Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

Petition Letter: Please note that this appeal letter is longer than usual since I am appealing for 2 assignments.

May 24th, 2019

Associate Dean (Studies)
94 University Avenue, Dunning Hall
Queen's University
Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6

To whom this may concern,

My name is Nana Donkor and I am requesting to appeal the grade I received for 2 assignments for BCHM 482.

I graduated as a Biochemistry major in 2018, however, the program that I wanted to apply to required a minimum GPA that I, unfortunately, did not have at the time. Therefore, my best and the only option was to take an additional year in order to help boost my GPA so that I will be eligible for the program.

At the end of the term for the second semester, I received all my final grades except for BCHM 482. However, due to my performance in the course (90 + in all assignments except for one, which I received an 84.95), I was expecting at least an A in the course. For this reason, I did not drop the course. On May 3rd, I finally received my mark for an assignment worth 20. To my shock, the prof gave me 0, which gave me an overall mark of a B-. However, there is some discrepancy because the rubric shows a mark of 21.25 and not 0, which equates to a 4.25 out of 20. I have provided proof in the attachment. However, with that being said, I still believe that I should receive a much higher mark. When I emailed the prof in regards to this mark, his main reason for the mark was that I did not follow instructions. First of all, I initially interpreted the assignment as selecting a disease and using 2 mass spectrometry techniques to discuss the chosen disease. Just because I interpreted the assignment differently, it does not mean that I don't know how to follow instructions. If I did not know how to follow instructions, then I would not have received high 90s in my other assignments. The assignment did state that I need to use peer-reviewed journals. However, I was experiencing Web Proxy issues (according to IT services) when trying to access journal articles via Queen's summon. As a result, my only option was to use the free resources I could access on Google. I have attached a picture as proof but the prof does not believe me even though the picture can't be found on Google, and I have no other way to prove this. I did really try my best to find 2 peer-reviewed articles, but due to the time constraint, I found it very difficult. I also made a statement directed towards the TA in regards to this situation, but it seems as if it was not in the document based on the prof's responses, which I have no clue why (therefore I omitted it from the document to ensure originality). The prof stated that I could have used free articles on Pub Med. However, I do have sources that I used in PubMed/NCBIM, which will be discussed below.

Since the assignment stated that I should use 2 articles, I just chose 2 articles that I thought explained the techniques the most. However, all the information in the paper included all these resources:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4855142/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4981901/
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijac/2012/282574/
https://www.creative-proteomics.com/technology/maldi-tof-mass-spectrometry.htm
https://www.longdom.org/open-access/ionization-techniques-in-mass-spectrometry-a-review-2469-9861-1000126.pdf
https://www.longdom.org/open-access/ionic-liquids-matrices-for-laser-assisted-desorptionionization-massspectrometry-2469-9861-1000109.pdf

Based on my informal discussion with the prof, it appears that the prof did not see the first 4 resources and believes that I made them up (therefore I omitted them from the document to ensure originality). However, if you look at the information from these articles, you'll see that it aligns with what was mentioned in the paper.

According to the rubric:
1. The prof or TA marked: 25 in Introduction to the Disease
I did introduce the disease or research problem. I discussed the history and the techniques that have previously been used to study it. I also provided a thorough explanation of the theory of the two mass spectrometry techniques.
2. The prof or TA marked: 25 in Explanation of Theory of Techniques
As mentioned previously, I also provided a thorough explanation of the theory of the two mass spectrometry techniques.
3. The prof or TA marked: 25 for Quality of Comparison and Argument
I compared and contrasted the strengths and weaknesses of each mass spectrometry technique and made some relation to their application to the disease or research problem.
4. The prof or TA marked: 0 for Gaps in Current Research.
I have an entire section dedicated to this part and followed what the rubric required so I should at least get some marks. But for some reason, I got 0.
5. The prof or TA marked: 50 for Spelling, Grammar, and Flow
I believe that my spelling and grammar is fine, especially since I used Grammarly. I also put subheadings to help with the flow of the assignment. I also followed this exact same outline for a previous assignment and got 91.

As you can see, all the points have been covered in the paper. However, it is unfortunate that despite following the instructions, the prof decided to give me a 0/21.25, which I do not think is fair at all, especially when I received a 50 on an assignment that they thought I did not and in. They had nothing of mine to evaluate, but I still got 50 (proof attached). I spent a lot of time on this assignment but got a 0/21.25, which does not make sense to me. This shows how inconsistent the marking is for this course.

The prof has been very hostile and callous with his responses as if I would purposely jeopardize my grade. He is making it seem as if I wrote a paper on discrimination and discussed nothing about mass spectrometry. After receiving my mark for the mass spectrometry assignment, I later received a mark of 68 for a discussion board response. I have been consistent with all my other discussion posts, but it seems as if I am being marked harshly all of a sudden, which I do not understand. I have attached a document which includes the highlighted information discussed below titled Discussion post. Please note that I also received an extension for this assignment (proof attached).

Contribution Reply:
Yellow: supports the ideas of the peer.
Green: Disagrees with the peer
Purple: Challenges the peer
The criteria are:
Response to peer's post respectfully challenges and/or supports ideas put forth by peers in a clear and logical manner.
Responses to peer's posts effectively uses module and/or the selected article content to strongly support their critique.

My writing is professional in tone, with no spelling or grammatical errors.
My sentences and ideas are clear, concise, and flow logically. The flow of the responses seems just fine to me --Background- Support or challenge.
I supported (first response) OR challenged (second response) the peer response
I have 2 article references per response
I have a few grammatical errors.
My sentences are clear, they explain the background to the idea being discussed and explain why I support or challenge the ideas.

Contribution Reply:
The first line of the assignment: George Wells Beadle proposed that each gene produces a single enzyme and that each individual enzyme affected a single step in a metabolic pathway
The example given affected more than just a single step in the metabolic pathway. With the above definition in mind, the rhomboid protease gene deletion is an example of a gene affecting other steps since it affected other protein function.

I have followed the exact same format and guidelines for all my other discussion posts and received (95+), but now all of a sudden there is a problem with my post. I asked the prof about my grade (through the TA as he will not reply to me).

The prof stated that First of all, you refer to Beadle's one gene-one enzyme hypothesis, whereas the question refers to one gene-one protein. The distinction is important because it refers to the (outdated) concept that from one DNA sequence one protein sequence is translated. Your discussion was about how an enzyme can affect the activity of other proteins, whereas the refutation of the one gene-one protein concept would be about how alternate versions of a protein can arise from a single gene through post-translational modification or alternate splicing. This statement made by the prof was not the same feedback given in the rubric. Nevertheless, an enzyme is a protein and some sources include Beadle's description under the one gene one protein hypothesis. The question did not exclude enzymes as proteins. In addition, many other students also used enzyme and protein interchangeably in their discussion post.

As you can see from my grades for the 2018-2019 school year, my hardworking and studious nature allowed me to receive As and A+s for my other courses. I was only 0.05 away from achieving the required GPA for graduate school. All I needed was at least an A and now this course literally ruined my only chance. I have been depressed ever since to the point of having suicidal thoughts. I regret taking this course and I would never put myself through this if I knew that this would be the end result. I really tried my best especially with the resources I had. I have tried every possible means to drop this grade but the Arts and Science office told me that this is my only option. Therefore, receiving this appeal will significantly help me get the GPA I require that will allow me to continue my studies as a graduate student. I really hope that you take this into consideration. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Sincerely,
Nana