Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

Petition Letter: Shannon Smadella
Student Number: 20316071
s.smadella@queensu.ca

Date: May 5th, 2025

Attn: Associate Dean (Academic),

Re: Petition for Regrading - ENIN 400 Self-Assessment Assignment (W25)

1. The Request

I am petitioning for a re-evaluation of my “Self-Assessment” assignment (worth 10% of the final grade) for ENIN 400 in the Winter 2025 term. I believe the grade I received does not accurately reflect the quality of my work and that it was impacted by instructor bias and potential reprisal related to earlier advocacy for academic accommodations and clarity on grading expectations.

Note: This petition is related to another formal petition I submitted concerning broader course-related concerns. However, I will limit the details here to matters directly affecting the marking of this assignment.

2. Instructor Contact and Safety Concerns

I understand that the first step in addressing grading concerns is contacting the instructor directly. However, I do not feel safe initiating further communication with the instructor due to previous experiences of bias, public reprimand, exposure of private and confidential information, and what I believe to be a reprisal for raising accessibility concerns and advocating for a rubric. My past attempts to engage respectfully have resulted in increased distress, and I fear that further contact could exacerbate the existing situation. As such, I seek resolution through the petition process to ensure a fair and neutral review of my work.

3. Grounds for Request and Supporting Rationale

Reason for request:
• The assignment lacked a clear rubric or detailed grading criteria. I followed the instructions and outlined how I met the stated expectations in my submission.
• I did not receive any feedback to justify the grade awarded.
• As someone with over two decades of experience as an entrepreneur, business/management professional, award-winning leader, instructor, and academic – including the completion of graduate-level programs – I am confident in my ability to meet and exceed the expectations of a written self-assessment assignment. I have a proven academic record: a 3.9 GPA, consistent A+ grades across courses (including this term), and have made the Dean’s List twice. I have completed hundreds of graduate-level assignments and am confident the work submitted did not reflect a B-level standard. I do not make this petition lightly, but rather based on a strong belief that the work submitted was not graded according to fair or consistent standards.
• I devote a high level of professionalism and dedication to my work, which is evidenced by my consistently high marks. I care immensely about my mark in this course and am advocating to receive the mark I deserve.
• I request that a neutral party conduct a formal re-evaluation of my assignment and that the department review a sampling of grades from other student submissions to determine consistency in grading.

4. Relevant Context (Brief Overview)

While the request focuses on grading, it is essential to note the following timeline of related events that might have affected instructor perception and grading:

• Feb 8 – Raised early concerns about group non-participation and requested assignment clarity.
• On Feb 11 – 20: Submitted formal accessibility concerns and accommodation requests due to worsening health; specifically requested a rubric (not granted).
• Feb 26 – Contributed the majority of the draft presentation work; was publicly reprimanded by the instructor in a recorded session (audio attached) ENIN 400 - Feb 26 - Last part of presentation.m4a.
• Feb 28 – March 24 - QSAS confirmed valid accommodations allowing me to work independently and submit a recorded presentation; documentation submitted multiple times.
• April 1-2: My accommodations and academic consideration (including a pre-approved absence from the live pitch) were denied at the last moment, resulting in additional distress and medical harm during a period of medical crisis.
• April 2 - Instructor Sidneyeve Matrix emailed my team members, quoting my exact wording from a private email. This confidential disclosure caused my group members to respond negatively, claiming I excluded them from the project. This public release of my statement created an emotionally unsafe environment for me the morning of the presentation, in the middle of my medical crisis
• April 9 - 15 – Eight additional medical documents were submitted; the formal petition was submitted and acknowledged by the Petitions Office and Associate Dean as being under active consideration.

I took all possible steps to address these issues appropriately: consulting with my care team, engaging QSAS, and submitting medical documentation and formal accommodation requests through the appropriate channels.

5. Assignment Information: Alignment with Assignment Requirements

The Self-Assessment assignment required:
• Responses to all five reflective questions
• Integration of course concepts and materials
• A word count between 500-1000 words
• Proper citation of sources

My submitted assignment met or exceeded all of these expectations:
• Comprehensive responses: I thoroughly answered all five required questions with reflective and relevant content tied directly to my experience in the course.
• Integration of course materials: I cited and discussed close to twenty sources from the course, including readings, lectures, and video/podcasts, with references properly formatted and included at the end of the document.
• Word count: The submission was precisely 1000 words, meeting the specified length requirement.
• Critical thinking and originality: I not only reflected on my learning but tied it to real-world application through Med-AI, a project aligned with course goals, and demonstrated an understanding of key entrepreneurial concepts such as Design Sprints, Human-Centered Design, iteration, team dynamics, and resilience.
• Academic quality: The language, tone, structure, and citation format are consistent with graduate-level academic writing. My answers reflect both personal insight and academic rigour.
• Demonstrated learning outcomes: I applied concepts from throughout the course to analyze challenges, reflect on team dynamics, and outline future applications – showing deep engagement with the material and personal growth as an entrepreneur.

Given that the assignment instructions were followed in full and that no rubric or grading criteria were provided to justify the mark received, I respectfully request a fair reassessment based on the actual assignment expectations and my demonstrated performance.

6. Conclusion and Request

I respectfully request that my Self-Assessment assignment be formally re-evaluated in light of the grading irregularities, the absence of clear evaluation criteria, and the potential bias stemming from my advocacy for fairness and accessibility. I am happy to provide any additional documentation or respond to follow-up questions as needed.

Universities are meant to be spaces of teaching, learning, and growth – places where students are supported, not penalized, for advocating for their needs or engaging deeply with the material. Unfortunately, my experience in this course has not reflected those values. Instead of feeling encouraged in my efforts to lead, learn, and contribute meaningfully, I have encountered barriers, bias, and lack of transparency in evaluation. My hope in submitting this petition is not only to seek fairness for myself but to reaffirm the importance of academic integrity, equity, and student support to Queen’s University.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this petition.

Respectfully,

Reverend Shannon Smadella



Enclosures:

• Self-Assessment (Submitted April 13, 2025)
o Appendix A: Commentary on Responses
o Color-Coded Version of Self-Assessment
o Assignment Instructions
• Previous appeal communication (for reference)
• Evidence of Instructor Bias
o Confidential email forwarded to classmates
o Recording of public reprimanding
o Denial of accommodations
o All of this can be found in Academic Petition #12960