Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

Petition Letter: Dear Dr. Naaman,

I am requesting a formal review of the instructor’s grading decision on term work in MICR 270: the Scientific Poster Assignment. I received Dr. Sarah Dick’s informal review decision on June 2, 2026, confirming that my poster grade was intentionally adjusted based on contribution. I am submitting this petition within the 15-business-day deadline.

I am also in contact with the Office of the University Ombudsperson who has been following this case and has provided additional procedural guidance to ensure I used the appropriate review route and submitted within the applicable deadline.

This is not a request to review my final course grade. It is also not a request for Arts and Science to re-grade my group-work involvement, oral presentation, or participation. I understand that those categories are generally not reviewable by a third-party reader. My request is for review of whether the instructor followed the posted syllabus, assignment outline, rubric, and onQ feedback when applying an undisclosed individual contribution adjustment to an assessment described as a group-mark assignment.

The posted course and assignment documents identify the Scientific Poster Assignment as a group-mark assessment. The syllabus lists the Scientific Poster Assignment as worth 20% and describes it as a small-group assignment where each group creates a scientific poster and completes pre-recorded narration. The syllabus does not state that individual contribution, peer review, group-member reports, or instructor communications would be used to adjust individual marks for the Scientific Poster Assignment.

This contrasts with the Journal ill, where the syllabus expressly states that non-presenting students critically evaluate their peer and provide feedback and grading via a rubric. The syllabus therefore shows that where peer evaluation or individual grading was intended, the course documents said so.

The Scientific Poster Assignment outline states that one copy is submitted per group and that the assignment is worth 20% of the final grade, allocated as a group mark. The rubric also states that the scientific poster is worth 20% of the final grade as a group mark. The onQ feedback states that the evaluation applies to all members of the group and shows a posted group score of 94.75/100.

Despite this, I received an individual grade of 17.75%. Dr. Dick explained that I was graded only on the Audio/Visual and Spelling/Grammar sections because those were considered my contributions. The onQ rubric shows that those two categories total exactly 17.75 points: 5/5 for Spelling/Grammar and 12.75/15 for Visual and Audio Presentation. This excluded the remaining 80% of the rubric, despite the assignment being posted, submitted, and evaluated as a group-mark assessment.

My grounds for review are as follows.

First, the posted syllabus, assignment outline, and rubric were not followed because the assignment was described as a group-mark assessment, with no disclosed individual contribution adjustment process.

Second, there is a marking discrepancy: the posted onQ group score is 94.75/100, but my assigned mark appears to have been derived only from two rubric categories totaling 17.75%.

Third, procedural fairness was not followed. I was not given notice before or during the assignment that an individual contribution adjustment could replace the posted group mark. I was also not given the evidence relied on, the communications considered, or a meaningful opportunity to respond before the contribution-based grade was applied. After I requested the written basis and contemporaneous communications relied on, Dr. Dick declined to provide the communications and directed me to onQ. As a result, I have not been provided with the evidence, a redacted version, or a summary of the evidence relied on.

Fourth, the decision is not reasonable on the record provided. I requested the specific course document or written notice authorizing the departure from the group-mark structure, along with the contemporaneous communications relied on regarding my participation. Dr. Dick replied that she does not release communications and that course information can be found on onQ. I have therefore not been provided with the specific policy basis, evidence, or calculation supporting the individual adjustment.

I acknowledge that my initial response to the group email chain was delayed. However, after responding, I participated thoroughly: I offered to restructure the poster because the assignment instructions stated that it should not appear as a wall of text, I completed script writing and narration for assigned sections, helped coordinate audio compilation, and submitted the final file. The central issue in this petition is not a third-party assessment of contribution, but whether the posted grading scheme and process were followed.

I respectfully request that the posted group score of 94.75/100 be applied to my Scientific Poster Assignment grade, equivalent to 18.95/20 toward the final course grade. In the alternative, I request any remedy the Associate Dean considers appropriate to address the undisclosed departure from the posted grading scheme and lack of notice.

Sincerely,
Jivan Kaprielian