the role of student-centered technology in fostering...

TECHNOLOGY, MOTIVATION, AND THE WRITING PROCESS 1

The Role of Student-Centered Technology in Fostering Motivation for the Writing Process

Mary P. Muse

Salem College


Introduction

Despite what some students may think, writing isn’t 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 haven’t 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 nation’s 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


(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 meta-

analysis 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-regulated—and ultimately


more engaged—a 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


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


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

Motivation—at least the right type of motivation—is 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


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).


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 student’s motivation is extrinsic with a purely external regulator.

Figure 1

Figure 1. OIT presents a continuum of motivational regulation from least to most self-

determined (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

Extrinsic Motivation

External Regulation

Introjected Regulation

,GHQWL¿HG�Regulation

Integrated Regulation

External Somewhat External

Somewhat Internal Internal

Amotivation

Non-regulation

Impersonal

Intrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic Regulation

Internal

Least Self-Determined Most Self-Determined


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 student’s 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 student’s 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


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 student’s voice, meaning that a student is expressing their own


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 challenging—the 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

Today’s 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


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


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 don’t

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).


Tom Lynch (2007) used digital recording software to compile CDs of his students

performing rap songs inspired by Chaucer that they wrote during Writer’s 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 Lynch’s case study would be considered dated today—an 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


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


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.


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. 202–221). 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/ELA-

Literacy/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, 396–407.

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), 43–49.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card 2011. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2011/2012470.asp#section1


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. 242–264).

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. 28–49). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Read, S. (2006). Tapping into students’ motivation: Lessons from young adolescents’ blogs.

Voices from the Middle, 14(2), 38–46.

Richardson, W. (2011). Publishers, participants, all. Educational Leadership, 68(5), 22–26.

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, (213–226).

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 don’t students like school? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

the role of student-centered technology in fostering...

Documents