Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

New Information: Hello Jenn,

My appeal has 3 goals. 1 is to have my grade changed, from A- to A. 2 is to have other students' grades changed with the proper formula. 3 is to have Tom revise his syllabus so that in the future he follows Grading policy properly, and other students don't face this problem.

Tom Hollenstein's course, PSYC 302, clearly uses a mixed-method model of grading. There are both exams and assignments that receive numerical grades. There is also a final proposal that receives a letter grade. His syllabus, and the Arts & Science grading policy are both attached. Your final proposal will be a five page, double-spaced proposal, which will be graded by similar but more detailed criteria (rubric will be posted on onQ) but the TAs will apply letter grades. . The other proposals, received numerical grades, reading the syllabus shows you that, the exam received numerical as well. He also has BOTH conversion tables at the bottom of his syllabus, which is an instruction clearly stated in the grading policy to do, when using a mixed-method model, I am sure you are aware of these things. If further explanation is needed, please email me, arian.s@queensu.ca.

I received an A- in the course. The calculation for that:

(Average Quiz 25)+(Proposal 1 10)+(Proposal 2 15)+(Midterm 25)+(Final Proposal letter grade conversion to 25)

(.964425)+(.8510)+(.72515)+(.833525)+(.8225) 84.8225 is the correct grade I should have received in the course.

Tom has used an incorrect formula for the final grade calculation. He has used the following, as he treated his course as if it is numerical only.

(.964425)+(.8510)+(.72515)+(.833525)+(.8025) 84.3225, therefore giving me an A-.

His head TA has confirmed over email with me that grades are rounded up. So I deserve an 85, which is an A.

You have access to the other emails, and I will copy and paste my long explanation here if you need more. I have attached all relevant documents too. Only read the following if you believe I could be incorrect in any way.

Arts & Science policy permits instructors to select one of the three grading policy options. A quick review of the syllabus, and a quick review of the grades tab in onQ, reflect that Tom has chosen method 3. I have attached a screenshot of the grades tab in onQ.

Instructor choice and/or mixed marking: Allowing instructors a choice between methods 1 and 2, and in the case of mixed marking, allowing an instructor in a single course to give out letter grades for some assignments and numerical marks for others (e.g. papers vs. exams). Method 3 is the most flexible but also the most complex and potentially problematic. If this option is chosen, the procedures described below must be followed exactly, and safeguards should be established to guarantee that students understand exactly how marks are being calculated, and that outcomes are fair and consistent across all courses.

Other than my highlighting and bolding, in his syllabus it states, Proposals. You will be given two opportunities to practice proposal writing in order to prepare you for the final assignment, a 5 page proposal. Proposal 1 will be one single-spaced page using basic (PSYC301) statistics (e.g., t-test, correlations) to test any question related to psychology containing: (1) a clearly stated aim or objective and/or research question (2) justification of a clearly stated hypothesis (3) appropriate design and measures and (4) appropriate statistics to test that hypothesis. You will get 5 points for adhering to each of those 4 criteria for a total of 20 points. Each student will then randomly be assigned one peer¿¿s proposal for review. Peers will provide feedback within 1 week on each of the four points above. You will not receive points for submitting the peer feedback BUT you will be penalized 20 points for not submitting it by the deadline. Proposal 2 (40 points) will be the same process except that the statistics must be multivariate. You can choose the same research question as Proposal 1 or a different one. However, they may be used and adapted, with attribution, for noncommercial purposes. different one. Again, 5 points for adhering to each of the 4 criteria for a total of 40 points, but this time minus 40 points for not submitting the peer critique on time. Your final proposal will be a five page, double-spaced proposal, which will be graded by similar but more detailed criteria (rubric will be posted on onQ) but the TAs will apply letter grades. We will spend at least three lectures covering the art of proposal writing and there will be research proposals of various sizes, lengths, and purposes for you to peruse. The only way to learn how to write a particular form is to read that form ¿¿ I am guessing that almost none of you have ever read a research proposal..

He has clearly indicated here that the final proposal will receive a letter grade. I have also attached another screenshot, which clearly demonstrates that other proposals in the course have received numerical grades, while the final one has received a letter grade. Keep in mind this screenshot just further provides evidence, the grades tab in onQ is the main indicator that the final proposal has received a letter grade. As both numerical and letter grades have been applied in the course, it is logical to conclude method 3 has been chosen.

Now that we have established that, here is the main component of method 3 that contradicts Tom's calculations for my final mark of 84.

Please take a look at page 6 of the grading policy attachment.

Other than my highlights/bolding/italicization, it states, For mixed marking: If you calculate manually or use an excel spreadsheet, use Method 2 (¿¿numbers in¿). When giving a percentage grade on an assignment (typically on exams), use the entire 100-point scale. When giving a letter grade (typically on essays), use only those percentage marks that correspond to letter grades in the Arts & Science Letter Grade Input Scheme (i.e. 93 for A+, 87 for A, 82 for A-, 78 for B+, 75 for B, etc.). Communicate all assignment marks as both letters and numbers, so that students know the value being applied toward their course average

Tom has communicated the mark for the final proposal as both a numerical value and a letter grade, with the latter being the final grade for the final proposal. This is clear in the screenshots I have attached.

He has not used only those percentage marks which correspond to letter grades in the Arts & Science Letter Grade Input Scheme (i.e. 93 for A+, 87 for A, 82 for A-, 78 for B+, 75 for B, etc.). He has used a numerical value of 80 for my final proposal in his calculations for my final mark. He should have used a numerical value of 82, as indicated by the grading policy. This is clearly shown as my final mark has not been calculated following this method.

Here is the CORRECT formula for the final mark in this course:

(Average Quiz 25)+(Proposal 1 10)+(Proposal 2 15)+(Midterm 25)+(Final Proposal letter grade conversion to 25)

(.964425)+(.8510)+(.72515)+(.833525)+(.8225) 84.8225 is the correct grade I should have received in the course.

Simone Cunningham, clearly indicated to me in an email, All grades are rounded to the closest percent with no decimals. Therefore my final grade of 84.8225 must be rounded up to 85.

Therefore, my final grade in the course, if the Truth matters, is an A.

Tom, has given me an A-. Here is the input he has used in his calculation:

(.964425)+(.8510)+(.72515)+(.833525)+(.8025) 84.3225, therefore giving me an A-.

Furthermore, other than my highlighting and bolding, it states in the grading policy, Course syllabi must disclose which assignments will be given letter grades, which will be given numerical percentages, and the scales used to translate assignment grades to numbers and final averages back to letters. It is important to avoid ¿¿black boxes¿ where students can¿¿t see how their final mark is calculated..

Please look at the bottom of page 6 of the syllabus. Tom has included two charts. One displays Assignment Mark in the lefthand column (A+...F0), and Numerical Value for Calculation of Final Mark in the right-hand column (A+ to 93, A to 87, A- to 82). These conversions of letter grade to numerical value for calculation of final mark align perfectly with what is outlined in the grading policy of Arts & Science. The other chart has Grade as a column (A+...F), and Numerical Course Average (Range) as a column.

This further proves that he is using the mixed marking method, as the only viable reason for even having the assignment mark chart is due to the fact that 1 of the assessments in the course, the final proposal, was an assignment that received a letter grade, and instructors must provide this chart/scale in order for students to be aware of how their assignment grade will be converted to numbers. He did not convert my final proposal performance to numbers in the proper way. I cannot definitively say that his calculations for other students were done in the exact same way, but I can assume that they were. If they were not, that would be another issue in and of itself.


Many thanks,
Arian Sattari-Khavas