L2 competence, but greatly boosts motivation and confidence, as we will moveon to examine.

How Does Creative Writing Aid L2 Acquisition?
Creative writing can be — indeed should be — fun, but that is not enoughto warrant a place in a curriculum. As Miles (1992) puts it: “If creative writingis introduced in a literary degree, then it must earn its curricular keep” (p. 39).
This CW can certainly do.
a) Who Can Do It?
EFL classrooms—whichever of the four skills they focus on—follow asimilar pattern. Activities centre around new grammar or vocabulary, or arounda specific theme. This approach works well for teaching new language and forencouraging content-specific language production. An essay on Japanese aid
efforts in Africa for example requires the use of vocabulary surrounding agriculture, architecture and ethics that would not arise in the student’s regular L2
interactions. However, these are necessarily false and limiting boundaries. CW,
by contrast, pushes the students into less restricted territory which demands fullaccess to the linguistic tools and strategies the students have at their disposal.
The art of description, for example, requires the students to scour their passive
vocabulary banks for just the right shade of red, or tone of voice, or personality
trait. The need for pace and movement in a piece requires direct comparisonof active and passive verbs and a nuanced judgment of the difference between‘haste’, ‘rush’ and ‘hurry’. Schultz (2011) described this as “the intensity of thecommitment to... specifics” (p. 96).
This fact causes many unfamiliar with the methodology of CW instruction toconclude that CW production should be restricted to the elite realm of advanced
learners. Thus, as M. Schrader (2000) argues, curriculums are structured around235

eliminating errors and building a bank of language and strategies upon which thecreatively-minded student may draw in the future. This is a flawed conclusion
and one that puts obstacles in the path of L2 acquisition progress.
University departments acknowledge the need for students to write from the
beginning of their EFL/ESL education, as Homstad and Thorson (2000) pointout. What is less clear is why the act of writing in an academic mode is considered to be within the grasp of a new learner while creativity is beyond them. We
expect our Freshmen to produce thesis statements and supporting arguments but
not to describe a sunset. Hashimoto (2004) describes it as “a lack of respect” (p.
10) that does far more damage to the enthusiasm and ambition of the student thanbeing challenged. Students themselves are guilty of this assumption. As James(2007) points out, students and teachers both focus on gaps and errors rather
than remembering how much has been learned and how far they have come.
CW combats this demotivating negativity by necessarily placing emphasis on
knowledge already attained and how it can be applied to personal expression.
Children can be incredibly creative with their native language, inventing
words, rhymes, chants and stories despite heavy deficiencies in their language
skills. Creativity, James (2007) writes, does not need endless resources, it comesfrom manipulating the resources we have available to meet our goals. Necessity,
as they say, is the mother of invention. R. Schrader (2000) goes further, pointing
out that since a language is essentially “an open system” (p. 31), there is no limit
to the potential even a small pool of language can suggest.
By affording students the respect that they may be able to use their finite skills
to infinite ends, Spiro (2004) writes, the teacher can provide space and support
for exploring language and ideas in ways the students may never have attempted.
“When language learners are invited to speak more fully, they can be funny,wise, child-like, playful, witty, sentimental, philosophical, experimental. They
can be many things there is no room to be in the functional classroom” (p. 5).
By planning an effective curriculum that takes level into account, Spiro
236

The Place of Creative Writing in an EFL University Curriculum ■(2004) continues, EFL students can engage in rewarding creative activities in
the classroom. Error eradication is not our sole aim. Were it to be, M. Schrader(2000) warns, we immediately stigmatise risk. Risk is a fundamental requirement in L2 acquisition. Without it we do not try or test our limits. Spiro (2004)
explains how students searching for ways to bridge gaps and communicate more
effectively would be discouraged from their attempts since these attempts may
involve creative manipulation with an increased chance of failure. By shifting theemphasis from standardised, ‘correct’ language reproduction to creative, playful
exploration, M. Schrader (2000) argues, we not only strengthen the language
and strategies the students already possess, we extend their range, boost theirconfidence and — through the inevitable mistakes – gain greater insight into thestudent’s current level and can therefore plan future lessons accordingly.
Of course, error eradication and correct production is our end result, but ina multi-disciplinary four-skills curriculum, there is space to move this to theback burner and allow creativity to come to the boil. As this essay will go on to
discuss, creativity is not an end in itself. Rather it can be a huge boon across the
spectrum of L2 acquisition.
The argument that learners may not have the ability to cope with CW is spurious. As already discussed, Iida’s (2010) use of haiku in the writing classroom
met with success. Roberts (2013) worked with six university students to produce
fiction. His experiment showed that students of different ages and levels (hissubjects ranged from second to fourth year students) could engage with CW andproduce work. His students reported that the act of writing fiction aided with their“acquisition and use of expressions and vocabulary” (p. 22) and he showed how
workshop activities had a direct influence on the students’ confidence (p. 24).
b) Creativity Is Infectious
Adding a CW element to a four-skills curriculum has a number of knock on
benefits for the L2 learner beyond teaching flexibility and risk-taking.
237

By switching an analytical emphasis for an imaginative, artistic one, students
whose learning style is not adequately met by traditional four-skills courses canbe catered for and brought into the mainstream. Left-brain/right-brain biases inpersonality and innate ability have been conclusively disproven (Jarret, 2012)
but Berman (1998) and Maley (2009 & 2012) are correct on a more generalpoint when they say people learn differently. As Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer
and Bjork (2008) show, we all learn in a variety of different ways. Each student
learns via a combination of aural, interpersonal, intrapersonal, kinaesthetic,
linguistic, logical and visual styles, with a different emphasis and balance forevery person. Institutions that over-emphasise any one style are guilty of failingthe wider student body and every possible method should be deployed to ensure
all needs are met equally. Creativity is therefore a necessary part of our tools
and techniques.
There is a wider point here beyond individual learning styles. None of usutilise only one method (Wilkinson, Boohan and Stevenson, 2014). We are eacha blend of styles with some being more effective than others. No one learns todrive a car purely by reading the owner’s manual, nor do doctors learn surgery
through purely hands-on methods. Each approach cross-pollinates the next,
allowing for deeper understanding and wider potential utility.
At the simplest level, Maley (2012) writes, CW production feeds back into
academic writing competence. Iida (2010) provided evidence for this througha study involving haiku. Looking at university level EFL students, Iida showedthat the production of haiku poetry in the classroom enabled them to “develop
an identifiable voice… four-skill practice, group work and fruitful discussions”(p. 33). He adds that “another benefit is seeing students move from internaland private stances to external and socially aware public positions” (p. 33).
Meanwhile, Smith (2013) reports that producing works of fiction led to anincreased use of varied vocabulary when compared with academic writing
produced by the same university level students. He gives examples of work
238

The Place of Creative Writing in an EFL University Curriculum ■produced by students which activates “non-core” (p. 14) vocabulary, in thisinstance words connected with the verb “to look”. Maley (2012) extends this toinclude an improvement in reading ability, since through the process of creatingand editing written work, students gain a greater insight into all texts. Spiro(2004) describes how their understanding of the phonetic and aural qualities oflanguage is enhanced, as well as their awareness of the syntactic and semantic
links between words and sentences.
When taught language is fortified, Tok and Kandemir (2015) argue andSmith (2013) adds, non-core vocabulary is activated. Vocabulary secreted inpassive memory is called into use and is no longer passive; in fact, the “stock oflanguage (as a whole) is activated” (M. Schrader, 2000, p. 57). Crystal (1998),
Maley (2009) and Pelcova (2015) are in agreement when they describe how CWleads to grammatical structures being utilised and tested, twisted to the demandsof self-expression, opening new avenues of expression and a deeper understanding than standard academic writing can provide. Crystal (1998) describes how
playful manipulation of linguistic structures during the act of creative writing
can unlock those patterns. Maley (2009) argues that accuracy is increased during
the production of the text, while Pelcova (2015) argues that CW can be used topractice newly learned grammatical structures, while examples can be drawn
from works of literature to illustrate patterns which the student can then go on
to reproduce in a writing activity. As Spiro (2007) points out, in CW the scopefor pushing L2 competence into new areas is almost limitless: “We need todescribe places and people, write dialogues using different voices, make things
happen, show the results and causes of things: we can discuss and argue; we canuse parts of letters or diaries. Some writers even include recipes and menus in
their novels” (p. 6). Smith (2013) adds that pronunciation and a stronger graspof rhyme and rhythm come with exposure to poetry in a CW curriculum. Tok
and Kandemir (2015) argue that CW students necessarily immerse themselvesin the language in order to more accurately express themselves. The process of239

finding ways within the language to better express themselves pushes them into
new discoveries and down new avenues of language manipulation.
So, Pelcova (2015) concludes, benefits spill over into all areas of L2 acquisition and production. Vocabulary, pronunciation and grammatical structures are
all reinforced and improved, while the students ability to express themselves
is strengthened and broadened. CW has a knock-on effect on all aspects of L2
acquisition. Creativity is necessarily manipulation and discovery, two things that
underpin students’ ability to bridge the gap between knowledge and fluency.
c) Play
Dörnyei (2005) posits the concept of the L2 Self, a process of identity formation which takes place as the student internalises the new language and tests
possible selves. This process, Spiro (2012) argues, in a sense echoes the stages
we go through with our native tongue as we develop both as individuals and as
language users during childhood and adolescence. Maley (2012) backs this up:
In some ways the ‘communicative movement’ has done a disservice tolanguage teaching by its insistence on the exclusively communicative role
played by language. The proponents of play point out, rightly, that in L1
acquisition, much of the language used by children is almost exclusively
concerned with play: rhythmical chants and rhymes, word games, jokes
and the like. Furthermore, such playfulness survives into adulthood, sothat many social encounters are characterized by language play (puns,
jokes, ‘funny voices’, metathesis, and so on) rather than by the directcommunication of messages (Maley, 2012, para. 10).
L2 learners are rarely given the permission, much less the space and support, toexperiment with language in this manner. Yet it is clearly such a key part of thedevelopment of both a deep understanding of the language and the formation
240

The Place of Creative Writing in an EFL University Curriculum ■of identity within L2. I shall deal with the latter in a separate section. For the
moment, we will focus on CW as a conduit for playfulness in L2 acquisition.
Cook (2000) and Crystal (1998) stress the need for play in L2 acquisition but
as Roberts (2013) points out, current writing classes eschew play in favour ofrigidity and rules. A pristine draft that adheres to APA strictures and academic
dogma is only the full stop on the writing process. The route by which the student
engages with the blank page is far more important, Homstad and Thorson (2000)
argue. “An effective creative writing strategy brings the whole learner into theclassroom: experiences, feelings, memories, beliefs” (Spiro, 2012, para. 2).
The student is encouraged to “play creatively with the language in a guilt-freeenvironment” (Maley 2012, para. 10). As we will see later, this play is key to L2
self formation and sustaining motivation over the marathon of L2 acquisition.

Motivation and Identitya) Motivation
One of the most frequent criticisms of academic writing programs, as illustrated by Hyland (2003), is that both the topics chosen and the forms required
are removed from the experiences, interests and aspirations of the students.
Disengagement leads to disillusionment and demotivation. Over the course ofa recent writing program I watched attendance drop and participation disappear
as students were forced by the strictures of the curriculum to engage with topics
they had no interest in such as issues in minority languages and the debate overviolence in movies. As soon as we moved onto creative non-fiction (travel writing in this case) and the students were free to choose their own themes, forms anddirection, attendance rose and students eagerly joined in activities and produced
their best work of the year.
While the above is anecdotal, the interface between CW and motivation
has been clearly demonstrated. Motivation and confidence are key factors inlinguistic development, and studies by Hanauer (2010) and Iida (2010) have241

shown both to be positively affected by the introduction of CW to the classroom.
Maley (2009) cites a significant rise in self-confidence and self-esteem, once
university students are exposed to CW, a finding which Bussinger (2013) echoes.
Students regularly cite an inability to express themselves in L2 as a weakness and a demotivating factor (Liao, 2012, Pelcova, 2015, R. Schrader, 2000).
Humans are a social animal and the inability to interact with others on a personallevel has been shown to affect our mental health, as comprehensively describedby West, D. A., Kellner, R., and Moore-West, (1986). However, as Schultz(2001) points out, students are “rarely afforded the opportunity simply to writefrom their imaginations, practicing their language skills in formats that they
define for themselves” (p. 94). Hyland (2003) states that instead the students
are asked to explore abstract and often dull or out of date concepts that may noteven relate to their interests or context. By focusing on grammar, structure andcorrect referencing, Liao (2012) argues, self-expression is left forgotten and thestudents feel little ownership over the finished work.
Motivation is a tricky issue, Sasaki (2011) maintains since it is at the mercyof a huge number of variables from tiredness and hunger through psychologicaland cognitive issues to societal and personal circumstance. However, one thing isclear: if students are not interested in the assigned task or see no value in it, they
will be far less motivated to fully engage in the work. Sullivan (2015) argues thatCW drawn from the students’ experiences can sidestep issues of passivity. Thisis a problematic area with Japanese university students who, as Sullivan (2015)
points out, have been “captive learners” during their earlier education career (p.
37). Subjects “removed from students’ life experiences and [which] seem to holdlittle relevance” (p. 37) can cause student aversion to the lesson and activities.
Maley (2009) likewise reports a “corresponding growth in positive motivation”(para. 7) when CW is introduced to the curriculum.
Motivation increases as self-esteem rises. From a starting point where students
feel unable to express themselves, over the course of a CW program they can feel
242

The Place of Creative Writing in an EFL University Curriculum ■themselves strengthening in this area. Bussinger (2013) shows how his students
improve as they “are encouraged to break out of the text-book style of learning byrepetition” (p. 12). He takes his university students through a four-week course
bringing them from “holding a conversation on personal topics” (p. 13) creating
a story inspired by one word from that initial conversation. They then flesh out
the story using sensory detail and dialogue. This step-by-step approach allowed
Bussinger’s students to develop the tools and techniques for self-expression inan easy and understandable way, and the students reaped the benefits.
Based on interviews and feedback from students, Liao (2012) reports thatwhile only 39% of her subjects felt that general writing improved their selfawareness, 67% felt that creative writing aided their self-discovery. Meanwhile,
50% felt controlled and burdened by the general writing while only 28% reported
feelings of frustration with the creative writing. In terms of attitude, 89%
reported resistance to the GW course, while only 22% felt the same about CW.
One student quoted by Liao (2012) said that “(poetry writing) permitted me to toopen to a to say it, and to it’s kind of liberation, I free myself when I wrote [sic]”(p. 95). Harmer (2004) echoes this. Tok and Kandemir (2015) report similarfindings when teaching CW to 7th grade students. While M. Schrader (2000)
found something similar with immigrants learning German in work preparation
courses. Focusing on the use of freewriting in the classroom, he showed how
creative writing can “offer the learners, following their own communicativeneeds, to test the second language as their own medium” (p. 65).
So, CW, by moving the focus of the assignment from abstract, disconnected
themes to personal ones connected with their experience and interest, in conjunction with providing space and support for the students to practice expressing
their emotions and subjective experience, can, as Pelcova (2015) asserts, leadto a dramatic increase in motivation. As Pelcova (2015) puts it:

243Not only it entertains students, but it also fosters their artistic expression,
explores the functions and values of writing, clarifies thinking, stimulates
their imagination, helps them to search for identity and last but not least
it enables them to learn to read and write (p. 16).
b) The L2 Self
In the previous section I discussed the need for play and experimentation within
language acquisition. This experimentation not only deepens their understanding
and flexibility with the target language, it also promotes the development ofwhat Maley (2012) calls the “second language personality” (para. 11) or what
Dörnyei (2009) calls the “L2 Self”. As Smith (2013) argues, the ability to express
one’s self is inherent in what it means to master a language. M. Schrader (2000)
borrows from Hegel (1807) the concept of real world encounters taking place
within the individual’s mind. We experience our interactions with the external
world within our internal, experiential consciousness. As such it is vital therefore
that the medium used within the mind is the target language. He goes on to argue
convincingly that CW:
represents the opportunity of making the target language into the materialof one’s own thinking. It is the attempt to assert the inner language bymeans of the second language, and thus, to establish the target languagein the individual’s own thinking (p. 59).
Liao (2012), echoing Cox, Jordan, Ortmeier-Hooper, and Schwartz (2010),
writes that L2 is not merely the conduit through which the learner expresses
themselves; rather, the L2 Self is formed through the act of language use.
Denying students the opportunity to do this actively hinders their development.
Altarriba and Basnight-Brown (2011) explain how emotional vocabulary resides
in different neural processes to non-emotional vocabulary as a result of natural
244

The Place of Creative Writing in an EFL University Curriculum ■chronological development in the individual. Implicit in those findings is theconclusion that emotional language needs a different form of teaching and study
to be deeply activated than more concrete language. CW is ideally suited to this.
Creative writing, by actively encouraging students to express themselves,to find language and forms within which they can externalise the internal, canbridge the gap between personal identity and the target language. R. Schrader(2000) discusses the concept of “acquisition through use” (p. 32), a noncontroversial concept which states that language must be used in context before
fluency can be achieved. Schrader argues that “if the written language is tobecome an effective means of self-expression, it must frequently be used as thismeans” (p. 32). Since emotional literacy is clearly a necessary part of mastery,it makes no sense to exclude this from the curriculum. It is little surprise thatstudents are vocal about their failings in this area when they are rarely given thetime or space to develop this key skill. When given this opportunity, students“gain a constructive sense of power through seeing their own words, their own
feelings and thoughts in print” (Dell, 1964, p. 500). Far from being an abstract
exercise in language production, James (2007) argues, this approach can increase
the students’ sense of the worth inherent in their studies. Liao (2012) cites her
own experiences learning English by way of illustration, talking about how her
CW work led to feelings of pride and fulfilment, boosting her motivation andconfidence. Sullivan (2015) echoes this in her own findings. This pride andfulfilment, M. Schrader (2000) argues, deepens the student’s connection withthe second language because the work has enabled them “to communicate about
what is personally significant” (p. 66). As Spiro (2004) poignantly writes, in therush to produce competent language users for academic and business purposes,
we are in danger of excising the internal imaginative world of the individual fromthe process. In Japan, this trend in education has long be decried by some, suchas Hashimoto (2004), and blamed for the perceived “creativity” gap between
the innovative successes of Japanese and Western business, as outlined in The
245

Economist (1997).

Real World
The teaching of creative writing to university students is about more than backing
up language input from elsewhere and boosting self-esteem. Far more than academic writing, creative writing has clear and varied real world applications. Few
students studying EFL at university will progress beyond undergraduate level yet
many academic writing courses are geared towards teaching them the kinds ofskills and forms necessary for thesis writing. It is simply inefficient to structure
curriculum towards a goal that few if any share. A recent survey of my third-year
writing students showed that while none intended to pursue an academic career
beyond graduation, all present hoped to secure a job that would draw on theirlanguage skills. Many of the jobs mentioned in the ensuing discussion involved
some form of creative writing, whether emailing colleagues or clients outside
Japan, delivering presentations or translating documents. Others spoke of theirintention to work abroad, where they would undoubtedly be called on to write
creatively in English, producing correspondence, reports, translations, copy
or social media posts. One expressed the desire to become a sports journalist,
writing in English. In three years of study, not a single lesson had ever catered
towards his career goal. Yet he could reference in APA perfectly. As Ozturk(2016) accurately states, “Creative language exists in various aspects of everyday
communication as well as a part of written works. Therefore, the need to acquire
creative language besides academic language becomes a requirement for current
language learners as well” (p. 7).
Academic writing and creative writing both develop L2 skills and aid withlanguage acquisition. Neither has a claim on supremacy there. However, academic writing is a bubble subject, an end unto itself; creative writing has tangible
benefits a student can grasp—boosting motivation, as seen above — but also
preparing them for studying abroad and the inevitable job market.
246The Place of Creative Writing in an EFL University Curriculum ■Sasaki (2011) discusses the need for “imagined L2-related communities” (p.
100) as a catalyst for motivation and as a clear goal to work towards. She cites
one study she conducted where students became deeply engaged in activities thatinvolved writing emails to friends made during study-abroad trips. The obvious
purpose and personal connection brought out an energy entirely absent when
they engaged in academic writing.
Homstad and Thorson (2000), referring to work done by Ransdell and Levy
(1994), echo these findings. By engaging in real world writing activities such as
email exchanges, newspaper production or epistolary correspondence, writing
was given “context and significance” (p. 12) their academic writing lacked.
In Japan, this real-world significance is particularly important. As McCreedy(2004) tells us:
In order to boost national competitiveness, the Japanese government has
begun implementing a variety of reforms designed to foster innovation.
From giving schoolchildren “room to grow” to deregulating entrepreneurial activity, the government and many in the private sector hope to solve
Japan’s so-called “creativity problem” (p. 1).
With Japanese companies like Uni-Qlo and Rakuten turning their workspace
into English-only zones (Maeda, 2010) and multinational companies like Ikea
making inroads into Japanese commercial life, the ability to interact in nonacademic forms of writing has become more pressing than ever. Runco (2004)
supports this in a wider context, where creativity itself is increasingly valued bycompanies seeking to innovate and compete in the global market.
In the short-term, students intending to study overseas will also benefit fromthe real-world applications of CW, since “a focus on techniques in expressive
language will help them thrive in their second language environment” (Smith
2013, p. 17). A narrow band of skills developed in academic writing fails to247

adequately prepare the students for the full range of demands that may be madeon their language skills beyond the classroom. From interacting with institutions
while studying abroad to keeping up with international friends, from writing
for class to preparing a speech for contest, many university students today can
expect to use their English in a wide variety of ways. By failing to provide themtransferable skills for these eventualities, we, as educators, are failing them.
CW is not simply fiction and fairies, it’s not all play and poetry. By teaching
our students to be creative and flexible with the language, we prepare them forthe calls the future will make on their language skills. Perhaps they will neverbe called on to produce a 5-7-5 syllable haiku or to produce a short story on a
Halloween theme, but the techniques, the language manipulation skills and, theconfidence they will gain by participating in these activities will set them in goodstead for whatever the job market of the future requires of them.

Conclusion
CW may be the most under-used tool in the ELT box. A combination of prejudice against non-academic forms of writing, an assumption that play is inherently
trivial and has no place in an academic institution, and a misunderstanding of theprerequisite language skills are regularly cited as reasons for eschewing CW in
favour of academic writing. Yet students frequently state that they lack the ability to adequately and accurately express their internal world through the second
language. Consequently, motivation decreases and the necessary formation of an
L2 self is delayed. Emotions, subjective experience and even personal identity
remain absent from their written product despite the fact that these skills are key
to mastery of the target language. Hundreds of curriculum hours are devoted to
APA and academic forms when few students will ever use these skills beyond
the academic writing classroom. Many studies have been done, such as by Iida(2010), Liao (2012), Roberts (2013) and Pelcova (2015), and the results areconclusive. The evidence is there.
248

The Place of Creative Writing in an EFL University Curriculum ■Creative writing is no panacea and academic writing is just as vital fordeveloping their language skills and progressing the student towards error
eradication and the desirable level of fluency, but to dispense with CW from arounded four skill curriculum is to handicap teachers and students as they push
for improvement.
A number of CW textbooks exist, such as Creative Writing in EFL/ESL
Classrooms (2003) by Tan Bee Tin, Writing Poems (2011) by Maley and
Mukundan and Writing Stories (2011) by Maley and Mukundan (all publishedby Pearson). Many more online sources offer lesson plans and materials. The
skills required for CW instruction are no different from those required to teachacademic writing. Whether you are teaching them to structure a paragraph or astanza, whether the focus of the lesson is on a clear thesis statement or a gripping
opening line, the classroom techniques are the same. Teaching and studying
creative writing requires no special talent, no elite gift given to a lucky few.
Anyone who can learn to write, can learn to write creatively. Anyone who canteach writing, can teach creative writing. All that remains is the will to do so.

References
Altarriba, J. & Basnight-Brown, D. M. (2011). The acquisition of concrete, abstract, and emotion words in a second language. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(4), 44–52.
doi:10.1177/1367006911429511
Badger, R. & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54((2),
153–160. doi:10.12691/education-3-7-3\
Berman, M. (1998). Story Telling and Guided Journeys. IATEFL Issues, 146, 19–21.
Bilton, L. & Sivasubramaniam, S. (2009). An inquiry into expressive writing: A classroom-based
study. Language Teaching Research, 139(3), 301–320. doi:10.1177/1367006911429511
Bussinger, C. R. (2013). Creative writing in ELT: Organically grown stories. The Journal of Literaturein Language Teaching, 2(2), 12–18.
Cook, G. (2000). Language Play: Language Learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Crystal, D. (1998). Language Play. London, UK: Penguin.
Dell, W. C. (1964). Creative Writing in the English Classroom. The English Journal, 53(7), 500–503.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second
Language Acquisition. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.

249

Hanauer, D. I. (2010). Poetry as research: Exploring second language poetry writing. Amsterdam,
Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Harmer, J. (2004) How to teach writing. Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited.
Hashimoto, A. (2004). Power to the Imagination. Asia Program, 121, 9–12.
Homstad, T. & Thorson, H. (2000). Writing and Foreign Language Pedagogy: Theories and
Implications. In G. Bräuer (Ed.), Writing Across Languages (3-14). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and Researching Writing. Harlow, UK. Longman.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Iida, A. (2010). Developing voice by composing haiku: A social-expressivist framework for teachinghaiku writing in EFL contexts. English Teaching Forum, 48(1), 28–34.
Iida, A. (2013). Critical review of literary reading and writing in a second language. The Journal of
Literature in Language Teaching, 2(1), 5–11.
James, G. (2007). Writing Creatively in Another Language [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://tefl.net/
elt/ideas/writing-ideas/writing-creatively-in-another-language
Jarret, C. (2012). Why The Left-Brain Right-Brain Myth Will Probably Never Die. Retrieved fromhttps://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-myths/201206/why-the-left-brain-right-brainmyth-will-probably-never-die
Liao, F. Y. (2012). ESL Students’ Writing Experiences and Perceived Poetry Writing Ability (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University of Pennsylvania, PA.
Light, G. (2003). From the personal to the public: Conceptions of creative writing in higher education.
Higher Education 43(2), 257–276.
Maeda, M. (2010). Uniqlo, Rakuten Make Official Language English. Retrieved from Japan Centre
for Economic Research website: http://www.jcer.or.jp/eng/research/pdf/maeda20100715e.pdf
Maley, A. (2009, December 16). Creative writing for language learners (and teachers). Retrieved
from British Council on: http://teachingenglish.org.uk/article/creative-writing-language-learnersteachers
Maley, A. (2012). Creative Writing for Students and Teachers. Humanising Language Teaching, 14(3).
Retrieved from http://hltmag.co.uk/jun12/mart01.htm
Maybin, J. (2006). Children’s Voices: Talk, Knowledge and Identity, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
McCreedy, A. (2004). The “Creativity Problem” and the Future of the Japanese Workforce. Asia
Program, 121, 1–3.
Miles, R. (1992). Creative writing, contemporary theory and the English curriculum. In R. Miles & M.
Monteith (Eds.), Teaching Creative Writing (pp. 34–44). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Monteith, M. (1992). Creative writing: A historical perspective. In R. Miles & M. Monteith (Eds.),
Teaching Creative Writing (pp. 10–23). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Öztürk, M. (2016). The Use of Creative Writing and Non-academic Vocabulary in English for
Academic Purposes (EAP) Classrooms. The Journal of Literature in Language Teaching 5(1),5–24.
Pelcova, M. (2015). Using Creative Writing as a Tool for Teaching English as a Foreign Language(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.

250

The Place of Creative Writing in an EFL University Curriculum ■Pashler, H., McDaniel, M, Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest 9(3). 106–119.
Roberts, J. W. (2013). Theorizing on the Advantages of the Fiction Writing Workshop in the EFLClassroom, Part 1. The Journal of Literature in Language Teaching, 2(2), 19–26.
Runco, M. A. (2004) Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55. 657–687.
Sasaki, M. (2011). Effects of Varying Lengths of Study Abroad Experiences on Japanese EFL
Students’ L2 Writing Ability and Motivation: A Longitudinal Study. TESOL Quarterly, 45,
81–105. Doi:10.5054/tq.2011.240861
Schrader, R. (2000). Creative Writing With Young Immigrants. In G. Bräuer (Ed.), Writing AcrossLanguages (pp. 25–40). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Schrader, M. (2000). Automatic Writing in the Preparation of Immigrants for Work that is Indeed
Beautiful. In G. Bräuer (Ed.), Writing Across Languages (pp. 53–67). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Schultz, J. M. (2001). Towards a pedagogy of creative writing in a foreign language. In G. Bräuer(Ed.), Pedagogy of Language Learning in Higher Education: an introduction (pp. 93–108).
Westport, CT: Ablex.
Smith, C. (2013). Creative writing as an important tool in second language acquisition and practice.
The Journal of Literature in Language Teaching, 2(1), 12–18.
Spiro, J. (2004). Creative Poetry Writing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Spiro, J. (2012). Creative Writing in the Language Classroom. (Oxford University Press ELT,
unnamed interviewer). Retrieved from http://www.oupeltglobalblog.com/2012/03/06/creativewriting-in-the-language-classroom
Spiro, J. (2007). Storybuilding. Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press.
Sullivan, S. L. (2015). Student autonomy through creativity. The Journal of Literature in Language
Teaching 4(1), 35–53.
Tok, Ş. & Kandemír, A. (2015). Effects of creative writing on students’ achievement in writing, writing
dispositions and attitude to English. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences 174, 1635–1642.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.815
Tompkins, G. E. (1982). Seven Reasons Why Children Should Write Stories. Language Arts, 59(7),718–721. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41405103
West, D. A., Kellner, R., & Moore-West, (1986). The Effects of Loneliness: A Review of the
Literature. Comprehensive Psychiatry 27(4) 351–383.
Wilkinson, T., Boohan, M., Stevenson, M. (2014). Does learning style influence academic performancein different forms of assessment? J Anat 224(3) 304–308. doi:10.1111/joa.12126
The Struggle to Create Creativity. (1997, June 26). The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.
economist.com/node/91903

251