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

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.