Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

Petition Letter: Dr Stace Kent
25/62 Dewsbury St
Middle Park QLD 4074
Australia

10 January 2023

Dr Jenn Stephenson
Associate Dean
Arts and Science
Queens University
Kingston ON

Dear Dr Stephenson,


Request for consideration of remark of three assessments, Discussions 3 (Module 7: Group Influence Discussion), and 6 (Module 11: Sources of Prejudice)

This is with respect to PSYC 241 Social Psychology for Semester 1, 2022 and the course coordinator was Dr Jillian O??Connor. I am seeking a grade revision for all three assessments, two discussion forums, 3 and 6, (Module 7 and 11) outside of the semester 1, 2022 PSYC 241 teaching team.

I was surprised to find that my assessments were graded outside the rubric criteria and consequently received a mark based on unknown criteria. In the case of PSYC 241, assessment rubrics state the requirement for defining and operationalising three construct definitions by using presented research evidence and the quality of writing. I gave grammatically sound construct definitions and operationalised the research in each of the assessments, but my work which fully considered and responded to the rubric was penalised without justification with respect to the rubric.

For example, in AT3, I gave a clear construct definition of bullying using the most recent, current bullying literature, but it was lined out and penalised for not giving three clear construct definitions by the marker/tutor, Ms Gabriella Avila Patro, when I gave four. As such, I was penalised for using current literature, suggesting I should use the textbook with the exact page number identified. There is no mention in the rubric that the use the textbook, lecture slides, and lecture recordings was mandatory. I do not consider these to be the most recent research and as such, I researched extensively. A compilation of materials assembled by Professor Tara McDonald was considered by me as a starting point and not necessarily the most current research. If this was a mandatory use of research and research was restricted to these sources, then this should have been clearly identified in the rubric. Please refer to the inline feedback for AT1, 2, and 3 attached to this letter of appeal.

Regarding academic writing, I would use Latin abbreviations in my writing, but they would be then lined out by the tutor, Ms Gabriella Avila Patro. For example, in AT2 I referred to current literature using the Latin abbreviation cf. (confer or consult) in lieu of ?see?? and it was lined out without justification and then penalised for my academic writing. In the same assessment, Gabriella commented that I had run-on sentences, but failed to point them out in her in-line feedback and then penalised me within the rubric. I am very surprised by her comment as I believe this assessment piece was grammatically sound.

I believe that my three assessments and Discussions 3 (Module 7: Group Influence Discussion) and 6 (Module 11: Sources of Prejudice) warrant higher grades, a grade that reflects the quality of the work. I request the grading be done by someone with a higher qualification than an undergraduate degree and someone outside the PSYC241 teaching team.

The sequence of events to date:
?? Each time I disagreed with a grade, I emailed Dr O??Connor asking her to review her or Ms Gabriella Avila Patro??s grading;
?? I was advised that Ms O??Conner was not willing to reconsider my grade;
?? Her response was that she supported the tutor??s comments, and the tutor??s comments were specifically written on assessments 1, 2 and 3 and discussions 6;
?? Dr O??Connor only agreed to re-grade the first assessment because I applied for accommodation and argued the work did not warrant a failing cusp grade of 48%;
?? I believe that a fairer consideration of my claim at this point would have seen a resolution to the issue (i.e., the rubric) is the foundation of marking for the PSYC 241 assessments;
?? Assessment 1 was re-graded by another tutor and awarded a much lower mark ?? still no alliance with the rubric;
?? Respectfully, I vehemently disagree with it being such a low mark and request this grade to be reviewed along with ATs 2 and 3 and Discussions 3 (Module 7: Group Influence Discussion) and 6 (Module 11: Sources of Prejudice);
?? Additionally, I vehemently disagree with individuals with only an undergraduate qualifications marking undergraduate work, when it should be individuals with a completed masters qualification with honours.
.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Thank you for taking the time to review my request.


Sincerely,

Stace Kent.
03444600

Encl:
- Rubrics for the assessments
- Graded assessments