Using Multimodal Writing to
Motivate Struggling Students
to Write
By Brett Darrington and Tonia Dousay, University of Wyoming
©Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2015
Abstract
One of the reasons that many secondary
students fail English classes is because they
are not motivated to write. This literature
review was conducted to look into the use of
multimodal works to increase the motivation
for struggling students to write. Change theory
was used to evaluate the benefits of multimodal
works compared to more traditional writing
projects. Overall, multimodal works were found
to be motivating to students as compared to
traditional, paper-based writing assignments.
The review also raises concerns about
accountability and feasibility for students and
teachers who take on multimodal projects and
concludes with recommendations for teachers
who want to use multimodal works in their
classrooms.
Keywords: change theory, motivation, mul-
timodal, writing, secondary students
E
very semester, several students fail 11th
grade English at a high school in Idaho,
because they do not complete their
writing assignments. It is not uncommon
to hear similar stories from high school and
introductory college writing teachers across the
country. The failure rate is especially high for
students who struggle with general literacy and
language skills. Among the many culprits for
the failure of students who struggle in writing
classrooms is motivation (Boscolo & Hidi,
2007). Teachers can make efforts to scaffold the
writing process for these students, but that alone
does not seem to increase students’ motivation
to write (Graham & Sandmel, 2011). Boscolo
and Hidi (2007) noted that many students see
writing as an obstacle to overcome, and not as
a challenging and motivating task. Boscolo and
Volume 59, Number 6
Hidi also noted that traditional, paper-based
school writing projects are often foreign to
student interest and what they relate to in their
daily life.
One possible way to increase students’
motivation to write is through the use of
multimodal writing projects. Pandya (2012)
defined multimodal writing as “designing texts
that engage verbal, visual, written, and other
modes of meaning making” (p. 181). As this
definition implies, a multimodal approach to
writing is combining several communicative
mediums. There is a great deal of potential
to this approach when it comes to student
motivation, especially for students who
traditionally struggle in school (M. Siegal,
2012). Well-designed writing projects that use
student-created multimedia and multimodal
outputs have the potential to increase struggling
students’ motivation to complete writing
assignments by making the assignments more
relevant to students’ lives and by creating more
authentic audiences for students’ writing.
What Motivates Students
to Write?
Before moving into multimodal writing spe-
cifically, it is important to understand the quali-
ties of writing assignments and writing contexts
that motivate students to write. Daniels (2010)
examined motivating learning environments. He
pointed out the first assumption that a teacher
needs to make: no one can force student motiva-
tion; rather, teachers must create a learning en-
vironment conducive to motivation. According
to Daniels, there are three factors included in a
motivating learning environment:
1. Students feel like they have some control
over their learning environment (autonomy).
TechTrends • November/December 2015 29
 Students feel like they have value within the
context of the class and school (relatedness).
2. Students feel like they have the skills
needed to complete the task (competence).
3. Daniels also noted that within these
environments, teachers can help their students
achieve active learning by encouraging students
to use visuals, symbols, and other media, in ad-
dition to written text, to communicate. Teachers
also should try, when possible, to create relevant
learning tasks for students, as these also can be
motivating.
Lam and Law (2007) also discussed a series
of motivating characteristics. Similar to Daniels
(2010), they noted that motivating learning
environments encourage student autonomy,
and task relevance, but they also recognized
that the challenge of a task can be motivating. If
students feel like they are being challenged by a
writing task, yet they are still able to achieve that
task, they will find the task more motivating.
They also found that when students are given a
writing task that uses problem solving to pique
their curiosity, they were more motivated.
In addition to these characteristics, the char-
acter of the task and the audience also can be mo-
tivating. Students are motivated when they write
for real audiences (Magnifico, 2010; Zumbrunn
& Krause, 2012), and they are motivated when
they feel that they are writing for a real purpose
(Zumbrunn & Krause, 2012). Therefore, the au-
thenticity of the audience and the perceived pur-
pose behind the writing task are also motivating.
Change Theory
One way to examine the motivational ad-
vantages that multimodal writing has over
more traditional writing approaches is to look
at the attributes of multimodal writing through
the lens of change theory. Both change theory
and motivation research look into what makes
a person act. Therefore, change theory should
provide a useful way of examining how motiva-
tional certain activities are compared to others.
Rogers (2003) provided a framework for looking
at the attributes of technologies and assessing
how likely they are to be adopted by a potential
user. In this case the potential adopter is a stu-
dent and the technology teachers want them to
adopt is writing. By assuming that traditional,
paper-based writing is the current standard and
that multimodal writing is the innovation to be
assessed, this literature review uses Rogers’ at-
tributes of innovations to show how multimodal
writing makes it more likely to be adopted when
compared to traditional writing approaches.
30 TechTrends • November/December 2015
Relative advantage
The first of Rogers’ (2003) attributes of
innovations is relative advantage. Rogers
described relative advantage as the attributes of
an innovation that make it more appealing to a
user than the concept it is replacing. Multimodal
writing has four areas of relative advantage over
traditional writing assignments:
1. The role of the audience in the work.
2. The amount of choice and control students
have about their work.
3. The relevance of assignments to students’ lives
and interests.
4. The novelty of media.
Audience. The audience for a piece of
writing can have an impact on how motivated
students will be to complete a writing task
(Magnifico, 2010; Zumbrunn & Krause, 2012).
The traditional way of looking at the audience for
a piece of writing is abstract. A writer only knows
their audience as an imagined concept; only
rarely do they receive timely feedback from a real
audience (Magnifico, 2010). In traditional writing
assignments, it can be difficult for a teacher to
provide a “real” audience for students’ writing. In
most instances, students write for their teacher.
Even in instances where students write for other
students, the need for rubric-driven writing can
make the task seem artificial (Magnifico, 2010).
The Internet and other new technologies have the
potential to transform the relationship between an
author and his or her readers, because the writers
and readers have the potential to communicate
in a nearly live environment. Magnifico (2010)
noted that the Internet has brought readers and
their audience together. As the feedback loop
between readers and writers becomes more
immediate, writing becomes more similar to
performance tasks like speaking and acting, where
a performer adjusts to their audience’s needs in real
time (Magnifico, 2010).
In many ways, multimodal writing provides
a context for students to tap into an interactive
audience. For instance, on fan-based websites
like those for The Hunger Games or Sims,
adolescents often create multimodal projects
that combine audio, visuals, text, and other forms
of media (Curwood, Magnifico, & Lammers,
2013; Magnifico, 2010). Curwood et al. (2013)
called these types of works transformational.
Students create most of these projects outside
of school. The motivation seems to come from
students wanting to become a member of a
community, in this case, a fan-based community.
In many of these fan-based communities,
adolescents are scaffolded into the community
Volume 59, Number 6
with feedback from peers who help them gain Novelty of media. The use of media itself
access to the norms and skills of the broader also provides relevance. Many students find that
group (Curwood et al., 2013). In this manner, using novel forms of media in their learning
an internet community serves as an authentic can be motivating (Lan, Hung, & Hsu, 2011).
and motivating audience for students. While Examples include using music videos (Day,
teachers may not want to co-op popular culture 2010) or music (Strovas, 2011) for student work
in their classrooms, they should keep internet and reading and writing e-books (D. Siegal,
audiences in mind. 2012). In each of these instances, students found
An example of how a teacher can link students the medium to be more motivating than more
with an authentic audience in a multimodal traditional assignments. Lan et al. (2011) found
project is through the use of podcasting. In that media can motivate students to write, and it
a podcasting project, students can start with can lessen their anxiety about writing; however,
more traditional writing and then publish that in their study the researchers also noted that
writing through a podcast. Goodson and Skillen using multiple media formats did not necessarily
(2010) found that connecting with an authentic increase student achievement.
audience by sharing their writing through a
podcast was highly motivating to students. Compatibility
Choice and control. A second area of
The next attribute of an innovation, accord-
relative advantage that multimodal projects
ing Rogers’ (2003) model, is the compatibility of
may have over traditional paper-based projects
an innovation with existing technologies, for-
is the amount of choice and control students
mats, and methods. The more compatible an in-
have about their work. Choice and autonomy
novation is with the existing “values, past expe-
are positively correlated with motivation for
riences, and needs” (p. 240) of the adopter, the
students (Daniels, 2010; Lam & Law, 2007). A
more likely the potential adopter is to adopt the
multimodal project creates opportunities for
innovation.
more choices for students’ work, because a variety
Values. As noted by Boscolo and Hidi
of media combinations are possible. Because of
(2007), most traditional writing assignments
these choices, multimodal environments can
fail to relate to students’ values and interests.
help students feel like they have control over the
Traditional writing assignments are completely
output of their work and their work can reflect
foreign to most students because their
their personalities. Gomez, Schielble, Curwood,
generation rarely engages with the world in
and Hassett (2010) claimed that student choice in
a purely textual manner. Interaction with
multimodal works may be especially motivating
multimodal products is far more common for
for students who traditionally struggle on
most students and they bring their experiences
writing tasks in school.
with multimodal work with them to the school
Relevance. Relevance is another area of
environment (M. Siegal, 2012).
relative advantage for multimodal work. As noted
Past experiences. While multimodal writ-
above, the relevance of writing assignments
ing is not always compatible with students’ past
is a major factor in student motivation
writing experiences within the context of school,
(Daniels, 2010; Lam & Law, 2007; Shernoff,
it is more compatible with students’ writing ex-
Csikszentmihalyi, Shneider, & Shernoff, 2003;
periences outside of school (M. Siegal, 2012).
Zumbrunn & Krause, 2012). While a carefully
Buck (2012), for instance, found that it is not
crafted traditional writing assignment can be
uncommon for adolescents to create multiple
relevant to student needs, most are not (Boscolo
multimodal works and post them on multiple
& Hidi, 2007). Relevance for students can
social networking sites. They see this creative
come in various forms. One means of creating
experience as a normal part of life.
relevance could be by having students create
Needs. Many students see multimodal skills,
multimodal projects about subjects in which
as compared to traditional writing, as being
they have interest. Examples include fan-based
more applicable to future job skills they may
websites (Curwood et al., 2013), mashups and
need. As they learn to design using text, visuals,
remixes (Gainer & Lapp, 2010), or comic books
audio, and video, students feel like they are
(Zumbrunn & Krause, 2012). Another means of
developing the skills they need to communicate
creating relevance is by having students write
in a modern world (M. Siegal, 2012). Another
and create projects about their lives (Goodson
need for students is social acceptance and
& Skillen, 2010). When combined with an
feeling like they are part of a group (Daniels,
authentic audience, relevance can be a powerful
2010). Since many students create multimodal
motivator for students.
projects outside of school, doing them in school
may allow students to feel like they are doing
Volume 59, Number 6 TechTrends • November/December 2015 31
 something that their peers will admire, as
compared to more traditional assignments.
Complexity
The next of Rogers’ (2003) attributes of
innovations is the complexity of an innovation.
Rogers claimed that the more complex that
an innovation is perceived to be the less likely
users are to adopt it. Complexity seems to be
an area of relative disadvantage for multimodal
works, which because of the multiple modes of
expression they use, are often far more complex
than traditional types of writing. In these
instances, not only do students have to master
the content they are studying, but they have to
master multiple platforms of expression to do
well on a multimodal project.
Nevertheless, if managed wisely, the
complexity of multimodal work can be to its
advantage. For instance, Anderson (2008) wrote
about how low-level technologies can motivate
students in their writing. He based this on the fact
that overly-challenging technologies can inhibit
motivation; likewise, those technologies that are
too familiar do the same. Novel technologies that
find the middle ground will be most successful.
He uses examples of several technology-related
writing formats including playlists, collages, and
digital slides to make his claim.
The success of middle-ground technologies
can be explained by what Csikszentmihalyi
(1990) described as “flow.” In his theory of flow,
Csikszentmihalyi described a state of pleasure
that we enter as we complete tasks that find
the right balance between being challenging
and our knowledge that we have the skills to be
able to meet those challenges. In the midst of
these tasks, we can lose track of time and feel
completely engaged in our work. Shernoff et
al., (2003) described how high school students
reacted positively to activities that found the
proper balance between challenge and skill.
Using Csikszentmihalyi’s theory, teachers can
design tasks that take advantage of the inherent
complexity of multimodal works without
overwhelming students.
Trialability
Rogers (2003) described trialability as the
ease with which an innovation can be used on a
trial basis. The easier it is for a potential user to
try a medium before they commit to it, the more
likely it is that an innovation will be adopted.
As previously mentioned, students have many
opportunities to try out multimodal projects
outside of school. There also are a multitude of
free apps and programs for students to use on
32 TechTrends • November/December 2015
their own. However, within a school setting,
students do not always get many opportunities
to complete these types of projects. The
lack of opportunity to try and experiment
with multimodal works within the school
environment, as compared to their opportunities
to work within more traditional contexts, may
be a factor working against students’ motivation
in a multimodal environment.
Observability
Rogers’ (2003) final attribute of innovations
relating to their rate of adoption is the observability
of an innovation. He explained that more people
will adopt an innovation when the results of that
innovation are more visible to others within the
community. Traditional, paper-based projects
have a much smaller audience and very few people
are willing to read students’ work. One advantage
of multimodal works is that oftentimes they can
be easily distributed and viewed by many people
outside of the school system (see Curwood et al.,
2013; Goodson & Skillen, 2010). The ability for
others to see students’ work can be motivating for
them and make it more likely they will complete
their assigned writing.
Cautions
For students
While the use of multimodal writing may
help to motivate students to complete their
writing assignments, it is not a panacea for all
that ails instruction. In fact, there are several
concerns that multimodal writing projects
bring up must be addressed in order to achieve
success. One study, conducted by Nair, Tay, and
Koh (2013), looked at the use of online blogs for
writing journals by fifth grade students. While a
blog is not necessarily a multimodal work and
the students in the study were fifth graders, the
study does bring up several issues with electronic
submissions that are common in multimodal
assignments. First, even though the research
showed that students felt they were more
motivated when writing in an electronic format,
the researchers also found that there were lower
submission rates as compared to paper-based
methods. The lower rate of submission shows
that even though many students felt motivated
by the medium, they still did not complete their
work, which is after all, the ultimate goal of
increasing motivation. Additionally, they found
that the electronic format was not universally
motivating. In fact, while the majority of students
reported an increase in motivation, several
reported that their motivation to complete their
work actually decreased. While other research
Volume 59, Number 6
has noted an increase in motivation and
achievement using multimodal work (Gomez
et al., 2010), it is important to note that not all
students will experience increased motivation.
Likewise, while many students appreciate the
increased choice that multimodal projects can
offer, others can feel like a less-focused approach
is more distracting (Lan et al., 2011).
For teachers
Along with issues for students, there also are
several issues relating to multimodal work that
teachers need to overcome. Among the areas of
caution for multimodal work are the skills and
time that teachers and instructors need to be
able to create, administer, and evaluate an entire
project. It can take a very skilled teacher to make
it work well (Gomez et al., 2010). One reason that
multimodal projects are so difficult is that they are
hard to create (Lan et al., 2011). In fact, beyond
simply creating the project, managing all the time
and tools necessary can be a real issue for many
teachers (Gomez et al., 2010). Even after a project
has been administered, some teachers report that
multimodal works can be difficult to assess (Nair
& Koh, 2013). For all of these reasons, even though
many teachers know that multimodal projects are
motivating to students, many are reluctant to try
them out of fear they may fail.
Another caution is that the novelty of a
medium may decrease over time. Rogers (2003)
noted that when an innovation is adopted purely
for social reasons (its perceived “newness” or the
status it gives an individual) users may quickly drop
the new innovation in search of another fad. While
this may happen in the case of multimodal works,
the old innovation will often be replaced by another
technology, which should remain novel to the user.
To avoid creating “stale” projects, teachers should
not overly rely on one type of multimodal project,
and they may need to revise their assignments over
time to reflect newer technologies.
Accountability
One last aspect that needs to be addressed is
how multimodal work fits into America’s current
accountability culture. This is an issue, because
most of the assessments that measure student
learning are based upon more traditional,
paper-based writing, not multimodal projects.
The issue is compounded because teachers often
are assessed using these same measures, giving
teachers less of an incentive to use multimodal
works as part of their curriculum. The issue is even
true of the new Common Core State Standards
(M. Siegal, 2012). M. Siegal also noted that until
the standards that students are measured upon
reflect a new definition of literacy that includes
Volume 59, Number 6 TechTrends • November/December 2015
multimodal work, it will be difficult to answer
the accountability question. Nevertheless, M.
Siegal gives three reasons why multimodal work
should be included in the curriculum despite
a potential conflict with current standards and
assessments:
1. As outside literacies change, so must school
literacies.
2. Youth already bring multimodal practice to
school.
3. Multimodal practice can help us think of
struggling students as “students of promise”
(p. 674).
To answer the accountability critics,
teachers need to find accurate ways to assess
student work. One way teachers can do this, in
addition to using traditional rubrics, is by using
observation logs and student journals to measure
student growth and understanding (Pandya,
2012). The issues involving accountability are
not going away, and teachers who decide to use
multimodal projects in their classes will need to
balance student needs with institutional, state,
and assessment concerns.
Recommendations
While multimodal writing projects have
potential for increasing students’ motivation
to complete their work, this potential must
be tempered by the cautions listed above. In
response to both the potential benefits and
cautions, we have three recommendations for
secondary teachers:
1. Teachers should use multimodal writing along-
side traditional writing. If a traditional piece
of writing can be integrated into a motivating
multimodal project, teachers can help motivate
students, while also meeting their obligation to
teach state and local standards. If it is difficult
to integrate traditional writing into a project,
Pandya (2012) recommends using a traditional
writing assignment as a gateway into the proj-
ect. Students may be more likely to complete
the traditional writing if they know it will lead
to something of more interest.
2. Teachers should create writing assignments
that give students the most authentic audience,
the most control over their work, and the most
relevance to students’ lives and interests. Nev-
ertheless, these elements should be balanced
against realistic expectations for resources,
class time, teacher knowledge, and time for
assessment. Setting realistic expectations can
help teachers realize that while their project
may not be perfect, they are making it as moti-
vating as possible.
3. Teachers need to balance the technology that
students use in multimodal projects with realis-
33
 tic expectations of student skills and resources.
As Anderson (2008) mentioned, it is important
to find a good balance between what a student
is capable of completing and what they will find
challenging and stimulating. Additionally, it is
not fair for a teacher to create a project for stu-
dents to complete outside of school when some
students may not have access to the technology
needed to complete the work.
Conclusion
Comparing multimodal work to traditional,
paper-based projects using Roger’s (2003) at-
tributes of innovations shows that multimodal
writing has the potential to be more motivating
to struggling students than traditional methods.
This is especially true due to the authentic au-
dience, student control, and relevance that mul-
timodal work potentially affords. However, this
potential must be balanced against logistical and
accountability concerns. Accountability is a par-
ticularly important concern and more research
needs to be completed to help address this issue.
Nevertheless, if teachers work within their envi-
ronments to create projects that use as many of
the strengths of multimodal work as possible, it
is likely that many students who are estranged
from their current educational milieu may feel
like they can be successful in writing classrooms.
Brett Darrington is a recent masters graduate of the Univer-
sity of Wyoming and a 12th grade English teacher at Kim-
berly High School in Kimberly, ID. Contact him via email at:
brett.darrington@gmail.com.
Tonia Dousay is an Assistant Professor in the Department
of Professional Studies at the University of Wyoming in Lara-
mie, WY.
References
Anderson, D. (2008). The low bridge to high benefits:
Entry-level multimedia, literacies, and motivation
[Electronic version]. Computers & Composition,
25(1), 40-60. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2007.09.006
Boscolo, P., & Hidi, S. (2007). The multiple meanings
of motivation to write [Electronic version]. In G.
Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.), P. Boscolo, & S. Hidi
(Vol. Eds.), Studies in writing: Vol. 19. Writing and
motivation (pp. 1–14). Oxford: Elsevier.
Buck, A. (2012). Examining digital literacy practices on
social network sites [Electronic version]. Research in
the Teaching of English, 47(1), 9-38.
Csikszentmihaly, M. (2000). Beyond boredom and anxiety:
Experiencing flow in work and play. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Curwood, J., Magnified, A., & Lammers, J. C. (2013).
Writing in the wild: Writers’ motivation in fan-
based affinity spaces [Electronic version]. Journal
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(8), 677-685.
doi:10.1002/JAAL.192
34 TechTrends • November/December 2015
Daniels, E. (2010). Creating motivating learning
environments: What we can learn from researchers
and students [Electronic version]. English Journal,
100(1), 25-29.
Day, J. (2010). Of mice and media [Electronic version].
English Journal, 100(1), 70-75.
Gainer, J. S., & Lapp, D. (2010). Remixing old and new
literacies = motivated students [Electronic version].
English Journal, 100(1), 58-64.
Graham, S., & Sandmel, K. (2011). The process writing
approach: A meta-analysis [Electronic version].
Journal of Educational Research, 104(6), 396-407. doi:
10.1080/00220671.2010.488703
Gomez, M., Schieble, M., Curwood, J., & Hassett, D.
(2010). Technology, learning and instruction:
Distributed cognition in the secondary English
classroom [Electronic version]. Literacy, 44(1), 20-27.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-4369.2010.00541.x
Goodson, L., & Skillen, M. (2010). Small-town
perspectives, big-time motivation: Composing and
producing place-based podcasts [Electronic version].
English Journal, 100(1), 53-57.
Lan, Y., Hung, C., & Hsu, H. (2011). Effects of guided
writing strategies on students’ writing attitudes based
on media richness theory. Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 10(4), 148-164.
Lam, S., & Law, Y. (2007). The roles of instructional
practices and motivation in writing performance
[Electronic version]. Journal of Experimental
Education, 75(2), 145-164. doi:10.3200/
JEXE.75.2.145-164
Magnifico, A. (2010). Writing for whom? Cognition,
motivation, and a writer’s audience [Electronic
version]. Educational Psychologist, 45(3), 167-184. doi
:10.1080/00461520.2010.493470
Nair, S., Tay, L., & Koh, J. (2013). Students’ motivation and
teachers’ teaching practices towards the use of blogs
for writing of online journals [Electronic version].
Educational Media International, 50(2), 108-119. doi:
10.1080/09523987.2013.795351
Pandya, J. (2012). Unpacking Pandora’s box: Issues in
the assessment of English learners’ literacy skill
development in multimodal classrooms [Electronic
version]. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
56(3), 181-185. doi:10.1002/JAAL.00124
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.).
New York, NY: Free Press.
Siegel, D. (2012). Embracing e-books: Increasing
students’ motivation to read and write [Electronic
version]. Gifted Child Today, 35(2), 137-143.
doi:10.1177/1076217511436089
Siegel, M. (2012). New times for multimodality?
Confronting the accountability culture [Electronic
version]. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
55(8), 671-681. doi:10.1002/JAAL.00082
Strovas, S. (2011). Music in the first-year writing
classroom. CEA Forum, 40(2), 24-42. Retrieved
January 16, 2014, from http://journals.tdl.org/
ceaforum/index.php/ceaforum/article/view/6340
Zumbrunn, S., & Krause, K. (2012). Conversations with
leaders: Principles of effective writing instruction
[Electronic version]. Reading Teacher, 65(5), 346-353.
doi:10.1002/TRTR.01053
Volume 59, Number 6
Copyright of TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning is the property
of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.