【Research Brief】

English for Creative Purposes:
Implementing a CLIL Framework for Tertiary Creative
Writing Courses in Japan
Paul Curran

Abstract
Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) has become an increasingly
popular approach to English language teaching at the undergraduate university
level in Japan as a means of raising the proficiency of local students andattracting international ones to study together in a global, English-speaking
Liberal Arts environment. Creative Writing (CW) courses at the undergraduate
and postgraduate university levels have become increasingly popular in Englishspeaking countries over the first quarter of the 21st century. If there is an
assumption that CW courses are only for the most fluent of speakers, perhaps a
CLIL approach could provide space for speakers who are not as fluent.
Additionally, CW could encourage students to explore and share their diverse
backgrounds. Therefore, this paper proposes that Liberal Arts programs using
CLIL should be encouraged to incorporate CW into their curricula to reflectglobal standards. The paper outlines CLIL definitions, evaluates benefits anddrawbacks, discusses a possible CLIL/CW course, and concludes that CLIL/CW
could make a positive combination.
Keywords: Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), English Language Teaching(ELT), Creative Writing (CW), Course design, Classroom practiceIntroduction
Creative Writing (CW) has been consistently called one of the most popular subjects
among American undergraduate Liberal Arts students (Leahy, 2012). However, there are few
CW courses in English language teaching (ELT), even those that have adopted the current
trend for Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). This paper reports on theprocess of implementing a CLIL framework for a CW course in the Center for Foreign
Language Education and Research at Rikkyo University in Tokyo, Japan. The paper begins
by untangling the various definitions of CLIL before offering a critical evaluation of thebenefits and drawbacks of CLIL. This leads to a discussion of the process of designing a
one-semester undergraduate CLIL course in CW. The paper concludes that CLIL and CW are
a potentially positive combination for global tertiary education in a post-millennium world.
100English for Creative Purposes: Implementing a CLIL Framework for Tertiary Creative Writing Courses in Japan

Critical Evaluation: CLIL
Although Scrivener (2011) calls CLIL “one of the ugliest-ever ELT acronyms” (p. 327),
he offers no explanation of why he finds it ugly. However, he does explain what CLIL is,and he is not the only one who feels compelled to do so. Much of the literature in CLIL’s
relatively short history begins with a section or chapter addressing “What is CLIL?” (e.g.,
Ball et al., 2015; Coyle et al., 2010; Ohmori, 2014). Rather than staking out a new theoreticalground, the purpose of many CLIL definitions is to clear up confusion. This repeated needto clarify CLIL perhaps came about because there are so many different manifestations orvariations of CLIL. Any stable definition is further complicated by featuring a range ofbenefits and drawbacks, and this instability has been amplified by more recent calls to movebeyond CLIL (Coyle & Meyer, 2021). As such, in this section, a broad definition of CLIL ispresented. This is followed by a critical evaluation of the benefits and drawbacks of CLIL.
Definitions of CLIL
One of the most widely circulated definitions of CLIL calls it a “dual-focused educational
approach in which an additional language is used for learning and teaching of both content
and language” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 1). However, there is neither a commonly accepted
definition of what constitutes an appropriate integration of content and language learning nor
is there an agreement on the exact role of subject and language teachers. This confusion has
led to CLIL being labelled an elusive concept and an “umbrella term, covering a dozen or
more educational approaches” (Ball et al., 2015, p. 24).
CLIL originated in Europe in the 1990s as an approach to teaching content (e.g., primaryor secondary school curriculum subjects such as science or math) through L2, which in manycases, but not exclusively, meant English. CLIL soon spread into tertiary education andaround the globe, where it was embraced by language teachers as a form of English for
specific purposes or task-based learning (Ball et al., 2015). However, Ball et al. (2015) also
criticize the way CLIL has been imported into language lessons, where they say it has been“taught by language teachers, assessed as language teaching, and makes no formal
contribution to the subject curriculum” (p. 1). This crossover between subject and language
teachers is central to issues revolving around the definition of CLIL.
Attempts to streamline CLIL’s definition and the issue of subject and language teachers
have resulted in the distinction between “soft” and “hard” CLIL. Hard CLIL is close to fullimmersion. Subjects are taught by subject teachers in L2 for all contact hours for a year or
more and possibly lead to public examinations in the subject. In hard CLIL, language
teachers take on a consultative or supportive role where necessary. In contrast, soft CLIL is
the form commonly seen in ELT settings such as Japan, where language teachers, who are
not necessarily subject experts, import content into language lessons. The balance between
language and content is based on nebulous factors including lesson stage, learner needs, andinstitutional requirements. These courses are typically less than a year, do not involve allcontact hours, and have a lot of language teacher involvement (Ball et al., 2015).
Having briefly reviewed common CLIL definitions, the conclusion reached is that CLIL
cannot be called a single approach or even a “uniform set of practices” (Ball et al., 2015, p.
101

外国語教育研究ジャーナル

第4巻 （ JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 4）2). Most recently, Coyle and Meyer (2021) has helpfully redefined CLIL as “a constantly
evolving approach to learning and teaching in our multilingual and multicultural classrooms”(p. 3). Perhaps, the flexibility implicit in being a broad umbrella is one of CLIL’s greatest
strengths. In other words, various versions can be readapted and redefined to suit local,
cultural, and institutional conditions. However, as Scrivener (2011) warns “The hope is that
achievement in both subject and language will be higher. The fear is that both will end up
worse” (p. 327). Therefore, it is now appropriate to take a closer look at particular benefits
and drawbacks of CLIL.
Benefits of CLIL
Coyle et al. (2010) group the goals of CLIL under the heading of 4Cs: Content,
Cognition, Communication, Culture. This 4Cs framework also offers a succinct way of
examining and understanding the benefits of CLIL.
Firstly and perhaps most importantly, content is the subject matter that is being taught
through CLIL. Content is most important because students are supposedly learning about anactual subject in a semi-authentic manner. This could be particularly beneficial for motivating
more advanced students who already have a good grasp of communicative English. It could
also benefit language teachers who have grown demotivated with communicative language
teaching or other functional syllabus types (Breen, 1987). Furthermore, language teachers
could focus on subjects that they have studied and are personally interested in, and institutions
could promote various syllabus options.
Perhaps the most complicated but unique of the 4Cs is cognition. This relates to thedevelopment of thinking skills based on the content studied. Coyle et al. (2010) basecognition on Anderson and Krathwohl’s adaptation of Bloom’s taxonomy of thinking
processes. This is a general approach to teaching that encourages students to be independent
thinkers and develop processing skills such as analyzing, evaluating, and creating alongside
the development of factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge.
Although closely connected to content, the third C (communication) relates to language
learning and implementation (Coyle et al., 2010). Communication is a reminder that CLIL
lessons are not the same as subject lessons delivered to L1 students. For example, toencourage communication skills, CLIL teachers should modify content so that it is at aslightly higher level than students’ current ability. This gives students a scaffold in which todevelop their language skills while they learn about the subject without the possible
intimidation of total immersion. Teachers then provide any necessary feedback and support
for students to learn the content. Teachers are also expected to encourage peer interaction
and productive practice that helps develop communicative competencies such as breakdown
and repair strategies (de Graaff et al., 2007). However, subjects taught as CLIL should not
be an oversimplified or translation-assisted replication of previous disciplines studied in L1(Coyle & Meyer, 2021).
Finally, culture relates to developing intercultural understanding and global citizenship,
which is particularly important in the context of CLIL as an increasingly global phenomenon.
As Ball et al. (2015) note, in many ways, the idea of simply learning English or any language,
unless for a hobby, as a goal in itself is rapidly vanishing as the 20th century recedes. This102

English for Creative Purposes: Implementing a CLIL Framework for Tertiary Creative Writing Courses in Japanis particularly true of English in a global setting, where English is no longer simply one ofmany possible languages to learn but a “core skill” (Ball et al., 2015, p. 26). Although this“post-millennial, utilitarian view of the English language” (Ball et al., 2015, p. 26) as a
passport to global citizenship may sound attractive, it begs questions about how difficult it
is to implement CLIL.
Drawbacks of CLIL
Though Coyle et al.’s (2010) version of CLIL has been praised as a framework or
toolkit, criticism of CLIL revolves around the implementation process (Ball et al., 2015;
Banegas, 2011). Furthermore, Scrivener’s (2011) concern about the balance of learning in
CLIL relates to how teachers integrate content and language. Another related problem in
CLIL is assessment.
If language and content are meant to be integrated as the CLIL acronym declares, thisintegration should also occur at the level of teacher roles. CLIL cannot be implemented withthe assumption that teaching in L2 to non-native speakers is the same as teaching in L1 tonative speakers. It is not CLIL if there is no or little language development. There must be
some language support and some form of integration (Ball et al., 2015). However, when a
CLIL course is taught solely by a teacher with an ELT background, if not a subject or content
expert, then it is simply ELT. Having said that, perhaps the dichotomy between subject andlanguage teachers is false. One solution might be to view all teaching as related to content
and language. Ball et al. (2015) point toward the emergence of a hybrid teacher: “If all
language teachers begin to consider themselves content teachers, then instead of maintaining
the divide between the language and subject worlds, we begin to build bridges between
them” (p. 272).
The duality implied by separating content and language as if content is somehow
separate from the language of the content is also pertinent when it comes to assessment.
Courses that foreground linguistic objectives could be soft CLIL, whereas courses that
foreground procedural and conceptual content objectives could be hard CLIL (Ball et al.,2015). Therefore, the main difficulty in implementing CLIL assessment is deciding where
the course sits on this spectrum. Ball et al. (2015) argue that “the priority should always be
the content, but as Coyle et al. (2010) suggest, the assessment can also consider language
features if the teacher deems it appropriate” (p. 215). Having reviewed the benefits anddifficulties of CLIL, it is now appropriate to discuss how CLIL could work with CW in
Japan.

Discussion: English for Creative Purposes
English might be the language of globalization and internationalization; however, Japanis still relatively monocultural and monolingual despite several decades of ambivalent
government attempts to alter the situation (Tada, 2016). Learning English in Japan has a longand sometimes controversial history, too complex to cover here; however, leading up to thepostponed Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (MEXT) implemented guidelines for active learning103

外国語教育研究ジャーナル

第4巻 （ JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 4）

in Japanese schools (McMurray, 2018). MEXT also planned to increase English as a medium
of instruction courses at Japanese universities. The ultimate goal is to raise the international
standing of Japanese universities, transforming higher education in Japan into a global hub,where local students can study alongside international students. For example, “Hiroshima
University is seeking to increase ‘foreign language taught courses’ to 50% across theuniversity” (Rose & McKinley, 2018, p. 123), and although the university has not mentioned
a date to reach this target, Waseda University is aiming for the same plateau for bothundergraduate and graduate courses by 2032, which would be “up from 9% and 6%
respectively in 2012” (Elwood, 2018, p. 37).
A result of MEXT’s plans is the proliferation of courses based on so-called soft CLIL
(i.e., language teacher facilitated subject lessons) at Japanese universities (Ikeda et al., 2021).
This combination of increased MEXT plans to globalize the Japanese education sector anda rich literary culture could thus lead to innovative approaches such as CLIL and CW. Thissection discusses the creation of an undergraduate CLIL/CW course. The section is divided
into four parts that follow the 4Cs framework for a CLIL syllabus.
Content (Course Design and Content)
Breen (1987) classically asks of any course, “what knowledge does it focus on?” Healso asks what capabilities does it focus on and prioritize. The answer to the first question
for a CLIL course would usually be that the knowledge is the content being imparted to thestudents, what they are expected to demonstrate knowledge of by the end of the course. For
example, in a science or history course, students would learn about particular aspects ofscience or periods in history. However, in CW, as in other fine arts subjects, it could beargued that there is no specific content. This belief is perhaps related to the antiquatedargument that CW cannot or should not be taught, particularly at the university level, because
it is an exclusive art form, rather than a craft, that relies most on inborn talent (Kamata &Guenther, 2014).
However, teaching CW has a long history in academia, where it was once seen as ananomaly in literature departments but eventually gained its own space and is now seen as an
essential part of the tertiary academic landscape (Cantrell, 2012). Furthermore, it is not only
essential because of popularity or because students necessarily want to become publishednovelists, poets, or screenwriters. As Leahy (2012) says, although “most undergraduates will
not go on to publish creative work, we should recognize that these language skills aretransferable” (p. 75). This is an important point to consider from a soft CLIL/ELT perspective.
A main difference with CW and other academic subjects is that the students bring much of
the content. They may study different genres to learn how to appreciate or apply different
styles and techniques, particular beats and themes, but what is most important is their own
work. Furthermore, language learning is automatically integrated into the creation of that
content. CW classes continuously integrate content and language into their curricula. In CW,
it is assumed that everyone can improve their language use. There is always language
development. Moreover, offering CW courses to L2 speakers could make a significant
contribution to the field because new students could bring new perspectives to the use of
global English.
104

English for Creative Purposes: Implementing a CLIL Framework for Tertiary Creative Writing Courses in Japan

The American Association of Writers and Writing Programs recommends that introductoryundergraduate CW courses include “the reading and critical analysis of canonical andcontemporary works of literature” as well as practice in “specific craft techniques” in thefour most common genres: poetry, non-fiction, fiction, and drama/screenwriting and peer
review with instructor moderation (Association of Writers and Writing Programs, n.d.).
Therefore, CLIL/CW courses at Japanese universities could follow a similar format. As there
are typically 14 weeks in a Japanese tertiary semester, the first lesson could be an introduction(and needs analysis), whereas the last lesson could be a round up or an additional workshop
if required. The other 12 lessons could be divided into four modules: poetry, non-fiction,
fiction, and screenwriting.
Each module would last three weeks (two seminars and a workshop). In the seminarlessons, students would describe, compare, examine, discuss, and/or rate different examplesof particular genres, forms, styles, and techniques. Students would have homework readingfrom published literature that exemplifies that week’s particular craft skill or genre. This
would be followed by a workshop lesson, where students would share their own work andgive and receive critical feedback. For example, two seminars on poetry could be divided
into canonical and contemporary works. Shakespearean sonnets could be contrasted with theWestern haiku, and students could choose to write their own versions following or breaking
each genre’s particular constraints. Similarly, alternative poetic forms, such as blank verse,
narrative, and concrete poetry could be analyzed, evaluated, and composed.
By following a standard CW trajectory and eventually submitting a portfolio of selected
work, the students would demonstrate that “tasks (and activities) in CLIL should not be seenin isolation, but as part of a larger sequence” (Ball et al., 2015, p. 207). Finally, students
would also be expected to participate in workshops and communicate with each other about
the process, and it is in the interlinked areas of content and communication that potential
language issues would be addressed.
Communication (Needs Analysis)
Institutional requirements would ideally cap the number of students on such a course ata maximum of 20, each with an IELTS score of at least 6.5 (B2/C1 of the Common European
Framework of Reference [CEFR]), which is an average minimum level for entering an
English-speaking university program or studying abroad, and it is the recommended minimum
for doing CLIL (Ball et al., 2015). As such a course would be voluntary, it could also be
expected that applicants were interested in English literature and CW. Additionally,
enthusiasm is as important as experience. However, ideally, in a CW course, students would
submit a brief written introduction and portfolio of previous work as part of the application
process to serve as a needs analysis. Because student lists are perhaps only available shortly
before the semester begins, the first lesson, as mentioned, could itself function as a form ofneeds analysis.
In regular lessons, although communication needs would be addressed as required, thesequencing of the four modules also points to particular areas of language use that may reveal
the need for support strategies. For instance, the poetry module would focus on vocabulary,lexical range, and accuracy. Students would be encouraged to explore etymology and word105

外国語教育研究ジャーナル

第4巻 （ JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 4）

choice and areas such as figurative language. The second module, non-fiction, would focus
on sentence-level grammatical structures and building paragraphs. This would also relate to
the use of past and perfect tenses for reporting on memorable experiences. The fiction
module would extend the focus on paragraph structures and include punctuation. Thisextension would include developing cohesion and coherence through the use of discourse
markers and the conventions of formatting dialog. The focus on dialog in the fiction module
would be further explored in the final module, screenwriting, which also requires particularformatting. Screenwriting would focus on the use of present tenses because the conventionsof a screenplay require it to be read like the report of a film unfolding in real time.
Finally, an essential aspect of the workshop component would be student interaction.
This aspect of the course would help students practice and develop communicativecompetencies such as breakdown and repair strategies (De Graaff et al., 2007). Furthermore,when sharing written work and engaging in peer feedback, Kamata and Guenther (2014)agree, in the context of L2 CW tertiary programs in Japan, students should feel relaxed andsupported. Having a positive atmosphere would encourage students to experiment and takerisks with their writing, some of which may be very personal. Therefore, students could be
encouraged to remain neutral. Rather than identifying what they liked or did not like abouta piece, from a traditionally critical perspective, a more equitable, rhizomatic approach could
see students noting what resonated with them (Vanderslice, 2012). Students could also
develop metacognitive skills to discuss and explain their own work as well as responding toexamples of literature in different genres and to each other’s work. This communicative
process circles back to the second C: cognition.
Cognition (Materials Development)
As mentioned previously, though a complicated area, cognition has been labeled themost important of the 4Cs in CLIL for Japanese students because it can encourage theirdevelopment as critical and independent thinkers (MacGregor, 2016).
Creativity itself is an important aspect of cognition based on Anderson and Krathwohl’s
adaptation of Bloom’s taxonomy of thinking processes (Coyle et al., 2010). Although
Bloom’s taxonomy is often mentioned in CLIL papers, little attention is given to creativity.
However, CW courses, by the nature of their process and student-centered orientation,encourage creativity in the reading and writing process. They also encourage critical andindependent thinking in the workshop process, where students are initially exposed to
published materials before developing and sharing their own work.
Consequently, the most important materials developed in a CW course are the ones thestudents develop themselves. As mentioned above, materials that exemplify canonical andcontemporary literature could be shared with students, but as the syllabus would be partly
negotiated, these materials might change depending on initial needs analysis. However, thesematerials would not be held up as untouchable, superior to potential student output. Initial
exposure to published work would not only give students different models to try on for sizeand discover their textual preferences but also allow students to practice responding tocreative work before responding to each other’s. This response would be “not in the
traditional literary sense but with an eye towards interrogating technique” (Vanderslice, 2012,106

English for Creative Purposes: Implementing a CLIL Framework for Tertiary Creative Writing Courses in Japan

p. 117). Students would not always be expected to judge the work but to comment on what
resonates with them or which aspects of craft are noticeable and how those effects areachieved. Materials would also allow new CW students the chance to practice themetalanguage required to actively participate in the workshop setting without the risk of
having to expose their own work first.
In producing their own materials, students would potentially engage with English in amore creative manner than they have ever experienced in an ELT setting, “putting together
pieces to construct something new or recognizing components of a new structure, e.g.
generating, planning, producing” (Coyle et al., 2010, p. 66). In addition to the ability to
improve creativity, students would develop ways to analyze and evaluate their own work.
They would explain their work, reflect on it, share and supportively critique each other’s.
This is important because the “development of students as critics and reflective writers
usually goes hand in hand with their development as creative writers” (Vanderslice, 2012, p.
116). As has been shown, CW has the potential to make a lasting impact on the cognitive
development of students.
Finally, CW courses contribute to self-knowledge and self-expression because students
think and write about themselves and their experiences. “Students can learn about the craftof writing, as well as how to think critically, skills that will prove useful to students evenoutside of English classes” (Kamata & Guenther, 2014, p. 527). It is outside of the classroomthat students may eventually contribute to a wider society. With the students’ permission,
their creative materials could be gathered into a journal for publication. Such a publication
could serve to encourage students and add to the broader development of L2 CW culture.
Culture (Assessment and Evaluation)
An aspirational objective of CW courses could include helping students with the“difficult task of writing works that might profoundly affect readers and enrich the culture”(O’Connor, 2012, p. 164). However, this goal is, with rare exceptions, virtually impossible
to achieve during a full postgraduate degree, let alone a single undergraduate semester. It isalso very difficult to gauge the impact on individual readers and the wider culture in years
to come.
One recurring criticism of CW in general has been that it is impossible to grade or rankcreativity. For as long as it has been part of academia, CW lecturers and teachers havegrappled with the seemingly contradictory impulses of encouraging artistic freedom andsubmitting marks (Leahy, 2012). Cantrell (2012) points out that assessment in CW is often
seen as an arbitrary judgment based on tastes and individual notions of objectivity. O’Connor(2012) agrees that assessing use of basic grammar, structure, and plot are relatively
straightforward, but other aspects of literature such as vision or originality are too connected
to taste.
Therefore, particularly at the undergraduate level, it is recommended that assessment
should focus on elements of craft, attendance, participation, resilience, and effort and notnecessarily on IELTS/TOEFL/CEFR equivalencies. The later process areas are consideredmore important than the final product. For example, in marking poetry, areas of craft toconsider include demonstrating knowledge of different poetic forms used in the course and107

外国語教育研究ジャーナル

第4巻 （ JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 4）

the ability to “self-edit and build a poem through successive drafts” (Symmons Roberts,
2012, p. 152). Regarding fiction, in their previous Japan L2 CW trial, Kamata and Guenther(2014) also recommend focusing on craft aspects such as consistency of viewpoint, clarity
of setting, three-dimensional characters, and purposeful dialog as well as some grammar andspelling.
Literature is the perfect place to share, explore, and exchange different cultural
viewpoints. CW encourages students to share their experiences in written English as a formof cultural exchange. As English continues to be the global language, or lingua franca, it canalso be a means through which people from different cultures can share the stories of theirculture and heritage. Therefore, exposing students to literature, reading, and writing anddiscussing their perspectives is an objective that fits firmly within the CLIL framework and
MEXT plans. If students are inspired to continue writing creatively in English and choose topursue publishing or further studies in the future, that would be magnificent. However, on apractical level, those considerations fall outside the assessment remit. Having said that,
institutional requirements stipulate that students receive a grade, and the university culture
expects grades.
The assessment for elective lecture courses, regardless of content or subject, might bebroken down into participation (30%), coursework (40%), and final paper (30%). For a CW
course, participation could be subdivided into attendance and active participation during
individual feedback sessions, whereas in lectures and workshops, the coursework could be
divided into four short pieces (10% each) submitted at the end of each module: poetry,non-fiction, fiction, and screenwriting. The final paper (30%) would include a portfolio ofan extended piece or combination of pieces alongside a short reflection that discusses
considerations of the different techniques explored and responses to feedback given. The
reflection would also include a self-assessment component that could be used for grading in
consultation and negotiation with the teacher. For example, students could justify their own
grades based on how far they believe they have achieved what they set out to accomplish.
Additionally, a course evaluation from the students could be used for research purposes andto improve the course.
In offering this course to Japanese and other international L1 or L2 undergraduate
students, it is hoped that a contribution can be made to the field of CLIL and CW.

Conclusion
This paper reported on initial research into implementing a CLIL framework forundergraduate CW courses at Japanese universities. Future research could compare L1 andL2 CW courses and survey student opinions. The current paper explored CLIL definitions
and offered a critical evaluation of the benefits and difficulties of CLIL. There was then adetailed discussion of the process of designing an undergraduate CLIL course in CW. In thispost-millennium world, universities implementing plans to globalize Japan’s tertiary culture
could surely benefit from offering students courses that encourage English for creative
purposes.

108

English for Creative Purposes: Implementing a CLIL Framework for Tertiary Creative Writing Courses in Japan

References
Association of Writers and Writing Programs. (n.d.). Guide to writing programs. Associationof Writers and Writing Programs.
https://www.awpwriter.org/guide/guide_writing_programs
Ball, P., Kelly, K. & Clegg, J., (2015). Putting CLIL into practice. Oxford University Press.
Banegas, D. L. (2011). A review of “CLIL: Content and language integrated learning.”
Language and Education, 25(2), 182–185.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2010.539045
Breen, M. P. (1987). Contemporary paradigms in syllabus design part Ⅱ. Language Teaching,20(3), 157–174. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480000450X
Cantrell, M. (2012). Assessment as empowerment: Grading entry-level creative writing
students. In H. Beck (Ed.), Teaching creative writing (pp. 156–159). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137284464_22
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning.
Cambridge University Press.
Coyle, D., & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies teaching for deeper learning.
Cambridge University Press.
De Graaff, R., Koopman, G. J., Anikina, Y., & Westhoff, G. (2007). An observation tool for
effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(5), 603–624.
https://doi.org/10.2167/beb462.0
Elwood, K. (2018). CLIL in Italian universities: Lessons for Japan. The Cultural review,
51–52, 37–59.
Ikeda, M., Izumi, S., Watanabe, Y., Pinner, R., & Davis, M. (2021). Soft CLIL and English
language teaching: Understanding Japanese policy, practice and implications. Routledge.
Kamata, S., & Guenther, D. (2014). Fundamentals of creative writing for Japanese university
students. In N. Sonda & A. Krause (Eds.), JALT2013 Conference Proceedings, Tokyo:
JALT. (pp. 521–528).
Leahy, A. (2012). Undergraduate creative writing in the United States: Buying in isn’t sellingout. In H. Beck (Ed.), Teaching creative writing (pp. 73–79). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137284464_9
MacGregor, L. (2016). CLIL focus: An interview with Professor Makoto Ikeda. The Language
Teacher, 40(1), 18–21. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTTLT40.1-4
McMurray, D. (2018). MEXT’s new course of study guidelines to rely on active learning.
The Language Teacher, 42(3), 27–29.
O’Connor, S. (2012). Ranking student writing as bad pedagogy and a bogus pretense ofobjectivity. In H. Beck (Ed.), Teaching creative writing (pp. 160–165). Palgrave
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137284464_23
Ohmori, A. (2014). Exploring the potential of CLIL in English language teaching in Japanese
universities: An innovation for the development of effective teaching and global
awareness. The Journal of Rikkyo University Language Center, 32, 39–51.
Rose, H., & McKinley, J. (2018). Japan’s English-medium instruction initiatives and the109外国語教育研究ジャーナル

第4巻 （ JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 4）

globalization of higher education. Higher Education, 75(1), 111–129.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0125-1
Scrivener, J. (2011). Learning teaching (3rd ed.). Macmillan Education.
Symmons Roberts, M. (2012). Assessment of poetry in higher education courses: What are
the limits? In H. Beck (Ed.), Teaching creative writing (pp. 151–155). Palgrave
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137284464_21
Tada, M. (2016). Recent reform to the English education system in Japan. 21st Century
Education Forum, 11, 21–29.
Vanderslice, S. (2012). The lynchpin in the workshop: Student critique and reflection. In H.
Beck (Ed.), Teaching creative writing (pp. 116–120). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137284464_16

110