4 Restorative practice as a possible avenue of disciplinary
practice
For our focus, it is important to implement a fair and transparent system in cases where misconduct did occur, which allows for punishment where necessary but most importantly allows for students to gain an understanding as to why the behavior was deemed as misconduct, gain educational university community. This approach is also not one sided, as the possible
role the institution/course/lecturer played in perhaps creating a scenario
where students felt the need to make use of dishonest practices is also
considered. Thus, RP is an approach that allows for redress and reconciliation.
Cullen (2022) indicates that RP works well in HE settings as it
aligns with the values of these institutions, namely “inclusivity, engagement, active citizenship, and educational mission” (2022: 53).
Within the South African context, the most well-known example of RJ is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) established in
1995. The TRC’s focus was to redress the harms caused by the Apartheid
regime but also to forge new relationships between all involved parties
through reconciliation and forgiveness (The Truth and Reconciliation
Commission, 1998). According to Archbishop Desmond Tutu, “the central
concern is not retribution or punishment but, in the spirit of ubuntu,
the healing of breaches, the redressing of imbalances, the restoration of
relationships. [. . .] Thus we should claim that justice, restorative justice, is
being served when efforts are being made to work for healing, for forgiveness
and for reconciliation” (Tutu, 1999: 51). Furthermore, as mentioned
under the EoC, by modeling forgiveness, empathy, and
compassion by allowing students to repair the harm they caused with dishonesty
through RP forms part of the implicit hidden curriculum of
teaching students social norms (Winter & Cotton, 2012), which hopefully
transcends into them developing these behaviors as graduates, employees,
or employers. Even though RJ is a legal concept, educational institutions
have started to gravitate toward the ethos captured in Archbishop Tutu’s
quotation and applied the concepts within various institutions (Lizeth &
Pedreal, 2014; Karp & Frank, 2015; Peterson, 2016; Cullen, 2022), and
RJ has been laid out by universities as part of their disciplinary processes
(St. Denis, 2017; University of Kentucky, 2022; Wells College, 2022). In
these instances, RJ spans across all types of misconduct that may occur at the
university and has been used to address damage to property (Karp, 2019),
sexist and derogatory language use (Karp & Frank, 2015), and misconduct
linked to race and gender, as well as issues of academic misconduct such as
plagiarism (Ramsey, 2004). Even though the focus here is the use of RP
within the sphere of academic misconduct, it recommends itself as an overarching
approach to all forms of misconduct that can possibly take place at
universities, such as the racial tensions and disputes that have been reported
at some SAHEIs recently (Africanews, 2022; eNCA, 2022).
To distinguish our approach from the legal approach, we refer to RP
within the educational context. RP’s philosophical roots encompass the reconciliation
of conflict, repairing and restoring harm/damage done, addressing
social inequalities, and the successful reintegration of all parties back into society
(Karp, 2019, p. 7). In this way, the process is reframed, allowing the
harmed party to discuss how the harm was caused, as well as providing the
wrongdoer with context as to why their actions were undesirable and hold
consequences (Grimsrud & Zehr, 2002). Through the incorporation of this
approach, a constructive space is created for students to understand why their
actions were harmful and how they impacted others.
As such, RP is a people-centered approach rather than a procedure-centered approach focused on punitive punishment.
RP is a philosophical approach to repairing the harm caused by an
individual or group. At its core, it has a dual agenda to (1) discipline
wrongdoings and (2) support students in learning more about the wrongdoing
and helping them in their personal development linked to the issue.
To achieve this, RJ draws on four foundational principles, namely, making
inclusive decisions (involving all parties of a specific case), active
accountability (wrongdoers must take responsibility for their actions and
make amends), repairing harm (focus on reparation in order to encourage
wrongdoers’ learning and personal growth), and rebuilding trust (in order
for wrongdoers to regain the trust of the harmed parties).
At the university level, RP has been used to mediate issues of student
misconduct. The literature shows different ways in which RPs have been
constituted at universities, such as small groups mediated by an RP practitioner,
using RP committees, or RP circles (Karp, 2019, p. 32). The
implementation of these structures is context dependent. Thus, in our
context, it will be necessary to make an inclusive decision as to how the
processes are mediated, which considers the voices, views, and perspectives
of all stakeholders at the institution.
Whatever the formal structure that will be implemented, Karp (2019,
p. 12) identifies four principles that underpin successful RPs. The first is
inclusive decision-making, which opens the space for all parties to voice
their feelings, articulate the harm caused, and which sanctions are needed
to repair the harm. Through negotiation, an inclusive decision is reached.
The second principle is active accountability, which means that the person
or persons who are responsible for the harm must take active responsibility
for their actions. This challenges the passive role that students may play in
current structures where they receive a specific punishment linked to their transgression, as well as the view that only the student is responsible for
the harm caused. Thus, it meets “the needs of productive community
accountability” (Cullen, 2022: 53). Furthermore, by incorporating the
students’ voices and opinions on how to address the situation, they are
more likely to adhere to the decisions made as they may feel less coerced
or that the punishment is arbitrary, thus developing self-regulation
through the process. The third principle focuses on how to repair the
harm done, and this situates the problem rather than the person as the
issue that needs to be addressed. This allows for the student to be reintegrated
into the academic community. However, the process does not stop
there, and this leads to the fourth principle, which is rebuilding trust.
After a student has committed an offense, the part of the community
affected by the student’s actions may feel hesitant to trust that person
again. However, it is integral that the student is reassimilated into the
community, and as such steps to rebuild trust are of the utmost importance.
This can take many forms, allowing for educational experiences,
discussions, resource sharing, and harsher punishments as possible ways to
rebuild trust.
In practical scenarios, RP could be applied as follows:
4.1 Scenario #1
Bill is enrolled in Engineering I, an extremely difficult course that requires careful listening and reading of material and thereafter thorough application
to master the content. With the rapid move online, Bill is overwhelmed
when he opens the course site—his lecturer has added many
readings—much more than was ever mentioned or referred to during inperson
classes, as well as videos to watch and lectures to listen to.
Also, new on the platform are weekly quizzes that they did not do
during in-person classes. Each quiz has several readings, videos, and lectures
attached to it, and the quiz is only available until the end of each
week.
Bill reaches out to some of his classmates to find out how they are
coping and find out they are also overwhelmed by the amount of work
they need to do. They decide to divide the work and they will help each
other out during the online quizzes to get through all the work on time.
After some time, their lecturer notices that they login and do the quizzes
at the same time and that they score the same marks. The lecturer calls
them in and accuses them of collusion.
4.2 RP application to scenario #1
With this situation, both parties—the lecturer and the students—would
have an opportunity to voice the harms that they feel has been caused to
them. In the case of the lecturer, it could be that these instances of collusion
diminish the value of the course or that all assessments completed,
thus far needs to be scrapped to ensure that the course adheres to the
accepted standards, which might mean that the lecturer will have to
develop new assessments or that the students’ actions negatively affect the
rest of the class. The students would also have an opportunity to elaborate
on the harm that they feel has been caused to them, such as unreasonable
workload and deadlines. Thereafter, with the help of an RP practitioner,
a way forward is conceptualized, with both parties being held
accountable for their contribution to the current problem, as well as both
parties working together to repair the harm caused. The fourth step
would be to rebuild trust for readmission into the community.
For this, the lecturer might send out an announcement on the learning
management system (LMS) to apologize for the hectic schedule and
workload as well as suggest a new, less intense schedule. However, further
steps might be necessary to transform the course in future offerings. In
such an instance, the academic in whose course this happened should
restore trust in their practices by evaluating their curriculum and reducing
workload in order to create a more balanced and manageable course for
students. A possible practice to keep in mind for such scenarios is to constitute
a student curriculum review team (SCRT) (Hsih et al., 2015) for
that course with the student(s) who were dishonest in the course as part
of the SCRT to help redesign the curriculum.
From the student’s perspective, the students may need to apologize to
the class and perhaps host a seminar on the difference between collaboration
and collusion, outlining when it is acceptable to work together and
when it is not acceptable.
4.3 Scenario #2
Sandra is struggling with her chemistry course and needs to achieve at least
65% to get into the study program she is interested in. The course has a
low pass rate and has been identified by the institution as a bottleneckcourse. She is worried that she will not be able to get the desired marks to
progress. However, she found an easily accessible tutoring site online that
helps her to study. She can answer questions linked to her course andsomebody checks it for her and gives her feedback. They even help us during
online exams, where they check the answer we wrote and tells us if it
is correct or incorrect. This takes some of the pressure off the exam, as she
can rework an incorrect answer before submitting the exam.
4.4 RP application to scenario #2
Through the RP approach, Sandra is first made to understand why a
behavior that is acceptable during term time (learning through seeking
help) is not acceptable during the examination. During the session,
the lecturer will outline the harm caused by her behavior—
affecting the validity of the exam and online examination practices at
the institution. Sandra will also receive an opportunity to explain
why she has taken this approach and perhaps touch on how this being
a “gatekeeping course” with a poor pass rate has spurred on her decision
to make use of the tutoring site during her online exam as she
needs to do well to get into her desired program, which affects her
bursary. Thus, her motivation for dishonest practices is linked to
institutional and financial pressures. Again, in this way, both parties
acknowledge their role in the situation. Based on this and mediation
by the RP practitioner, sanctions can be put in place and a reintegration
back into the academic society can be initiated.