Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 5158
Submitted: December 3, 2018 at 1:36:39 PM
First Name: Natasha
Last Name: Kornak
Student Number: 10168509
Email: 14nk33@queensu.ca
Degree Program: BSH
Plan: LISC
Level of Study: 4
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Request a review of instructors' decisions on grading of final examination and/or term work
Code: HLTH 334
Term: Fall
Year: 2018
Petition Category: Request a review of instructors' decisions on grading of final examination and/or term work
Instructor's Name: Lisa Carver
Component: Assignment
Petition Letter
Petition Letter: Associate Dean of Studies
Dear Dr. Bénard:
I am writing to request a remark of an assignment for HLTH 334, The Politics of Health and Illness. This assignment is denoted as the Tutorial Presentation in the syllabus and is worth 25 of the final grade. The description of the presentation is as follows:
The purpose of the presentation is to give students the opportunity to take a stand on an issue in Politics of Health and Illness, and present their perspective to other students in their tutorial group. Presentations will be done individually. The presentation must engage with academic sources (journal articles) in such a way that the depth of your understanding is apparent and you go beyond a cursory review. Your presentation must include 2 or more theories from this course.
Your presentation must include: 1) An overview of the issue and clearly state your position; 2) A critical assessment of the theories you are using to explain the issue including strengths, weaknesses, and debates in the literature; 3) Research from at least 3 journal articles that substantiate your arguments; 4) A list of references used for your presentation; 5) You need to prepare 2 questions for your peers after your presentation.
It is expected that you use slides for your presentation.
My presentation examined sexual violence as a societal and public health issue. I examined the Philadelphia Model, a new model for reviewing previously closed sexual assault cases to look for issues of bias against the complainant, rape mythology, or victim-blaming, to demonstrate how certain sociological theories can be applied in developing solutions to address this issue.
My presentation was conducted on November 22, 2018. I had decided on this topic from week 1 of the course and received its approval from my TA, Adam Ali. Mr. Ali informed us that not only would our oral presentation be considered in our grade, but so would the text of our slides, as well as the content of the presenter's notes in the PowerPoint file.
I received a 74 on my presentation. This will result in a 6.25 deduction from my overall course grade. I put an immense amount of effort into this presentation, and into this course as a whole, and do not believe this grade reflects my competence of course material or the requirements of the presentation, nor does it reflect the work I put into this presentation.
Dr. Carver's criticism of my presentation reads as such: You are a strong presenter and the presentation explained sexual assault from a criminology perspective. However, the purpose of the presentation is to give students the opportunity to take a stand on an issue in Politics of Health and Illness, but, beyond a single sentence stating that there can be health consequences of SA - your presentation did not address health or illness or other significant issues from the course. Also, you did not clearly explain the Philadelphia model. There were many errors in APA style in the reference slide and a dependence on older and non-academic sources.
A marking rubric for the assignment was posted to OnQ. However, I have not received an annotated rubric from Dr. Carver with her assessment of my presentation, despite having requested this from her.
In an email to Dr. Carver, I outlined my concerns with her assessment of my presentation. Dr. Carver's response to that email does not address any of the concerns I raised. She refused my request to meet with her to discuss this and referred me to appeal my grade through a formal process.
Dr. Carver's criticism reads, You are a strong presenter and the presentation explained sexual assault from a criminology perspective. I believe I examined the issue of sexual violence from a sociological perspective, drawing on both intersectional feminist theory and symbolic interactionism, two theories outlined in the course, which we were permitted to use in our presentations. I took aim at the justice system, because it is an area of our society that impacts the overall health and wellbeing of our society. If perpetrators of sexual violence are adequately prosecuted, they are much more likely to reoffend, which puts the health and safety of our population at risk. I also discussed potential upstream solutions for preventing sexual violence, as well as other policy solutions for protecting the health and wellbeing of sexual assault survivors.
Dr. Carver's comments go on to say, However, the purpose of the presentation is to give students the opportunity to take a stand on an issue in Politics of Health and Illness, but, beyond a single sentence stating that there can be health consequences of SA - your presentation did not address health or illness or other significant issues from the course. I did mention the significant health risks that stem from sexual violence, including unintended pregnancy, STIs, and trauma/mental health issues near the beginning of my presentation. Sexual violence is a highly political issue, of which I mentioned in light of the Me Too movement, as well as various bills that have passed/are still being debated at various levels of government. Thus, I do think this is a significant issue that falls under the scope of the Politics of Health and Illness. Furthermore, I pulled much of my research and understanding of this issue from course materials, specifically the textbook chapters regarding women's health and feminist theory. I touched on issues of racism, heteronormativity, and gender repeatedly throughout my presentation, so I do not believe I neglected other significant issues from the course, whatsoever. Thus, I dispute this criticism that Dr. Carver made here.
Dr. Carver's criticism also reads, Also, you did not clearly explain the Philadelphia model. I dispute this claim, as I verbally explained what the model involves. I also explained the events that led up to the formation of this model in detail, how it has been successful, and how it is being implemented in other jurisdictions, including Canadian jurisdictions. I articulated this verbally and had it written on my slides. The reason I looked at the Philadelphia Model was that it was a successful implementation of a partial solution to the very real and pervasive problem of sexual violence. I believe the discussion about solutions to large societal problems is a key component of this course and sought to demonstrate a potential solution in my presentation. Again, I received approval to research this topic from my TA, Adam Ali. Furthermore, I explained this model very clearly on my slides. If Dr. Carver had questions regarding the model, I would have been happy to answer any questions she may have had about it during my presentation.
Dr. Carver also states that I exhibited dependence on older and non-academic sources. Throughout our tutorials, we were told that we needed to cite three key papers that were relatively recent (e.g., less than 10 years old) and think of the implications about these papers with respect to our research question. I chose papers by Spencer et al. (2017) and Hlavka (2014) in my discussion of feminist theory. These papers were well within the time limit outlined in tutorial. I also examined a paper by Weiss (2011) in my discussion of symbolic interactionism. I also used many other academic sources throughout the paper. The use of non-academic sources was for background information that needed to be cited such that I did not plagiarize any information. I also cited supplementary articles, some of which were older than 10 years, in order to reinforce certain points outlined in my article, as well as describe how societal attitudes to sexual violence have changed over time. In other words, I satisfied the requirements for citing and critiquing the proper number of papers that we were told we needed to include in our presentation.
As a sexual assault survivor and someone who frequently presents presentations similar to this one to policy makers, fellow advocates, and academic researchers, I can say with certainty that this presentation fell within the realm of the issues that this course seeks to address. It is not an easy issue. It is harrowing and was hard to research at times. However, I felt that this was an important issue to examine through an academic lens, which is why I decided to research this very issue for my project and began working on it from week one of the course. Again, I received approval for this topic by my TA, Adam Ali.
In sum, I do not believe that Dr. Carver's adjudication of my presentation is fair, given the rubric that was provided to students and the discussion of the presentation's requirements that I had been provided with. Again, I have not seen the annotated rubric with Dr. Carver's assessment of my presentation, despite having requested it.
I would like to request that my assignment be reassessed through the Faculty's appeal process by an impartial party. I would also like to request that Dr. Carver not be on the panel that reassesses this assignment. I have had various encounters with Dr. Carver where he has used demeaning language towards me that leads me to believe she has a personal bias against me. Thus, I do not believe that my assignment can be fairly assessed with her on the panel.
Thank you for your consideration,
Natasha Victoria Kornak
Dear Dr. Bénard:
I am writing to request a remark of an assignment for HLTH 334, The Politics of Health and Illness. This assignment is denoted as the Tutorial Presentation in the syllabus and is worth 25 of the final grade. The description of the presentation is as follows:
The purpose of the presentation is to give students the opportunity to take a stand on an issue in Politics of Health and Illness, and present their perspective to other students in their tutorial group. Presentations will be done individually. The presentation must engage with academic sources (journal articles) in such a way that the depth of your understanding is apparent and you go beyond a cursory review. Your presentation must include 2 or more theories from this course.
Your presentation must include: 1) An overview of the issue and clearly state your position; 2) A critical assessment of the theories you are using to explain the issue including strengths, weaknesses, and debates in the literature; 3) Research from at least 3 journal articles that substantiate your arguments; 4) A list of references used for your presentation; 5) You need to prepare 2 questions for your peers after your presentation.
It is expected that you use slides for your presentation.
My presentation examined sexual violence as a societal and public health issue. I examined the Philadelphia Model, a new model for reviewing previously closed sexual assault cases to look for issues of bias against the complainant, rape mythology, or victim-blaming, to demonstrate how certain sociological theories can be applied in developing solutions to address this issue.
My presentation was conducted on November 22, 2018. I had decided on this topic from week 1 of the course and received its approval from my TA, Adam Ali. Mr. Ali informed us that not only would our oral presentation be considered in our grade, but so would the text of our slides, as well as the content of the presenter's notes in the PowerPoint file.
I received a 74 on my presentation. This will result in a 6.25 deduction from my overall course grade. I put an immense amount of effort into this presentation, and into this course as a whole, and do not believe this grade reflects my competence of course material or the requirements of the presentation, nor does it reflect the work I put into this presentation.
Dr. Carver's criticism of my presentation reads as such: You are a strong presenter and the presentation explained sexual assault from a criminology perspective. However, the purpose of the presentation is to give students the opportunity to take a stand on an issue in Politics of Health and Illness, but, beyond a single sentence stating that there can be health consequences of SA - your presentation did not address health or illness or other significant issues from the course. Also, you did not clearly explain the Philadelphia model. There were many errors in APA style in the reference slide and a dependence on older and non-academic sources.
A marking rubric for the assignment was posted to OnQ. However, I have not received an annotated rubric from Dr. Carver with her assessment of my presentation, despite having requested this from her.
In an email to Dr. Carver, I outlined my concerns with her assessment of my presentation. Dr. Carver's response to that email does not address any of the concerns I raised. She refused my request to meet with her to discuss this and referred me to appeal my grade through a formal process.
Dr. Carver's criticism reads, You are a strong presenter and the presentation explained sexual assault from a criminology perspective. I believe I examined the issue of sexual violence from a sociological perspective, drawing on both intersectional feminist theory and symbolic interactionism, two theories outlined in the course, which we were permitted to use in our presentations. I took aim at the justice system, because it is an area of our society that impacts the overall health and wellbeing of our society. If perpetrators of sexual violence are adequately prosecuted, they are much more likely to reoffend, which puts the health and safety of our population at risk. I also discussed potential upstream solutions for preventing sexual violence, as well as other policy solutions for protecting the health and wellbeing of sexual assault survivors.
Dr. Carver's comments go on to say, However, the purpose of the presentation is to give students the opportunity to take a stand on an issue in Politics of Health and Illness, but, beyond a single sentence stating that there can be health consequences of SA - your presentation did not address health or illness or other significant issues from the course. I did mention the significant health risks that stem from sexual violence, including unintended pregnancy, STIs, and trauma/mental health issues near the beginning of my presentation. Sexual violence is a highly political issue, of which I mentioned in light of the Me Too movement, as well as various bills that have passed/are still being debated at various levels of government. Thus, I do think this is a significant issue that falls under the scope of the Politics of Health and Illness. Furthermore, I pulled much of my research and understanding of this issue from course materials, specifically the textbook chapters regarding women's health and feminist theory. I touched on issues of racism, heteronormativity, and gender repeatedly throughout my presentation, so I do not believe I neglected other significant issues from the course, whatsoever. Thus, I dispute this criticism that Dr. Carver made here.
Dr. Carver's criticism also reads, Also, you did not clearly explain the Philadelphia model. I dispute this claim, as I verbally explained what the model involves. I also explained the events that led up to the formation of this model in detail, how it has been successful, and how it is being implemented in other jurisdictions, including Canadian jurisdictions. I articulated this verbally and had it written on my slides. The reason I looked at the Philadelphia Model was that it was a successful implementation of a partial solution to the very real and pervasive problem of sexual violence. I believe the discussion about solutions to large societal problems is a key component of this course and sought to demonstrate a potential solution in my presentation. Again, I received approval to research this topic from my TA, Adam Ali. Furthermore, I explained this model very clearly on my slides. If Dr. Carver had questions regarding the model, I would have been happy to answer any questions she may have had about it during my presentation.
Dr. Carver also states that I exhibited dependence on older and non-academic sources. Throughout our tutorials, we were told that we needed to cite three key papers that were relatively recent (e.g., less than 10 years old) and think of the implications about these papers with respect to our research question. I chose papers by Spencer et al. (2017) and Hlavka (2014) in my discussion of feminist theory. These papers were well within the time limit outlined in tutorial. I also examined a paper by Weiss (2011) in my discussion of symbolic interactionism. I also used many other academic sources throughout the paper. The use of non-academic sources was for background information that needed to be cited such that I did not plagiarize any information. I also cited supplementary articles, some of which were older than 10 years, in order to reinforce certain points outlined in my article, as well as describe how societal attitudes to sexual violence have changed over time. In other words, I satisfied the requirements for citing and critiquing the proper number of papers that we were told we needed to include in our presentation.
As a sexual assault survivor and someone who frequently presents presentations similar to this one to policy makers, fellow advocates, and academic researchers, I can say with certainty that this presentation fell within the realm of the issues that this course seeks to address. It is not an easy issue. It is harrowing and was hard to research at times. However, I felt that this was an important issue to examine through an academic lens, which is why I decided to research this very issue for my project and began working on it from week one of the course. Again, I received approval for this topic by my TA, Adam Ali.
In sum, I do not believe that Dr. Carver's adjudication of my presentation is fair, given the rubric that was provided to students and the discussion of the presentation's requirements that I had been provided with. Again, I have not seen the annotated rubric with Dr. Carver's assessment of my presentation, despite having requested it.
I would like to request that my assignment be reassessed through the Faculty's appeal process by an impartial party. I would also like to request that Dr. Carver not be on the panel that reassesses this assignment. I have had various encounters with Dr. Carver where he has used demeaning language towards me that leads me to believe she has a personal bias against me. Thus, I do not believe that my assignment can be fairly assessed with her on the panel.
Thank you for your consideration,
Natasha Victoria Kornak
Documentation
Documentation Detail: Presentation and rubric to come