TECHNOLOGY, MOTIVATION, AND THE WRITING PROCESS

The Role of Student-Centered Technology in Fostering Motivation for the Writing Process
Mollie Muse
Salem College

TECHNOLOGY, MOTIVATION, AND THE WRITING PROCESS

Introduction
Despite what some students may think, writing isnt a classroom torture device they can
leave behind when they graduate. Writing permeates every aspect of life, and students will be
expected to use written communications clearly and effectively in their college courses and
careers (Common Core State Standards Initiative [CCSSI], 2014; Partnership for 21st Century
Skills [P21], 2011). By high school, the demands on students writing abilities are increasingly
rigorous as students are expected to use writing to convey complex knowledge and ideas (Perin,
2007). Writing is an essential skill, but many students havent mastered it by the time they
graduate. The majority of high school seniors are writing below grade level (Graham & Sandmel,
2011), and only 27% of 12th-grade students achieved a proficient or advanced score in writing on
the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (National Center for Education Statistics
[NCES], 2012). If we want to improve the writing abilities of our nations students, we must not
only implement researched-based instructional strategies for writing, but also foster positive
attitudes and motivation for the writing process (Graham & Sandmel, 2011). While some
students may never enjoy writing for the act itself, teachers can help them value writing as a
meaningful and useful task (Boscolo & Gelati, 2007), as well as harness the intrinsic motivation
behind adolescents self-sponsored writings (Read, 2006).
Students develop attitudes and beliefs about the value and enjoyment of writing, and
about themselves in terms of competence and self-efficacy (Boscolo & Gelati, 2007). While
young students generally have a lot of intrinsic motivation for writing, their motivation decreases
as they advance through school (Boscolo & Gelati, 2007). The decline in motivation may be due
to three factors: rigid instruction focused on genre and conventions, isolating writing instruction
from other learning activities, and writing tasks that are boring and inauthentic (Boscolo &
Gelati, 2007). Teachers may be tempted to use grades to revitalize motivation in older students,
but controlling external regulators can create further resentment (Read, 2006). Additionally, a
strong correlation exists between high quality learning and highly internalized motivation

TECHNOLOGY, MOTIVATION, AND THE WRITING PROCESS

(Jaquith, 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000), thus teachers must focus on altering students attitudes and
beliefs about writing tasks and themselves as writers (Boscolo & Gelati, 2007).
Research indicates that consistent instruction in process writing is an effective approach
for improving writing attitudes and products (Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2007, p. 29). A metaanalysis of 29 studies across 3 decades found that instruction in process writing resulted in
improved writing quality for the general education population (Graham & Sandmel, 2011).
While several researchers suggested the process writing approach created conditions that
facilitate motivation (Boscolo & Gelati, 2007; Perin, 2007; Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2007), the
Graham & Sandmel (2011) meta-analysis found process writing did not enhance motivation for
writing. Process writing could potentially establish a strong foundation for fostering motivation
(Ryan & Deci, 2000), but it may not be enough to motivate students on its own. The authors of
the meta-analysis called for additional studies on the process writing approach and motivation,
citing the difficulty of, and inconsistency in, measuring motivation (Graham & Sandmel, 2011).
At one time, the study of motivation only examined the extent to which motivation was
present (or not) within a subject (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Researchers today, however, also consider
the degree to which motivation is self-regulated, with self-regulation owing largely to whether
the source of motivation has been internalized (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The most internalized form
of motivation is intrinsic motivation, in which a subject engages in a behavior because that
behavior is inherently enjoyable (operant theory view) or fulfills basic psychological needs of
competence, autonomy, or relatedness (learning theory view) (Boscolo & Gelati, 2007; Jaquith,
2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000). While intrinsic motivation is optimal for engagement and
self-regulation, the reality is that many school tasks do not foster purely intrinsic motivation
(Jaquith, 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Extrinsic motivation is unavoidable, but Self-Determination
Theory [SDT] describes more and less beneficial forms of extrinsic motivation on a continuum
of internalization (Boscolo & Gelati, 2007; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The more internalized and
autonomous the extrinsic motivational factors, the more actively self-regulatedand ultimately

TECHNOLOGY, MOTIVATION, AND THE WRITING PROCESS

more engageda student will be towards the task (Jaquith, 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Competence and relatedness are the foundations for internalization of motivational regulation
(Boscolo & Gelati, 2007; Read, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2000), but strategies supporting autonomy
have the greatest impact on intrinsic and internalized extrinsic motivation (Jaquith, 2011; Ryan
& Deci, 2000).
Research indicates that a constructivist approach to implementing technology in the
classroom has positive effects on student engagement with learning activities (Downes &
Bishop, 2012; Lynch, 2007). Motivation aside, there is a growing body of literature on the
importance of integrating digital literacy into 21st Century classrooms (Darling-Hammond, 2010;
P21, 2011; Prensky, 2010; Richardson, 2011; Sweeny, 2010). Technology is fundamental to the
modern way of life in an increasingly globalized world (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Prensky 2010;
Richardson, 2011; Sweeny, 2010), and, therefore, fundamental to authentic learning activities.
Additionally, technology aligns the classroom to students life outside of school (Downes &
Bishop, 2012; Prensky 2010; Richardson, 2011; Sweeny, 2010) and supports student learning
(Richardson, 2011; US Department of Education, 2004).
Within a constructivist paradigm supportive of 21st Century skills, learning strategies,
including technology, should be student-centered (Gregory, 2009; Prensky, 2010; Richardson,
2011). Student-centered technology puts students as the primary users (Prensky, 2010), and
emphasizes authentic, collaborative learning and creative problem solving (Gregory, 2009). Due
to obstacles such as lack of time and lack of training, many teachers are not integrating
technology into their classrooms (Karchmer-Klein, 2007). Some teachers, however, are
implementing technology into 21st Century writing instruction in a variety of ways from simple,
short-format messaging systems to multimodal presentations, WebQuests, wikis, collaborative
internet projects, and social media sites (Karchmer-Klein, 2007; Read, 2006; Richardson, 2011;
Sweeny, 2010). From a motivational perspective, constructivism and student-centered
technology support learner autonomy, and thus foster the internalized forms of motivation that

TECHNOLOGY, MOTIVATION, AND THE WRITING PROCESS

lead to creativity and high quality learning (Jaquith, 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Additionally,
technology can potentially increase inherent interest in a task, facilitate autonomy and
relatedness through student choice and social networking, respectively, and promote self-efficacy
through consolidated documentation of student work (Downes & Bishop, 2012; Lynch, 2007;
Read, 2006; Richardson, 2011; Sweeny, 2010).
Research Questions
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the potential role of student-centered technology
in fostering motivation for the writing process. A comprehensive literature review will consider:
Research Question 1: What is the nature of motivation and how does it relate to writing tasks?
Research Question 2: What is student-centered technology and how can it be integrated into
writing instruction?
Research Question 3: Does research suggest that student-centered technology will enhance
motivation for the writing process?
Writing Process
The writing process may vary slightly on an individual basis, but the common framework
for the process writing approach includes

stages of prewriting, drafting, editing, and revising;

authentic writing tasks (writing for real purposes and audiences);

emphasis on student ownership, self-reflection, and evaluation; and

collaboration and supportive environments (Graham & Sandmel, 2011).

All of the stages and activities of the writing process are important (Pritchard & Honeycutt,
2007). While it may be beneficial to include other research-based writing strategies alongside the
process writing approach (Graham & Sandmel, 2011), teachers must commit to the structure and

TECHNOLOGY, MOTIVATION, AND THE WRITING PROCESS

sequence of process writing instruction, and refrain from picking and choosing piecemeal
activities (Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2007).
The writing process is a problem-solving process (Boscolo & Gelati, 2007), and writing
is a cognitive and social task (Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2007). As such, appropriate scaffolding
should be provided for each student based on the developmental level of their writing ability
(Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2007). The process writing approach establishes a writing community
within the classroom (Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2007), underscoring the social and communicative
aspects of writing and establishing a supportive environment in which students may practice and
grow as writers.
Motivation
Motivationat least the right type of motivationis the holy grail of education. Content
knowledge, an organized classroom, well-planned lessons, and research-based learning activities
are all for naught without student motivation. Motivation determines the degree to which
students engage with learning, and, therefore, the extent and quality of student achievement.
There was a time when the only variable discussed with respect to motivation was the extent to
which it existed in an individual (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Driven by this antiquated view of
motivation, well meaning, but misguided, educators may have implemented external controls,
such as grades, to increase student motivation. More contemporary research indicates that
variables with respect to motivation not only include level of motivation, but also the degree to
which the source of motivation is internalized within an individual (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The
more internalized the source of motivation, the more engaged a person will be with the behavior
resulting from that motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Intrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic motivation is fully internalized. Intrinsically motivated students complete a task
because that task is inherently interesting (operant theory), or satisfies basic psychological needs

TECHNOLOGY, MOTIVATION, AND THE WRITING PROCESS

of competence, autonomy, or relatedness (learning theory) (Jaquith, 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
If a student does free writing because they enjoy the activity of exploring ideas, then that student
is intrinsically motivated. The quality of learning can vary greatly between intrinsically and
extrinsically motivated behaviors, and intrinsic motivation is desired in students because it
cultivates high-quality learning and creativity (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 55). Intrinsic motivation
comes naturally to humans, but certain conditions may enhance or diminish it (Boscolo & Gelati,
2007; Jaquith, 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Feelings of competence and autonomy support
intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000), while overly controlling external variables, such as
emphasis on grades and deadlines, may erode it (Jaquith, 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Extrinsic Motivation
Extrinsically motivated students complete a task because it leads to a separable
outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 55). Certain extrinsic motivation can hinder creativity and
quality of work (Jaquith, 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000). When extrinsic motivation is overly
controlling, students may expend minimal effort to meet requirements so they can finish and
move on to a more inherently enjoyable task (Jaquith, 2011). Extrinsic motivation, to a certain
extent, is unavoidable, but Self-Determination Theory [SDT] posits there are more and less
beneficial forms of extrinsic motivation existing on a continuum of internalization (Boscolo &
Gelati, 2007; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The more autonomous the extrinsic motivation factors, the
more actively self-regulated the student will be while completing the task. According to Ryan
and Deci (2000), With increasing internalization [comes] greater persistence, more positive
self-perceptions, and better quality of engagement (p. 60 61). Organismic Integration Theory
[OIT] presents a continuum (Figure 1) examining the degree to which extrinsic motivation is
internalized, and, ultimately, translates to highly autonomous, self-regulated behavior (Ryan &
Deci, 2000). While certain constraints are necessary in a classroom setting, educators must
choose constraints that encourage the internalization of extrinsic motivation and balance
constraints with flexibility (Boscolo & Gelati, 2007; Jaquith, 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

TECHNOLOGY, MOTIVATION, AND THE WRITING PROCESS

On the continuum of regulatory styles (Figure 1), amotivation and intrinsic motivation sit
on either end of the model as the least and most internalized, respectively, and extrinsic
motivation lies between them (Tremblay, Blanchard, Taylor, Pelletier, & Villeneuve, 2009; Ryan
& Deci, 2000; Vallerand, Pelletier, & Koestner, 2008). Immediately following amotivation is
external regulation, in which a subject is motivated by a wholly external promise of punishment
or reward (Tremblay et al., 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Traditional emphasis on grades,
deadlines, strict procedures, or other sanctions create a controlling environment with highly
externalized motivation (Jaquith, 2011). If grades alone motivate a student to complete a writing
task, then the students motivation is extrinsic with a purely external regulator.

Figure 1

Amotivation

Intrinsic
Motivation

Extrinsic Motivation

Non-regulation

External
Regulation

Introjected
Regulation

Regulation

Impersonal

External

Somewhat
External

Somewhat
Internal

Least Self-Determined

Integrated
Regulation

Intrinsic
Regulation

Internal

Internal

Most Self-Determined

Figure 1. OIT presents a continuum of motivational regulation from least to most selfdetermined (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Vallerand, et al, 2008).

Introjected regulation is slightly more internalized with motivation stemming from ego
involvement, approval of others, or avoidance of guilt and shame (Tremblay et al., 2009; Ryan &
Deci, 2000). More internalized and autonomous than introjection is identified regulation, in

TECHNOLOGY, MOTIVATION, AND THE WRITING PROCESS

which a subject values an activity and motivation becomes self-regulated (Tremblay et al., 2009;
Ryan & Deci, 2000). If a student is fully engaged in a writing task because they believe the
writing is important to their academic and career goals, the student has identified with the
personal importance of the behavior (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 62). While the task may not be
inherently interesting, the students motivation is self-regulated.
Integration is the most internalized regulatory style, and when motivation is integrated,
the subject perceives the task as part of their value set and lifestyle (Tremblay et al., 2009; Ryan
& Deci, 2000). According to Ryan and Deci (2000):
Integrated forms of motivation share many qualities with intrinsic motivation ...
However, they are still extrinsic because behavior motivated by integrated regulation is
done for its presumed instrumental value with respect to some outcome that is separate
from the behavior, even though it is volitional and valued by the self. (p. 62)
If a student engages in a writing task because they perceive written communication skills as a
valuable part of their life, then the students motivation has been integrated to their sense of self
(Tremblay et al., 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Facilitating Motivation for Writing
Teachers must create learning environments that foster internalized motivation as a
crucial ingredient for creativity and high quality learning (Jaquith, 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Strategies supporting autonomy rather than external control have the greatest impact on intrinsic
and internalized extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Personal choice and self-directed
learning increase intrinsic motivation, while too much structure (external controls) inhibits
creativity (Jaquith, 2011). Boscolo and Gelati (2007) argue, a basic source of students lack of
motivation is the writing tasks themselves, which may be perceived by students as boring,
difficult, and/or detached from their personal experience (p. 208). Allowing students to choose
interesting and worthwhile topics about which to write supports learner autonomy and writing

TECHNOLOGY, MOTIVATION, AND THE WRITING PROCESS

10

motivation (Boscolo and Gelati, 2007). However, teachers should also foster identified
motivation by teaching students to value useful writing products (Boscolo & Gelati, 2007).
Too much emphasis on process, which for some students will never be intrinsically motivating,
may devalue product (Boscolo & Gelati, 2007). Process is important, but product should have
informative, practical, or aesthetic value (Boscolo & Gelati, 2007, p. 209).
In a case study about adolescent bloggers (Read, 2006), motivation and engagement were
positively affected not only by personal choice, but also by social connections created through
blogging. Fostering a sense of community within the classroom opens the door to internalization
of extrinsic motivation. Highly motivating, but ultimately extrinsic, social factors suggest that
the groundwork for facilitating internalization is providing a sense of belongingness and
connectedness to the persons, group, or culture disseminating a goal, or what in SDT we call a
sense of relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 64). Authentic tasks, such as writing to share ideas
and feedback with other students, or writing for authentic audiences, emphasize the
communicative, social nature of writing (Boscolo & Gelati, 2007). Collaboration is also
important to motivation, and the writing process supports both collaboration and individual
writing (Boscolo & Gelati, 2007).
Self-efficacy is fundamental to motivation; in fact, the lack of perceived competence
towards a behavior results in amotivation (Boscolo & Gelati, 2007; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Internalization of a goal requires a sense of competency regarding the necessary behavior for
completing that goal, and therefore teachers must support self-efficacy as well as autonomy and
relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). However, competence and self-efficacy alone, while critical
ingredients, do not support full integration of extrinsic motivation (Boscolo & Gelati, 2007;
Ryan & Deci, 2000). A student may feel competent in completing a writing task, and still find
the task boring (Boscolo & Gelati, 2007). It is important that tasks are authentic and interesting
in order to facilitate more positive, internalized forms of motivation (Boscolo & Gelati, 2007).
The term authentic may refer to students voice, meaning that a student is expressing their own

TECHNOLOGY, MOTIVATION, AND THE WRITING PROCESS

11

ideas, thoughts, and beliefs, or it may refer to a writing task with authentic purpose and audience
(Boscolo & Gelati, 2007). Additionally, writing tasks should be challenging. From a cognitive
standpoint, the writing process is a problem-solving process (Boscolo & Gelati, 2007). Cognition
is stimulated and engaged by challenging tasks, but not overly challengingthe problem must be
solvable or the student will loose interest (Willingham, 2009). Successful completion of
challenging writing tasks can contribute to satisfaction and engagement with writing process and
further increase self-efficacy (Boscolo & Gelati, 2007).
Student-Centered Technology
Constructivist Approach & 21st Century Learning
Todays adolescents are immersed in technology every moment of their lives outside of
school (Downes & Bishop, 2012; Prensky, 2010; Richardson, 2011; Sweeny, 2010). In fact,
technology will increase exponentially as these adolescents get older (Prensky, 2010). The 21st
Century is clearly an evolving, increasingly information-driven, world (Darling-Hammond,
2010; Prensky, 2010; Richardson, 2011; Sweeny, 2010), and the skills students need to thrive in
that world include creativity, critical thinking, and technology literacy (Darling-Hammond,
2010; Jaquith, 2011; P21, 2011; Prensky, 2010). The Internet defines modern communication,
empowering the general populace to be consumers, collaborators, and producers of information
(Sweeny, 2010). Digital literacy should be fully incorporated throughout the curriculum
(Richardson, 2011). Social media is a powerful learning tool, and students must learn how to
maximize its potential as well as how to use it safely and responsibly (Richardson, 2011).
Research studies by the US Department of Education (2004) found that integrating technology
into the regular activities of student-centered classrooms increased learning. It is crucial that
classrooms incorporate technology in ways that support 21st Century skills (Downes & Bishop,
2012). Students, not teachers, should be the primary users of technology for learning (Prensky,
2010; Sweeny, 2010), while teachers define expectations and hold students to high standards for

TECHNOLOGY, MOTIVATION, AND THE WRITING PROCESS

12

quality of their writing products (Sweeny, 2010). Teacher-generated PowerPoint presentations

as the primary classroom technology does not reflect a constructivist practice.
Student-centered approaches to technology integration focus on collaborative learning,
real world problem solving, and creative, critical thinking (Gregory, 2009, p. 47). Students use
technology to socialize, find information, express identity, and collaborate creatively (Sweeny,
2010). Most teenagers publish to the Internet in a context of friends, but they do not understand
or post with the diverse, global audience of the web in mind (Karchmer-Klein, 2007; Richardson,
2011). Teachers should model not only how to publish safely to the Internet, but also how to
interact safely, and how to learn from that interaction (Richardson, 2011). Digital literacy skills
connect to life outside of school, and many students create websites, blogs, videos, and social
media pages around subjects of interest (Richardson, 2011). One of the most well known
adolescent entrepreneurs is Tavi Gevinson, who began a fashion blog at age 11, and now, at 18,
is editor-in-chief of her (very successful) online magazine, Rookie (Richardson, 2011).
Technology & Process Writing
The Internet is a valuable tool for learning (Richardson, 2011), and is especially relevant
to the writing process (Sweeny, 2010). In addition to providing a wealth of inspiration for
student authors, the collaborative nature of the Internet is perfect for writing workshops, and
Internet writing supports student autonomy for ideation and visual format (Read, 2006; Sweeny,
2010). Several aspects of the Internet influence writing (Karchmer-Klein, 2007). Electronic text
incorporates audiovisual elements and hyperlinks to create multimodal communications that
emphasize holistic meaning and an interactive, nonlinear reading experience (Karchmer-Klein,
2007; Sweeny, 2010). Different tasks require different formats for communication, and students
must consider purpose, content, context, and audience to determine the best way to communicate
their message (Karchmer-Klein, 2007; Sweeny, 2010; Read, 2006). When students publish to the
Internet, the audience is expanded and the task is more authentic, motivating students to produce
better quality writing with less mechanical errors (Karchmer-Klein, 2007; Sweeny, 2010). More

TECHNOLOGY, MOTIVATION, AND THE WRITING PROCESS

13

importantly, the Internet allows students to interact with their audiences (Karchmer-Klein, 2007;
Read, 2006; Richardson, 2011). These connections introduce students to a global writing
community and provide a venue for student writers to discuss writing processes and products
(Read, 2006; Richardson, 2011; Sweeny, 2010). Comments and critiques from Internet audiences
can be more meaningful than teacher proofing notes, encouraging students to engage fully with
different perspectives, ideas, and revisions (Karchmer-Klein, 2007; ).
While many teachers do not integrate technology into their writing instruction, citing
obstacles such as lack of time and lack of training (Karchmer-Klein, 2007), there are teachers
who do, and existing literature describes a variety of ways in which technology may be
integrated into student-centered writing instruction. These examples implement student-centered
technology throughout the writing process in different ways, but each instance extends the venue
for learning beyond the spatial and temporal boundaries of the schoolroom (Downes & Bishop,
2012), creating authentic audiences and sparking conversations around student work. A
cooperative, social aspect is characteristic to most examples.
Digital communication is completely integrated into teenagers lives, but they dont
perceive these communications as writing tasks (Sweeny, 2010). Short format messaging, such
as texting, IM, or Twitter, has a variety of applications for writing (Sweeny, 2010), especially for
collaboration and summarization. Summarization is an effective instructional strategy for
adolescents because it helps them become clear, concise writers (Perin, 2007). Additionally, the
sense of community facilitated by these applications supports motivation by fulfilling relatedness
needs (Read, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Sweeny, 2010). Other Internet practices that can be
implemented in writing tasks are WebQuests, collaborative Internet projects, websites, blogs,
social networking sites, and cloud computing (Karchmer-Klein, 2007; Sweeny, 2010). All of
these tasks are authentic and collaborative, mimicking the tasks of modern workers (Richardson,
2011; Sweeny, 2010).

TECHNOLOGY, MOTIVATION, AND THE WRITING PROCESS

14

Tom Lynch (2007) used digital recording software to compile CDs of his students
performing rap songs inspired by Chaucer that they wrote during Writers Workshop (Lynch,
2007). The CDs were published with a book of the poems illustrated by visual arts students.
Lynch (2007) had the CDs and poetry book published by the Student Press Initiative [SPI], but
SPI, local to the Manhattan school in which Lynch taught, may not be accessible for every
classroom. The Internet, however, offers a wealth of free publishing opportunities in a variety of
formats and modes. Additionally, teachers should consider new mediums, such as digital media
and audio recordings, to spark creativity, learning, and engagement (Lynch, 2007). Publishing is
important, but publishing relevant content to a relevant medium is crucial (Lynch, 2007). For
students today, the relevant medium is largely digital technologies. In fact, the CD format that
was appropriate at the time of Lynchs case study would be considered dated todayan MP3 file
shared across mobile devices via near field communication [NFC] technology would be more
relevant now.
Technology & Motivation
Evidence suggests that technology integration supports learning strategies that enhance
intrinsic motivation and the internalization of extrinsic motivation. In a study on engaging digital
natives (Downes & Bishop, 2012), students, parents, and educators reported one-to-one laptops
improved student engagement with school. Integrating technology into school tasks added a
degree of novelty, making the task more inherently interesting and thus fostering intrinsic
motivation (Downes & Bishop, 2012). Additionally, technology facilitates cooperative learning,
creates authentic audiences, and fosters relatedness (Downes & Bishop, 2012)all variables that
encourage the internalization of extrinsic regulators. There are several case studies that present
technology used as a primary tool in strategies that foster intrinsic and internalized motivation
for writing.
Publishing for an audience can be a powerful motivator (Lynch, 2007) when students
have a reasonable sense of efficacy for the task. However, increased self-efficacy would likely be

TECHNOLOGY, MOTIVATION, AND THE WRITING PROCESS

15

a result of a published product, especially when accompanied by positive peer feedback (Lynch
2007; Read, 2006). In the Lynch case study (2007), students received plenty of positive feedback
from their classmates for their respective rap songs. Modern rap music mirrors not only the
rhyme scheme of Canterbury Tales, but also its social commentary (Lynch, 2007). Discussing
Chaucer in terms of modern rap music boosted student confidence in their interpretations of the
medieval text (Lynch, 2007). Creating and publishing a rap album modeled after Chaucer made
the medieval text real and relevant for modern, urban youths, and increased self-efficacy and
engagement for the writing task (Lynch, 2007).
Blogs can be powerful tools for engaging students in process writing. Blogs support
intrinsic motivation for writing by allowing students autonomy over their writing, reducing
pressure for perfection, establishing a safe forum for peer response, and adding novelty with the
manipulation of visual format (Read, 2006). Teachers can apply these aspects of blogging to
classroom writing even if they are unable to integrate Internet and blogging technologies (Read,
2006). Rebecca Belleville (2014) used blogs and other technology-based, constructivist learning
activities to foster engagement for writing-to-learn activities in art history. Informal web quests
guided urban high school students through discovery learning about artists and their works, while
blogging allowed learners to construct personalized meaning around the artworks (Belleville,
2014). Sylvia Read (2006) examined intrinsic motivation behind adolescents personal blogging
and discussed ways to foster the same intrinsic motivation in school writing activities. In the
past, school writing tasks were inauthentic and full of externally controlling motivators, thus
students learned to resent writing (Read, 2006). Read (2006) found that students put more time
and effort into process for self-sponsored writing than school writing. Teachers should foster
intrinsic motivation by encouraging, not prohibiting, students favored modes of communications
(Read, 2006).
Another aspect of blogs conducive to the process writing approach is that adolescents
may be more ready to share writing in a virtual space (Read, 2006). Sharing writing is

TECHNOLOGY, MOTIVATION, AND THE WRITING PROCESS

16

intimidating for adolescents because it opens them up to judgment on multiple levels, but digital
distance makes it easier (Read, 2006). Blogs are highly communicative, and teens use them to
write about news and events in their lives and then connect with readers in the comments section
(Read, 2006). Once writing is posted, comments from peers and online connections fulfill
relatedness needs (Read, 2006). Blogging also facilitates motivation by satisfying competency
needs (Read, 2006). Students learn to maintain their blogs and grow their readership, as well as
improve writing skills through frequent practice (Read, 2006). Additionally, blogs facilitate
self-reflection and chronicle the changing identity of adolescents (Read, 2006).
Conclusion
In summary, comprehensive research supports the effectiveness of the process writing
approach to improve the quality of student writing products and establish the foundation for
improving students attitudes and motivation for writing tasks (Boscolo & Gelati, 2007; Graham
& Sandmel, 2011; Perin, 2007; Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2007). As with all learning strategies,
educators must maximize student engagement to facilitate creativity and high quality learning
(Ryan & Deci, 2000). Teachers must establish practices that support autonomy, relatedness, and
self-efficacy, as well as facilitate authentic and interesting tasks for writing (Boscolo & Gelati,
2007; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The Internet is a defining element in 21st Century communication
(Sweeny, 2010). Student-centered approaches to digital literacy put students as the technology
users (Prensky, 2010; Sweeny, 2010), and emphasize authentic, collaborative learning tasks
(Gregory, 2009). A number of sources (Belleville, 2014; Downes & Bishop, 2012; Lynch, 2007;
Read, 2006) indicate that student-centered technology implemented in a constructivist
environment can foster the types of motivation that optimize student engagement and maximize
learning.

TECHNOLOGY, MOTIVATION, AND THE WRITING PROCESS

17

References
Belleville, R. (2014). Blogging, zines, and narratives: New dialogues in art history. Art
Education, 67(3), (14-18).
Boscolo, P., & Gelati, C. (2007). Best practices in promoting motivation for writing. In
S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction
(pp. 202221). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2014). College and Career Readiness Anchor
Standards for Writing. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELALiteracy/CCRA/W/
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The Flat World and Education. J. A. Banks (Ed.). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Downes, J. M., & Bishop, P. (2012). Educators engage digital natives and learn from their
experiences with technology. Middle School Journal, 43(5), (6-15).
Graham, S. & Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing approach: A meta-analysis. The Journal
of Educational Research, 104, 396407.
Gregory, D. (2009). Boxes with Fires: Wisely Integrating Learning Technologies into the Art
Classroom. Art Education, 62(3), (47-54).
Jaquith, D. (2011). When is creativity? Intrinsic motivation and autonomy in children's
artmaking. Art Education, 64(1), (14-19).
Karchmer-Klein, R. (2007). Best practices in using the Internet to support writing. In S. Graham,
C. A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 222
240). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lynch, T. L. (2007). Illuminating Chaucer through poetry, manuscript illuminations, and a
critical rap album. English Journal, 96(6), 4349.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nations report card 2011. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2011/2012470.asp#section1

TECHNOLOGY, MOTIVATION, AND THE WRITING PROCESS

18

Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2011). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from
http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework
Perin, D. (2007). Best practices in teaching writing to adolescents. In S. Graham, C. A.
MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 242264).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Pritchard, R. J. & Honeycutt, R. L. (2007). Best practices in implementing a process approach to
writing. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing
instruction (pp. 2849). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Read, S. (2006). Tapping into students motivation: Lessons from young adolescents blogs.
Voices from the Middle, 14(2), 3846.
Richardson, W. (2011). Publishers, participants, all. Educational Leadership, 68(5), 2226.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, (54-67).
Sweeny, S. M. (2010). Writing for the instant messaging and text messaging generation: Using
new literacies to support writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(2), 121-130.
Tremblay, M. A., Blanchard, C. M., Taylor, S., Pelletier, L. G., & Villeneuve, M. (2009). Work
extrinsic and intrinsic motivation scale: Its value for organizational psychology research.
Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, (41)4, (213226).
U.S. Department of Education. (2004) Toward a new golden age in American education: How
the Internet, the law and today's students are revolutionizing expectations; National
Education Technology Plan. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/index.html?exp=3
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Koestner, R. (2008). Reflections on self-determination
theory. Canadian Psychology, 49, (257-262).
Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why dont students like school? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.