Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

Petition Letter: To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to respectfully petition the decision to uphold the reduction of my presentation grade based on peer evaluations in ARIN 101. I am requesting a formal review of this decision because I believe the peer evaluation did not fairly or accurately reflect my actual contribution to the group project, and that the evidence I submitted in support of my regrade request was not given appropriate weight.

My concern is not simply that my peers viewed my contribution differently than I did, but that several of the factual claims made against me were either contradicted by the evidence I submitted or were not reasonably verified before the grade penalty was upheld.

Throughout the project, I was actively involved in the group process. I helped initiate the group’s work at an early stage, including contributing to the selection of the presentation topic. I remained in communication with the group and responded consistently throughout the project. I also attended the only scheduled group meeting. Although I arrived slightly late, I had communicated this in advance because I had an unexpected mandatory Queen’s Men’s Varsity Soccer team call. I made the group aware of this beforehand and joined shortly after.

A major issue in this matter was confusion surrounding the project schedule and presentation timing. Some members of the group believed that our presentation materials had to be completed earlier because of uncertainty about whether we were presenting in Week 10 or Week 11. Despite this confusion, I still completed my assigned work by March 11, which was 8 days before the actual due date connected to our Week 11 presentation. I also experienced technical difficulties accessing the group PowerPoint, but I nevertheless completed my portion of the work through Google Slides, so it could still be incorporated into the final presentation. For this reason, I do not believe it is fair to characterize my work as late in a way that justifies a reduction in my grade.

I also believe the peer evaluations were relied upon too heavily without sufficient scrutiny of their accuracy. The final decision acknowledged that some claims were subjective, some unverifiable, and some mixed together in a complicated way. However, despite this, the conclusion was still to fully uphold the peer-evaluation-based penalty. In my view, that result was unfair, especially where evidence existed that challenged important parts of the narrative used against me.

For example, I submitted screenshots and other supporting material to show that I was engaged in the group chat, completed work within the timeline being discussed by the group, attended the meeting, and acted quickly when confusion arose. Even if every point could not be proven conclusively, I do not believe the available evidence supported the conclusion that I was unreachable, uninvolved, or doing only the “bare minimum.” At a minimum, the evidence showed that the situation was more complex than the peer evaluations suggested.

I am also concerned that the process placed me at a disadvantage because I did not submit my own peer evaluation. While I understand that this limited the material available for comparison, I do not believe that should mean that the submitted peer evaluations were automatically entitled to greater credibility, especially when I later provided evidence disputing their claims. A student’s failure to submit a peer evaluation should not prevent legitimate documentary evidence from being fairly considered afterward.

In addition, some of the claims relied on appear to have been treated as credible even where they were based on personal impressions rather than objective facts. I fully understand that peer evaluations may involve subjectivity, but when those evaluations directly affect a student’s grade, I believe there must be meaningful caution before relying on them to impose a penalty, particularly where the student provides evidence suggesting that the evaluations may have been exaggerated, incomplete, or influenced by group dynamics.

I want to be clear that I am not arguing that every group member had to view my contribution positively. Rather, I am asking that the final grade reflect verifiable contribution and fairness in the process. My position is that the peer evaluation penalty was upheld despite significant uncertainty and despite evidence that undermined several of the core allegations against me.

I respectfully request that my adjusted presentation grade be reviewed again at the departmental/faculty level and that the reduction based on peer evaluation be reconsidered or removed. At a minimum, I ask that the matter be reviewed with close attention to whether the evidence actually supported the findings used to justify the grade reduction.

Supporting documentation is contained in the email correspondence exchanged with Professor Carolyn Lamb and TA Janevra Pier.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I appreciate the opportunity to have this matter reviewed.

Sincerely,
Joshua Crete
20504659
ARIN 101
24cf28@queensu.ca