Addressing Academic Misconduct

Even in courses with thoughtfully designed assessments, transparent policies, and clear guidance about AI use, instructors may encounter suspected academic misconduct, including unauthorized AI use or inappropriate collaboration. Responding to these situations through a restorative justice lens supports accountability in a fair, empathetic, and relational manner for both the instructor and student.��

This page focuses on how instructors can respond when academic misconduct is suspected, emphasizing a transparent and relational restorative justice lens, rather than punitive or prohibitive approaches alone.��

Why Use a Restorative Justice Lens?

A restorative justice lens��shifts the focus from rule-breaking to repairing harm. Rather than centering questions such as “What rule was violated?” or “What punishment is appropriate?”, restorative approaches ask:

Who was impacted by the misconduct?��
How was learning, trust, or fairness affected?��
What steps can help repair that harm and prevent recurrence?��

This works because:��

Academic misconduct is common and context‑driven. It rarely reflects a single lapse in ethics and is often shaped by pressure, unclear expectations, or misalignment with learning goals. Thus, students and instructors can come up with a multifaceted approach to repair.��
Punitive, non‑dialogic responses can miss root causes. When applied without conversation, they can foster mistrust and antagonism between students and instructors.
Relationship‑centered approaches support reflection and accountability. Creating a non‑judgmental space allows students to explain context, reflect on impact, and take responsibility without defaulting to punishment.
Fostering care, belonging, and trust reduces future misconduct. Students are less likely to cheat when they perceive instructors and institutions as caring and inclusive, making relationship‑centered responses effective even when suspicions are unfounded (;��;��).

When Are Restorative Approaches Most Appropriate?

Restorative responses are particularly effective in situations where learning and accountability can be strengthened through dialogue rather than escalation. They are most suitable when:��

The student intent is unclear or disputed��
The misconduct is limited in scope or appears to be a first occurrence��
Students are willing to engage in reflection and conversation��
Instructors recognize that structural issues (e.g., unclear expectations, AI availability) may have influenced student behavior��

Using a��restorative approach does not require certainty of guilt, nor does it exclude consequences or reporting when warranted. Instead, it emphasizes acknowledging impact, clarifying expectations, and rebuilding trust.��

What to Do When You Suspect Academic Misconduct?

Document Your Concerns Thoughtfully

Before initiating a conversation, it is important to document observations carefully and neutrally. This helps��ground discussions in evidence rather than assumptions. Thoughtful documentation may include:

Relevant excerpts from the syllabus or assignment instructions (e.g., collaboration, AI-use policies).��
Past samples of student writing relevant to the current assignment.
�ճܰ��Ծ��پ��, IP address or time stamp of submission, and file details (e.g., owner of file).
of documents or reports from process-oriented transparency tools (e.g.,��).��

Focus on observable information, and avoid assuming intent or misconduct based solely on writing style or tone, since it can be misleading. Avoid AI detection tools, which are unreliable ��Ի��.

Reporting and Institutional Processes

Suspected cases of academic misconduct are typically examined by the Office of��Student Conduct & Conflict Resolution (SCCR). Reporting to SCCR does not imply certainty of academic misconduct. Rather, it��ensures consistency of process across courses, supports fair investigation, and helps the institution identify patterns in academic misconduct. Additionally, it allows SCCR to advocate for broader institutional investment in preventing misconduct.

within 40 days of a suspected violation.
Resolution specialists at SCCR use restorative justice processes to investigate further and facilitate conversations with both students and instructors to confirm a suspected violation as well as a collaborative resolution.��
��𱹾��SCCR process and how to communicate the procedure with students. You may also share��Honor Code FAQs with students.

Although they may take a few weeks to do so, if you cannot align with this timeline, you may initiate conversations with students on your own, but ensure you report confirmed misconduct to the SCCR.��This can help SCCR track the frequency and severity of these violations.��

Initiate a Learning‑Centered Conversation

Restorative responses begin with dialogue. The goal is to��better understand what happened, not to confront or accuse. Consider:

Asking students to describe how they approached the assignment and the choices they made
��Բ��open‑ended, non‑accusatory questions that invite explanation. For example, instead of “Why” questions, which can often come across as accusatory, ask:��
- “What was your intention when you asked ___ for help?”
- “What forms of support did you rely on?”
- “I am trying to understand better. When you say ___ , do you mean ___ ?”
- “How would you explain the similarity between ____ ?”��
Listening for signs of misunderstanding, stress, or reliance on external tools due to limited support
Revisiting expectations around academic integrity and AI use as part of the discussion.��
Not promising resolution in this meeting, try to just gather information.
Reporting the details to SCCR.��

These conversations often clarify whether the situation reflects confusion, poor judgment, or more serious misconduct.��If you are uncomfortable with leading such a conversation, consider reporting the incident directly to SCCR.

Determine Next Steps

Instructors retain discretion over grading regardless of the SCCR process. When restorative approaches are appropriate, the next steps may include a combination of accountability and learning. For example, students may:

Resubmit an assignment with a reflection in accordance with course policy, along with elaborating on their process and decision-making.��
- Note:��You could offer this opportunity to all students, lowering the stakes and allowing everyone to demonstrate progression in learning.��
Retest the same skills in a different format, such as an oral exam, portfolio, or answer different questions in a proctored in-person exam
Receive partial or no credit on the assignment if misconduct is confirmed. A penalty (e.g., lower grade or no points) emphasizes that an honest attempt would have earned them more points.

Restorative approaches can, and often should, coexist with consequences when warranted. The��emphasis is on proportionality, clarity, and preventing future harm. Thus, these strategies should be paired with commitments to further education on the part of students, as well as clearer and more supportive assignments by instructors. ��

Certain responses may unintentionally undermine trust or create inequitable outcomes. Moreover, they can directly contradict best practices in teaching, in addition to FERPA and institutional norms. For these reasons, we strongly advise against the following practices.

What Not to Do When Responding to Suspected Misconduct?

Using hidden prompts or “Trojan words” to trap students

"Trojan words” are phrases or words written in text that is too small to read, written in white text, or instructions directed to generative AI tools.
��ܳ�� not only undermine trust but are ineffective because students can hide their AI use with minimal effort to bypass.��
These can also seem nonsensical or confuse students, particularly if they are making use of screen readers to review instructions.��

Using AI detection tools or rely on it as sole recourse

OIT at CU does not endorse or provide access to any online proctoring, lockdown browser, or AI detection tools. Such tools cannot be used without the OIT approval process, so explore a licensing agreement individually or as a department with OIT. If you still choose to use AI detector tools, make sure to:

Clearly communicate any use of monitoring tools and obtain explicit consent from students��before they submit their work. ��𱹾��updated FERPA norms to clarify��exceptions to student consent.
Upload student work to detector tools only after anonymizing their identity and any other sensitive personal information.��
Treat detection outputs as prompts to initiate conversation, not proof of misconduct ().
Avoid relying on a single tool, given the legitimate��concerns and limitations of AI tools.

Failing students based on accusations alone

Consequences based solely on suspicion of misconduct can be��.��
Ironically, it can also push students who may otherwise not use AI to�� (ETRA, 2026).
Such actions can also undermine trust and a sense of belonging, which��can further antagonize the relationship between students and instructors.

Resolving serious concerns privately when reporting is appropriate

If misconduct is confirmed, it is important to make a report to SCCR even if you and the student have reached a resolution.��
This ensures SCCR has accurate data on incidents of misconduct and can seek additional support from the institution as needed.

��ǰ��international students, failing or being suspended from a course for academic��misconduct can seriously jeopardize their��. So it is important to converse with��ISSS ��Ի��SCCR to better inform students, and before such punitive measures are taken.��

Supporting Learning After a Violation of Academic Misconduct

Restorative responses extending beyond an initial incident can be critical to restoring learning conditions after trust has been disrupted. Intentional steps to clarify course-level and institutional expectations can help reduce the likelihood of recurrence. Instructors can:

��Re‑establish expectations and boundaries

Revisit course policies, clarify AI‑use guidelines, and address misunderstandings that surfaced during the incident to reduce confusion going forward. In some cases, you may:

Provide��assessment-specific AI-use policies
Provide��resources for students to clarify AI-use policy.��
Invite SCCR staff to present to your students on institutional policies
Clarify how course-level expectations relate to broader institutional expectations.��

��Model academic integrity and transparency

Make integrity visible by regularly articulating disciplinary norms, explaining instructional decisions, and reflecting openly on learning and teaching practices in the classroom. Exercises such as�� can also support deeper engagement with��AI ethics and academic integrity.

��Rebuild trust through instructional practice

Use transparent communication, and intentionally cultivate peer-to-peer relationships through�� Ի��active learning strategies (e.g., a jigsaw reading activity of the honor code policy,��). This can signal fairness, care, and continued investment in student learning while also helping students know each other and hold each other accountable.

��Support reflection tied to the incident

Encourage students to examine ethical choices and decision-making, process, and impact, particularly around academic integrity ��Ի��AI literacy. This can be done through��metacognitive or reflective writing prompts tied to the process of learning.

��Adjust assessments if structural issues were revealed

When misconduct highlights issues in assessment design, make targeted,��equity‑minded adjustments to reduce overreliance on AI and the recurrence of academic misconduct. This may include making assessments more relevant, transparent, and process-oriented.

�Ͼ�Ʒ��