{"id":1549,"date":"2026-10-19T11:03:23","date_gmt":"2026-10-19T18:03:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wordpress.kpu.ca\/tlcommons\/?p=1549"},"modified":"2026-10-19T11:03:24","modified_gmt":"2026-10-19T18:03:24","slug":"october-is-academic-integrity-month-what-were-learning-about-restorative-justice-at-kpu","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wordpress.kpu.ca\/tlcommons\/october-is-academic-integrity-month-what-were-learning-about-restorative-justice-at-kpu\/","title":{"rendered":"October is Academic Integrity Month! What We\u2019re Learning About Restorative Justice at KPU"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Dr. Alana Abramson and Alexa Dziubenko<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Academic Integrity Month invites us to think about what academic integrity means\u2014and, perhaps more importantly, how we respond when it is breached.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For faculty, these moments can be difficult. Discovering plagiarism, inappropriate use of generative AI, unauthorized collaboration, or another potential breach can produce frustration, disappointment, and uncertainty about what to do next. At particularly busy points in the semester, responding also means additional work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But what if an academic integrity breach is not only a disciplinary problem? What if it can also become a moment for learning, accountability, and relationship repair?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That question sits at the heart of KPU\u2019s growing use of restorative justice (RJ) in responding to academic integrity concerns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since 2023, RJ principles have been incorporated into KPU\u2019s Student Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure (ST2). This has been accompanied by workshops, Lunch and Learns, faculty consultations, departmental presentations, a self-paced Moodle course, Communities of Practice, and other initiatives designed to build capacity for restorative responses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our recent impact study asked: What difference is this investment making?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We invited students, faculty, and Associate Deans to participate in restorative research circles about their experiences and perceptions of academic integrity and RJ at KPU. Thirty-one people participated across five circles. While the sample size was small, we can use the results to guide future efforts and research. Here are some of what we heard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From \u201ccatching\u201d students to engaging students<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the clearest findings was a shift in how participants talked about academic integrity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Faculty described moving away from an exclusively punitive or investigative orientation toward conversations that seek to understand context while still holding students accountable. As one participant put it:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt feels less like reporting a violation and more like starting a conversation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another was even more direct:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI didn\u2019t sign up to be a police officer\u2026 I\u2019m here to teach.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These comments raise an important question: What response is most likely to help a student understand what happened, recognize its impact, take responsibility, and make different choices in the future?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Faculty who had used restorative conversations described learning things about students\u2019 circumstances they would not otherwise have known. Some also reported meaningful shifts in students\u2019 attitudes<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Associate Deans described a similar change, contrasting more legalistic responses with an approach that allows greater attention to context. They also identified a preventative dimension: when we see recurring breaches, we can ask not only What are students doing wrong?<\/em> but also Is there something about our assessment design, communication, or expectations that we could change?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Students are not asking for \u201cno consequences\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One persistent misconception about restorative justice is that it is a \u201csoft\u201d alternative to accountability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is not what students in our study told us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Students described RJ as an approach that could promote learning, accountability, and understanding of harm<\/strong>. They valued the opportunity to learn from mistakes rather than simply receive a penalty, but they did not equate restorative justice with an absence of consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As one student explained:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cA restorative approach helps students truly face the consequences of their actions.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Students described accountability as understanding who was affected, taking responsibility, and rebuilding trust.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Restorative justice does not ask us to choose between compassion and accountability. It asks what meaningful accountability should actually accomplish.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Context matters\u2014but context is not an excuse<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Students also reminded us that academic integrity does not occur in a vacuum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

KPU students bring different educational histories, cultural backgrounds, language experiences, and familiarity with academic conventions. Many are simultaneously managing employment, financial pressures, family responsibilities, and demanding course loads. Participants were clear that these circumstances do not excuse breaches. They do, however, help us understand the conditions in which decisions are made.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Understanding why something happened does not mean removing responsibility. It can allow us to respond more meaningfully. A student who deliberately purchases an assignment, a student who panics under deadline pressure and uses AI in a prohibited way, and a student who genuinely misunderstands citation conventions may all have breached academic integrity\u2014but an educationally meaningful response may not look identical in each case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Restorative approaches also ask something of faculty\u2014and KPU<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our findings caution against romanticizing restorative justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Faculty repeatedly told us that restorative responses require time, patience, emotional labour, and institutional support<\/strong>. Some described productive conversations; others encountered denial, disengagement, or students who disappeared. One participant reflected that a difficult case \u201cdidn\u2019t really restore anything for me. It still created work for me.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The findings also highlighted that if relational approaches to academic integrity concerns are to be sustained, faculty need institutional structures and support alongside their individual efforts. Responsibility cannot simply be transferred to individual instructors. Professional development opportunities can inspire people, but faculty also need the time, procedural clarity, resources, and support required when difficult situations arise. Participants described meaningful educational opportunities at KPU, while also noting that participation tends to be self-selecting and that restorative justice practice remains demanding to implement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Students also identified inconsistent communication\u2014particularly around generative AI\u2014as a source of confusion. Participants called for clearer processes, proactive education, and more consistent communication across the institution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A question for Academic Integrity Month<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps Academic Integrity Month gives us an opportunity to move beyond asking, \u201cHow do we prevent students from breaching academic integrity?\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We might also ask:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What are we trying to teach students about integrity when something goes wrong?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A restorative justice approach does not eliminate standards, consequences, or difficult conversations. Nor will it be appropriate or successful in every circumstance. It invites us to think differently about the purpose of our response: not simply determining whether a rule was broken, but helping students understand harm, accept responsibility, repair relationships where possible, and develop the knowledge and skills necessary to act with integrity in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our study suggests KPU has begun this cultural shift. Participants described movement from punishment toward learning and from rigid procedure toward contextual understanding. They also identified real barriers: faculty workload, student fear and shame, inconsistent messaging, uneven engagement, and the need for greater institutional support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Academic integrity is ultimately about more than compliance with rules. It is about the kind of academic community we are trying to create\u2014and what we do, as educators, when members of that community fall short of our shared expectations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Dr. Alana Abramson and Alexa Dziubenko Academic Integrity Month invites us to think about what academic integrity means\u2014and, perhaps more importantly, how we respond when it is breached. For faculty, these moments can be difficult. Discovering plagiarism, inappropriate use of generative AI, unauthorized collaboration, or another potential breach can produce frustration, disappointment, and uncertainty…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":566,"featured_media":1291,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","iawp_total_views":4,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1549","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-technology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.kpu.ca\/tlcommons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1549","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.kpu.ca\/tlcommons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.kpu.ca\/tlcommons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.kpu.ca\/tlcommons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/566"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.kpu.ca\/tlcommons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1549"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.kpu.ca\/tlcommons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1549\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1550,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.kpu.ca\/tlcommons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1549\/revisions\/1550"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.kpu.ca\/tlcommons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1291"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.kpu.ca\/tlcommons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1549"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.kpu.ca\/tlcommons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1549"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.kpu.ca\/tlcommons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1549"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}