Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 11421
Submitted: January 17, 2024 at 3:29:04 PM
First Name: Justine
Last Name: Vervaeke
Pronoun: She/Her
Preferred Name: Justine
Student Number: 20285215
Email: 20jev2@queensu.ca
Degree Program: BHSc
Plan: IDIS
Level of Study: 3
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Request a review of instructors' decisions on grading of final examination and/or term work
Code: IDIS 373
Term: Fall
Year: 2023
Petition Category: Request a review of instructors' decisions on grading of final examination and/or term work
Instructor's Name: Sam Belbin
Component: Long Blog Written Assignment
Petition Letter
Petition Letter: 1. Rubric: “Voice (10%)”
I received a mark of “4/10 points - does not meet expectations”.
This is a very subjective mark. There is no way that Ms. Belbin can know for certain that the said blog post is not written in my usual style of writing and way of self-expression. This blog post does not present as too complicated for an average reader or “audience”, including Ms. Belbin to understand.
At the very least, I believe I should be awarded 6 to 8 points (a passing grade) for this section of the rubric.
2. Rubric: “Content Description of the issue or Problem (20%)”
I received a mark of 8/20 points – little demonstrated understanding of the issue or problem.
Throughout this paper, I describe the ethical issues both for and against including vulnerable populations in human research. I began my paper by giving a catastrophic example of what can happen when adequate human trials are not conducted prior to releasing a drug to the public, e.g.) the thalidomide disaster of 1961. I then went into more detail as to both the pros and cons of allowing vulnerable populations, which I clearly define as two specific vulnerable populations; this includes pregnant women with unborn fetuses (both before 24 weeks and after 24 weeks is discussed), as well as children to participate in human research. While I believe I did a good job at describing these ethical issues and their pros and cons, I agree that I could have touched on linking this information back to the standards that Health Canada utilizes to approve safe testing for new drugs/treatments today in comparison to what happened with Thalidomide in 1961.
In my opinion, I should be awarded at least a 12-14/20 (a passing grade), as I did adequately and fairly clearly described the issue, both pros and cons of whether vulnerable populations should be allowed to participate in human research.
3. Rubric: “ Content: Evidence Relevant to the issue or Problem (25%)”
I received a mark of 10/25 points – little demonstrated understanding of the issue or problem.
Throughout this paper, I provided several examples/evidence in my arguments both for and against including vulnerable populations in human research. Once again, I opened my paper by describing the landmark thalidomide disaster and what can happen when human clinical trials are not conducted prior to bringing a new drug to the public. Later in the paper, I described the pitfalls of what can happen when human clinical trials are not conducted in a safe manner on a vulnerable population, for which she uses the example of the pregnant women that were used in the Boston University study cited as (Wesselink et al, 2022) in her paper. Additionally, I gave the example of Amoxicillin which is an important antibiotic designed specifically for the pediatric population (Iannelli, 2022), and how it’s testing on the pediatric population in clinical trials is necessary to safely bring this drug to market. In doing so, I provided specific examples that clearly demonstrates both the pros and the cons of including vulnerable populations, namely, the two populations that I clearly outlined at the beginning of my paper, pregnant women, and children in human research. Overall, my paper featured a satisfactory understanding of the issue/problem.
In my opinion I should be awarded a passing grade of 15/25 for this section of the rubric.
4. Rubric “Content: Critical Appraisal of the issue or Problem (25%)”
I received a mark of 10/25 points – I think I should at least be given a passing 15/25 for this section of the Rubric. I clearly explained both the pros and the cons of including the two vulnerable populations in this paper, namely pregnant women (with fetuses both before and after 24 weeks), and children in human research. In my final concluding paragraph, I used critical thinking when I concluded that “healthcare interventions must be developed using a scientific process and seeing where it goes… and then I discussed how a “stepwise” approach should be enforced whereby preclinical trials, animal models and healthy volunteer data are needed before establishing human clinical trials so that participant safety of pregnant women and children is maximized.
At the very least, I should receive 15/25 for this section of the rubric.
5. Rubric “Quality of writing and proofreading (10%)
I received a mark of 6/10 points. This seems appropriate as there were several grammatical errors present in the paper which sometimes distracted from the clarity and flow of reading. Paper should have been more carefully proofread before handing in. Ideas could have been more concisely expressed at times.
6. Rubric “Citations (5%)”
I received a 4/5 points. No issue here. Mark is appropriate.
OTHER MITIGATING FACTORS:
• Although it is understandable that marking of student papers should always be objective and without bias, I just wanted to make it known that I was very distracted on the day that I worked on/handed in this paper. That day, I had just broken up with my boyfriend of 4 years earlier that day and thus had great difficulty with focus which significantly impacted the quality of this paper. (I have always been a good student and have never received even close to a failing grade on any paper in my entire educational career of 15+ years).
• Overall, while I do acknowledge that this paper was not my best work, I do feel as though the paper should have at least had a passing grade based on the rubric from which I was provided with. The grade of 37% for this paper significantly affected my overall grade in this course---I went into writing this final paper (35% OF FINAL GRADE) with an 85% average for the course. However, because of the final scoring on this paper, my final grade was lowered to a C+ on my report card. Thus, my overall grade point average has been lowered significantly as it pertains to my intentions to apply to both law school and/or medical school this fall 2024. The implications of this low score and its effect on my final grade may have a tangible impact on my possible acceptance to professional schools, as we all know that competition is very stiff during the application process.
• Thank-you for your consideration.
I received a mark of “4/10 points - does not meet expectations”.
This is a very subjective mark. There is no way that Ms. Belbin can know for certain that the said blog post is not written in my usual style of writing and way of self-expression. This blog post does not present as too complicated for an average reader or “audience”, including Ms. Belbin to understand.
At the very least, I believe I should be awarded 6 to 8 points (a passing grade) for this section of the rubric.
2. Rubric: “Content Description of the issue or Problem (20%)”
I received a mark of 8/20 points – little demonstrated understanding of the issue or problem.
Throughout this paper, I describe the ethical issues both for and against including vulnerable populations in human research. I began my paper by giving a catastrophic example of what can happen when adequate human trials are not conducted prior to releasing a drug to the public, e.g.) the thalidomide disaster of 1961. I then went into more detail as to both the pros and cons of allowing vulnerable populations, which I clearly define as two specific vulnerable populations; this includes pregnant women with unborn fetuses (both before 24 weeks and after 24 weeks is discussed), as well as children to participate in human research. While I believe I did a good job at describing these ethical issues and their pros and cons, I agree that I could have touched on linking this information back to the standards that Health Canada utilizes to approve safe testing for new drugs/treatments today in comparison to what happened with Thalidomide in 1961.
In my opinion, I should be awarded at least a 12-14/20 (a passing grade), as I did adequately and fairly clearly described the issue, both pros and cons of whether vulnerable populations should be allowed to participate in human research.
3. Rubric: “ Content: Evidence Relevant to the issue or Problem (25%)”
I received a mark of 10/25 points – little demonstrated understanding of the issue or problem.
Throughout this paper, I provided several examples/evidence in my arguments both for and against including vulnerable populations in human research. Once again, I opened my paper by describing the landmark thalidomide disaster and what can happen when human clinical trials are not conducted prior to bringing a new drug to the public. Later in the paper, I described the pitfalls of what can happen when human clinical trials are not conducted in a safe manner on a vulnerable population, for which she uses the example of the pregnant women that were used in the Boston University study cited as (Wesselink et al, 2022) in her paper. Additionally, I gave the example of Amoxicillin which is an important antibiotic designed specifically for the pediatric population (Iannelli, 2022), and how it’s testing on the pediatric population in clinical trials is necessary to safely bring this drug to market. In doing so, I provided specific examples that clearly demonstrates both the pros and the cons of including vulnerable populations, namely, the two populations that I clearly outlined at the beginning of my paper, pregnant women, and children in human research. Overall, my paper featured a satisfactory understanding of the issue/problem.
In my opinion I should be awarded a passing grade of 15/25 for this section of the rubric.
4. Rubric “Content: Critical Appraisal of the issue or Problem (25%)”
I received a mark of 10/25 points – I think I should at least be given a passing 15/25 for this section of the Rubric. I clearly explained both the pros and the cons of including the two vulnerable populations in this paper, namely pregnant women (with fetuses both before and after 24 weeks), and children in human research. In my final concluding paragraph, I used critical thinking when I concluded that “healthcare interventions must be developed using a scientific process and seeing where it goes… and then I discussed how a “stepwise” approach should be enforced whereby preclinical trials, animal models and healthy volunteer data are needed before establishing human clinical trials so that participant safety of pregnant women and children is maximized.
At the very least, I should receive 15/25 for this section of the rubric.
5. Rubric “Quality of writing and proofreading (10%)
I received a mark of 6/10 points. This seems appropriate as there were several grammatical errors present in the paper which sometimes distracted from the clarity and flow of reading. Paper should have been more carefully proofread before handing in. Ideas could have been more concisely expressed at times.
6. Rubric “Citations (5%)”
I received a 4/5 points. No issue here. Mark is appropriate.
OTHER MITIGATING FACTORS:
• Although it is understandable that marking of student papers should always be objective and without bias, I just wanted to make it known that I was very distracted on the day that I worked on/handed in this paper. That day, I had just broken up with my boyfriend of 4 years earlier that day and thus had great difficulty with focus which significantly impacted the quality of this paper. (I have always been a good student and have never received even close to a failing grade on any paper in my entire educational career of 15+ years).
• Overall, while I do acknowledge that this paper was not my best work, I do feel as though the paper should have at least had a passing grade based on the rubric from which I was provided with. The grade of 37% for this paper significantly affected my overall grade in this course---I went into writing this final paper (35% OF FINAL GRADE) with an 85% average for the course. However, because of the final scoring on this paper, my final grade was lowered to a C+ on my report card. Thus, my overall grade point average has been lowered significantly as it pertains to my intentions to apply to both law school and/or medical school this fall 2024. The implications of this low score and its effect on my final grade may have a tangible impact on my possible acceptance to professional schools, as we all know that competition is very stiff during the application process.
• Thank-you for your consideration.
Documentation
Document: Screenshot 2024-01-16 at 12.07.53 PM.png
Documentation Detail: My documentation will be sent directly to the faculty office