Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 4357
Submitted: April 2, 2018 at 11:13:29 AM
First Name: Dustin
Last Name: Craig
Student Number: 20037738
Email: dustin.craig@queensu.ca
Degree Program: BAH
Plan: DEVS
Level of Study: 4
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Request a review of instructors' decisions on grading of final examination and/or term work
Code: RELS 394
Term: Winter
Year: 2018
Petition Category: Request a review of instructors' decisions on grading of final examination and/or term work
Instructor's Name: Dr. Sherman Lai
Component: Essay Outline
Petition Letter
Petition Letter: I am submitting this appeal in regards to the grade awarded for my essay outline for the course RELS 394.
The grade is only a secondary concern. What is most important to me is the triggering of formal process to provide Dr. Lai with appropriate feedback for his violation of Academic Regulation 7.2.1.
According to the course syllabus for RELS 394 the Final Paper was to be submitted in three phases.:
1) proposal, Due: 26 Feb 18),
2) detailed outline, Due: 30 Mar 18, and
3) essay finalization, Due: 6 Apr 18, but extended to 13 Apr 18 by Dr. Lai during class on 28 Mar 18.
At 10:43pm on 28 Mar 18 Dr. Lai sent an email providing additional details for the assignment. Having worked on the assignment during the course of the previous four weeks I did not notice the email until I searched for Dr. Lai¿¿s email address while preparing for submission of the assignment on 29 Mar 18. Upon receipt of the email I responded to Dr. Lai requesting confirmation that my understanding of the requirements was correct. Dr. Lai responded with confirmation.
I worked for several hours conducting the necessary research to develop an outline for a Literature Review appropriate to my final project. I submitted the outline via email and OnQ at 2:25am on 30 Mar 18. Dr. Lai responded at 10:26pm on 30 Mar 18 requesting that I rewrite and resubmit the outline in full sentences. Due to the difficulty that Dr. Lai had previously demonstrated in understanding conversational English and his earlier requests that notes on powerpoint presentations be written in complete sentences instead of posted as themes or figures, I appreciated that complying with this request would make it easier for him to read and understand my outline and I was happy to accommodate him. I made the requested changes, as I understood them, and resubmitted the assignment at 12:27am 31 Mar 18. Being very tired I forgot to attach the document and resent the email at 12:40am 31 Mar 18. At 12:56am on 31 Mar 18 Dr. Lai responded that he required that I rewrite and resubmit the assignment a second time. In this email he articulated a clear change in the requirement of the assignment by insisting that what he wanted to receive was a mini-essay.
At this stage I realized that our ability to communicate was seriously compromised by a language barrier. I pointed Dr. Lai to his syllabus, the Writing Center guidelines for writing an essay outline and Academic Regulation 7.2.1. I was unable to commit any further time to the assignment at this point and had become uncomfortable with the imprecise use of language, the repeated requests to re-write and resubmit, and the way the requirements seemed to evolve with each consecutive correspondence. I requested that if Dr. Lai¿¿s wished to change the course requirements the new requirements should finalized and reflected in an updated syllabus, and that an appropriate extension should be provided.
Dr. Lai did not respond until he sent back the graded outline. Dr. Lai did not mark the updated outline, but the original submission. No specific comments were made. No direction offered. The feedback on a 15 page document amounted to less than 100 words. The only critical comment was too vague to be useful.
I responded at 9:45pm on 1 Apr 18 communicating my disappointment with the grade and with the lack of direction considering my grade on the outline was a full letter grade lower than my earlier proposal. I requested further feedback and provided a self-evaluation of the assignment, which I asked him to comment on.
Dr. Lai responded at 10:28pm on 1 Apr 18. During this correspondence he notified me that he was also disappointed and commenting that I would have been graded better had I redone the assignment along the new requirements like the other students had. He makes clear that my refusal to rewrite and resubmit a third time is the reason for my low grade. It is imperative that I communicate my discomfort with Dr. Lai's imprecise use of writing terminology and clear conflation of terms. Furthermore, I find it unacceptable that course requirements regarding the assessment of performance would be treated so loosely and that an Instructor should be allowed to make such whimsical demands of their students.
Thank you for taking the time to review this appeal. I appreciate your time and consideration and look forward to your decision. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Dustin Craig
Dustin.craig@queensu.ca
The grade is only a secondary concern. What is most important to me is the triggering of formal process to provide Dr. Lai with appropriate feedback for his violation of Academic Regulation 7.2.1.
According to the course syllabus for RELS 394 the Final Paper was to be submitted in three phases.:
1) proposal, Due: 26 Feb 18),
2) detailed outline, Due: 30 Mar 18, and
3) essay finalization, Due: 6 Apr 18, but extended to 13 Apr 18 by Dr. Lai during class on 28 Mar 18.
At 10:43pm on 28 Mar 18 Dr. Lai sent an email providing additional details for the assignment. Having worked on the assignment during the course of the previous four weeks I did not notice the email until I searched for Dr. Lai¿¿s email address while preparing for submission of the assignment on 29 Mar 18. Upon receipt of the email I responded to Dr. Lai requesting confirmation that my understanding of the requirements was correct. Dr. Lai responded with confirmation.
I worked for several hours conducting the necessary research to develop an outline for a Literature Review appropriate to my final project. I submitted the outline via email and OnQ at 2:25am on 30 Mar 18. Dr. Lai responded at 10:26pm on 30 Mar 18 requesting that I rewrite and resubmit the outline in full sentences. Due to the difficulty that Dr. Lai had previously demonstrated in understanding conversational English and his earlier requests that notes on powerpoint presentations be written in complete sentences instead of posted as themes or figures, I appreciated that complying with this request would make it easier for him to read and understand my outline and I was happy to accommodate him. I made the requested changes, as I understood them, and resubmitted the assignment at 12:27am 31 Mar 18. Being very tired I forgot to attach the document and resent the email at 12:40am 31 Mar 18. At 12:56am on 31 Mar 18 Dr. Lai responded that he required that I rewrite and resubmit the assignment a second time. In this email he articulated a clear change in the requirement of the assignment by insisting that what he wanted to receive was a mini-essay.
At this stage I realized that our ability to communicate was seriously compromised by a language barrier. I pointed Dr. Lai to his syllabus, the Writing Center guidelines for writing an essay outline and Academic Regulation 7.2.1. I was unable to commit any further time to the assignment at this point and had become uncomfortable with the imprecise use of language, the repeated requests to re-write and resubmit, and the way the requirements seemed to evolve with each consecutive correspondence. I requested that if Dr. Lai¿¿s wished to change the course requirements the new requirements should finalized and reflected in an updated syllabus, and that an appropriate extension should be provided.
Dr. Lai did not respond until he sent back the graded outline. Dr. Lai did not mark the updated outline, but the original submission. No specific comments were made. No direction offered. The feedback on a 15 page document amounted to less than 100 words. The only critical comment was too vague to be useful.
I responded at 9:45pm on 1 Apr 18 communicating my disappointment with the grade and with the lack of direction considering my grade on the outline was a full letter grade lower than my earlier proposal. I requested further feedback and provided a self-evaluation of the assignment, which I asked him to comment on.
Dr. Lai responded at 10:28pm on 1 Apr 18. During this correspondence he notified me that he was also disappointed and commenting that I would have been graded better had I redone the assignment along the new requirements like the other students had. He makes clear that my refusal to rewrite and resubmit a third time is the reason for my low grade. It is imperative that I communicate my discomfort with Dr. Lai's imprecise use of writing terminology and clear conflation of terms. Furthermore, I find it unacceptable that course requirements regarding the assessment of performance would be treated so loosely and that an Instructor should be allowed to make such whimsical demands of their students.
Thank you for taking the time to review this appeal. I appreciate your time and consideration and look forward to your decision. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Dustin Craig
Dustin.craig@queensu.ca
Documentation
Documentation Detail: I would also like to include the email where I submitted the original outline, it has been severed from this chain.
Document: Marked Craig Outline 20180401-0.docx
Documentation Detail: I can include the original submission as well, although the feedback is so little it does not impact reading
Documentation Detail: I would also like to include the course syllabus and the queens writing center guidelines for writing an outline