[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/hesjnl/v14y2024i4p186.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shove Less, Nudge More: Stakeholders' Perspective from Writing Classrooms

Author

Listed:
  • Rami F. Mustafa
Abstract
Academic writing courses are critical in higher education. However, they often rely on directive measures, or "shoves," that impose rigid guidelines, high-stakes assessments, and punitive consequences. These approaches, such as inflexible deadlines and harsh grading penalties, can increase student anxiety, disengagement, and surface learning. As a result, some students resort to unethical strategies, such as using essay mills or AI-generated content. This qualitative study, conducted through interviews with 20 writing professors and 30 students, identified several common shoves in academic writing courses and explored their negative impacts on student engagement and academic integrity. The findings highlight critical areas of concern, including strict rubrics, high-stakes deadlines, standardized feedback, and plagiarism threats. In response, the study proposes a shift from punitive shoves to supportive nudges, categorizing the latter into intuitive and didactic interventions. These nudges, such as automated deadline reminders, scaffolded assignments, and ethical AI usage prompts, aim to foster more positive student behavior and engagement. The next phase of this research will investigate how these behavioral nudges influence learning outcomes and student well-being.

Suggested Citation

  • Rami F. Mustafa, 2024. "Shove Less, Nudge More: Stakeholders' Perspective from Writing Classrooms," Higher Education Studies, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 14(4), pages 186-186, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:hesjnl:v:14:y:2024:i:4:p:186
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/hes/article/download/0/0/50826/55085
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/hes/article/view/0/50826
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:hesjnl:v:14:y:2024:i:4:p:186. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.