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.