Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

Petition Letter: Dear Dr. Stephenson,

a. Request

Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this appeal letter. My name is Julia DiMaio, and I am a third-year student in the Faculty of Arts and Science within the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies. The purpose of this letter is regarding a Level One Finding of a Breach of Academic Integrity, namely plagiarism, made on December 17th, 2019 by Dr. Jennifer Tomasone, in HLTH332. The contents of this letter will outline my reasoning why this finding should be reversed, as well as the sanction placed.

To ensure full transparency, you may recognize that aspects of this appeal letter are similar to the contents of an appeal letter filed by my sister, Natalie DiMaio. Given that this matter involves both of us, and the same assessment in HLTH 332, the elements that form the basis of this appeal, as well as the facts of our preparation for the assessment are very similar. Importantly, we both attempted to followed the format suggested online ¿¿How Do I Write an Appeal Letter¿ https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/tips_for_writing_a_letter_of_appeal_he_edit_april_2018.pdf.

b. Explanation of Extenuating Circumstances
i. Background

As outlined by Section 1.2.1, ¿¿Academic Integrity¿ in the Faculty of Arts and Science Appeal of Academic Decisions 1.2.1, https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/appeal_regulations_19_final_v2.pdf),
Academic Integrity can be defined as ¿¿a commitment, even in the face of adversity, to six fundamental values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage¿ (1.2.1, https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/appeal_regulations_19_final_v2.pdf), which further supports the educational ideals and mission of Queen¿¿s University. I am a very serious, dedicated, passionate student and member of the Queen¿¿s community, as reflected by my numerous academic accomplishments and extra-curricular involvements. Further, I understand and respect the regulations of Academic Integrity outlined in the Academic and Appeal Regulations Documents. Even in the face of adversity, I am committed to upholding said fundamental values in all aspects of my life, and will continue to do so as a Queen¿¿s student. I have consulted more detailed definitions of these values in ¿¿The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity, Second Edition¿ (https://academicintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Fundamental-Values-2014.pdf).

As an honest student, I recognize that dishonest behaviours in an academic setting are ¿¿unacceptable¿ (https://academicintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Fundamental-Values-2014.pdf), as such practices jeopardize the reputation of not only the individual, but also the academic community. Subsequently, I acknowledge that the value of trust is developed upon the foundations of honesty (https://academicintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Fundamental-Values-2014.pdf). The importance of honesty and trust in academic communities allows all members to actively develop academic work, while being able to disregard the fear that one¿¿s ideas, thoughts, or opinions may be stolen. As a recipient of the Dean¿¿s List, Ontario University Athletic Academic Awards, and entrance scholarships to Queen¿¿s, I support the promotion of environments in which all individuals are treated with integrity, fairness, and respect. Further, as an honest and trustworthy member of the Queen¿¿s community, I pride myself on producing honest, genuine, and individualized pieces of academic work by following clear instructions provided by my professors.

In Section 1.1.1 (iii) in the Faculty of Arts and Science Academic Regulations, fairness is defined as the ¿¿establishment of clear and transparent expectations, standards, and practices to support fairness in the interactions of students, faculty, and administrators.¿(1.1.1 (iii) https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/academic_regulations_19_final.pdf) I understand that this definition requires students to produce honest, individual work, to properly and justly acknowledge borrowed knowledge, and to uphold the values of academic integrity outlined in documentation issued by the University (https://academicintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Fundamental-Values-2014.pdf). I do not take the opportunity and privilege to learn at Queen¿¿s University lightly. Thus, I have the upmost respect for the standards established by Queen¿¿s and adhere to them. I recognize that the presence of fairness is vital for the development of both honesty and trust in academic communities, and plays an integral part in my learning.

Respect can be defined as ¿¿the interactive, cooperative, and participatory nature of learning¿ (1.1.1 (iv) https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/academic_regulations_19_final.pdf), in which individuals ¿¿honour, value, and consider diverse opinions and ideas.¿ (1.1.1 (iv) https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/academic_regulations_19_final.pdf) I understand that respect is reciprocal (https://academicintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Fundamental-Values-2014.pdf). As an active member of the Kinesiology community at Queen¿¿s, I truly value the opportunity to personalize my learning, and therefore have taken an active role in my education (https://academicintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Fundamental-Values-2014.pdf) through being selected to complete the Disability and Physical Activity Certificate, participating in research placements with professors in the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies, and taking the opportunity to explore a community internship placement in the School of Rehabilitation Science. I understand and respect that the work of others has allowed these opportunities to become available to me. Further, as a varsity athlete, I understand the importance of listening to and respecting the opinions of others (https://academicintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Fundamental-Values-2014.pdf), contributing my ideas to discussions (https://academicintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Fundamental-Values-2014.pdf), and always performing to the best of my abilities (https://academicintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Fundamental-Values-2014.pdf), both on and off the playing field.

Responsibility, which can be defined as ¿¿personal accountability, coupled with the willingness of individuals and groups to lead by example, uphold mutually agreed-upon standards, and take action when they counter wrongdoing¿ (1.1.1 (v) https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/academic_regulations_19_final.pdf), is crucial to develop integrity in academic communities. As stated in The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity, Second Edition, the value of responsibility requires one to ¿¿hold oneself to high standards of integrity¿ (https://academicintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Fundamental-Values-2014.pdf). I demonstrate accountability and the willingness to lead by example through my participation in numerous extra-curriculars at Queen¿¿s. I respect the privilege of holding these positions, and the subsequent responsibility that accompanies them. Thus, I take an immense amount of pride in being responsible to ensure I perform these roles to the best of my abilities. Similarly, I take this approach when I am in an academic setting. I hold myself to very high standards of integrity when producing academic work that I submit for evaluation, as I understand that taking responsibility for the work I produce gives it credibility (https://academicintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Fundamental-Values-2014.pdf).

Furthermore, courage is vital to ¿¿developing and sustaining communities of integrity¿(1.1.1 (vi) https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/academic_regulations_19_final.pdf). As stated in the Faculty of Arts and Science Academic Regulations Section 1.1.1 Subsection (vi), courage ¿¿takes more than simply believing in the fundamental values¿, and requires members of the community to ¿¿stand up for them in the face of pressure and adversity.¿ (1.1.1 (vi) https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/academic_regulations_19_final.pdf) Importantly, The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity, Second Edition, defines courage as the ¿¿capacity to act in accordance with one¿¿s values despite fear¿ (https://academicintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Fundamental-Values-2014.pdf). Through my decision to appeal a finding of a breach of Academic Integrity, I demonstrate a commitment to presenting myself as an honest, trustworthy, fair, respectful, and responsible individual, as well as a commitment to upholding the values of Academic Integrity outlined in this letter.

ii. Basis of This Appeal

As defined in Section 1.2.1 ¿¿Types of Departures¿ in the Faculty of Arts and Science Academic Regulations, plagiarism is defined as ¿¿presenting another¿¿s ideas or phrasing as one¿¿s own without proper acknowledgement¿ (1.2.1 (i) https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/academic_regulations_19_final.pdf). I firmly oppose the Finding of a Departure from Academic Integrity, namely plagiarism, as made by Dr. Tomasone in the December 17th, 2019 Finding notice. My position, throughout this letter, is that I do not agree with this decision, and believe that both the finding and sanction should not stand; in the alternative, though I strongly object, if the finding stands, I ask for a reconsideration of the sanction.

My understanding from Section 1.1 ¿¿General Overview of Appeal of Academic Decisions¿ of the Faculty of Arts and Science Appeal of Academic Decisions, is that an appeal is only granted where there are ¿¿significant extenuating circumstances beyond the student¿¿s control, which would merit the waiving of a particular Faculty regulation or decision¿ (1.1 https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/appeal_regulations_19_final_v2.pdf). As my sister Natalie DiMaio has also raised, I believe that Dr. Tomasone failed to consider in her Finding and conclusions the fact that Natalie and I are fraternal twins, with many shared life experiences and behavioural similarities, that account for similar answers on exams. I also refer you to work of Dr. Nancy L. Segal (a blog article and her book, Twin Mythconceptions: False Beliefs, Fables, and Facts about Twins) and Dara Lovitz¿¿s book, Twinsight: A Guide to Raising Emotionally Healthy Twins with Advice from the Experts (Academics) and the REAL Experts (Twins).

iii. The Assessment in Question (Online Test 2), Questions 51 and 52

The assessment in question under which this investigation was brought, was an online, non-proctored test worth 15 of the final class grade. In accordance with the definition of plagiarism in Section 1.2.1, Subsection (i) in the Faculty of Arts and Science Academic Regulations, it should be clear that I did not present anyone else¿¿s ideas as my own without proper acknowledgement, as I created a study document (together with my twin sister, Natalie, as the class was encouraged to do), containing examples we discussed during our study preparations, based upon important concepts discussed in lectures. As stated in the aforementioned document, plagiarism includes ¿¿copying and pasting from internet sources, printed sources, or other resources without proper acknowledgement ¿¿( 1.2.1 (i) https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/academic_regulations_19_final.pdf). As well, plagiarism includes ¿¿using direct quotations and large sections of paraphrased material without proper acknowledgement¿ (1.2.1 (i) https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/academic_regulations_19_final.pdf), none of which I did, and therefore, I feel that this finding is incorrect.

Further, in her prep class for the test, Dr. Tomasone strongly encouraged students to ¿¿get together¿ (https://www.youtube.com/watchv5NW43Bdmi4I&featureyoutu.be) with other classmates when preparing for this assessment. In support of this statement, I refer you to the ¿¿Test 2 Information Lecture Capture¿, posted to YouTube by Dr. Tomasone on November 25, 2019 (https://www.youtube.com/watchv5NW43Bdmi4I&featureyoutu.be). At minute 5:50 in this lecture capture, the professor instructs all students ¿¿get together with a housemate or a classmate¿ in order to prepare to answer Question 51, thus instructing students to ¿¿get together¿ when studying. Thus, I took this recommendation, and created a study document equally with another student, namely my twin sister Natalie, which I then learned, studied, and memorized. As stated in ¿¿Test 2 Information Lecture Capture¿, the professor states:

¿¿So, with that, let¿¿s brainstorm for a second. Does quality participation apply to all domains Okay yes, so participation can happen in education and in employment. It could happen in leisure, right That we talked about three different sorts of domains of participation. So, quality participation is possible in each of those domains. How might you create a quality participation experience in education How might you create a quality participation experience in employment And you kind of know how to create it in leisure because that was sort of the context around which the lecture was developed. So, what you¿¿ll want to know¿oh man this is such a huge hint¿what you want to know are the six elements of quality. And you¿¿ll want to know how or what each of those elements look like in education, in employment, and in leisure. So, get together with a classmate or a housemate, and make a little table for yourself of what does autonomy look like in school ¿ And do it for each of the six elements of quality participation. And also, be able to define the elements. Everyone should now get perfect on that question.¿ (https://www.youtube.com/watchv5NW43Bdmi4I&featureyoutu.be)

My study document (which I showed at the meeting of December 17th) reflects that I followed these exact instructions of Dr. Tomasone. My preparation techniques for this assessment further support my ability to follow clear instructions provided by my professors.

An additional conclusion made by Dr. Tomasone in her finding is that Natalie and I collaborated during the test because we had the same formatting for our responses to Question 51. This question was asked in such a way where one was instructed to:

a) Name the concept
b) Define the concept
c) Provide an example

Thus, I proceeded to answer this question exactly in this requested format (ie. name the concepts; define the concepts; and give examples for each concept), and provided my answer to each subsection of this question accordingly. It is this formatting of how I structured my answer that is in question, where in fact, I answered the question with logical formatting as instructed, and further demonstrates my ability to follow clear instruction. There was no collaboration with my twin sister, Natalie, or any other student for that matter, that occurred during the completion of this test. My answers reflect the contents of my study document, and the formatting of this question follows suit to the way in which the question was posed. If Natalie also answered it in the same way, it may very well have been that, as twins, we think, respond and work alike much of the time, and we were also working from the same study document we had created (as was permitted and encouraged by Dr. Tomasone).

Further, Dr. Tomasone¿¿s Finding of plagiarism and a Departure from Academic Integrity considered my response to a bonus question, in which I selected the same response as another student (namely my twin sister, Natalie). This bonus question was provided as an opportunity to discuss a course concept that was not tested in the multiple-choice section of the test.

In support of this statement, in ¿¿Test 2 Information Lecture Capture¿, Dr. Tomasone stated that the response to this question ¿¿had to be something that was not tested¿, and that it was one¿¿s ¿¿chance¿ to gain an additional mark (https://www.youtube.com/watchv5NW43Bdmi4I&featureyoutu.be). As stated at minute 3:05 in the professor¿¿s earlier ¿¿Online Test 1 Logistics Lecture Capture¿, posted on October 7, 2019, all multiple-choice questions were to be ¿¿randomized from a larger bank of questions¿ (https://www.youtube.com/watchvSnW4yXfLeWk&featureyoutu.be) . Further, at minute 3:29 in the same lecture capture, it was stated that the questions on each individual test ¿¿were going to be different¿ (https://www.youtube.com/watchvSnW4yXfLeWk&featureyoutu.be).

Following the completion of the multiple-choice section of my test, I recognized that my own individual test had not asked me a question on the topic of service animals. Thus, I completed this question using the information that I memorized from the same original study document discussed in the previous paragraph. It was clearly stated on numerous occasions that each test was individualized and randomized. Thus, it was impossible to know the contents of another student¿¿s multiple-choice section when producing an answer to a short-answer question. As I had saved this question for last, I also had very little time to think about it, and therefore I selected to write about the topic of service animals, given my previous life experiences. My family previously owned a German Shepherd named Sydney, whose father was in-fact a pet therapy dog employed in a senior¿¿s home. Additionally, my father works for the St. Louis Blues Hockey Club, which is currently participating in a program in which the organization is training a service dog for two years, and will then be provided to a family in need. Currently, my family owns a new German Shepherd named Mazzie, who has also completed the required training to become a police animal. Further, as a participant in the Disability and Physical Activity Certificate Program, I am constantly exposed to individuals who own service animals, and I have had the opportunity to witness the positive impact that service animals can have on one¿¿s life.

Due to the knowledge I gained from studying for this assessment coupled with my significant family and life experiences around this concept, I felt very comfortable discussing the topic of service animals, given the limited amount of time I had to complete the question. The fact that my twin sister may have also selected the same topic is very much likely (as long as it hadn¿¿t been covered in any of her multiple-choice questions), given our shared life experiences and passion for service animals.

With regards to this question, Dr. Tomasone further stated that both Natalie and I made the same error when describing the cost of a service animal, which differed from the information in my study document. After reflecting and looking back upon my notes, I am aware that the cost of a service animal can range from 3000-50000. However, when studying and preparing for this test, including discussing this and other sections with Natalie, we both made an error in studying the value, believing (and stating out loud several times during our preparations) that the correct value was 3000-5000, despite having the correct value in my study document. Therefore, this error in my studying reflects the error that I carried over onto my test response.

On the basis of the above, and considering the extenuating circumstances that the ¿¿other student¿ involved in this matter is my twin sister with whom I share many life experiences (including, in this instance, preparing and studying for this test together) that can account for similarities in our answers, I request the Finding of plagiarism be overturned.

As I understand she stated in her own appeal, I echo my sister¿¿s reference to Dr. Nancy Segal¿¿s comment on page 156 of Twin Mythconceptions: ¿¿It is, therefore, not surprising that identical twins sometimes obtain exactly the same test score, make the same unusual mistake, or reach the same unexpected conclusion when writing a paper or completing a thought. Some fraternal twins do as well, but less often¿.to attribute twins¿¿ identical scores to cheating just because they are twins and perform alike is unjustifiable.¿

iv. Factors to Consider in Assigning a Sanction

In the alternative, if the Finding of plagiarism remains, I ask for a reconsideration of the sanction imposed by Dr. Tomasone in her December 17th Finding (namely, a grade of zero for Online Test 2).

In Section 1.3.3 ¿¿Factors to Consider in Assigning a Sanction¿ in the Faculty of Arts and Science Academic Regulations, it is clear that there are multiple factors that must be considered when determining an appropriate sanction.

Firstly, as this assessment was only worth 15 of the final course grade, it is clear that the work in question does not ¿¿form a significant portion of the grade¿ (1.3.3 (ii) https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/academic_regulations_19_final.pdf). As well, the areas of this assessment in question do not form a large portion of the entire assessment, as there are only 3 total marks that comprise these sections. Thus, the ¿¿extent of the departure is not substantial¿ (1.3.3 (ii) https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/academic_regulations_19_final.pdf). Next, as I am a third-year student, I am very familiar with the seriousness associated with breaches of academic integrity, and I understand the importance, and the expectations, of the commitment a student must make to the six fundamental values of academic integrity. Importantly, this is the first incident I have been involved in during my career as an undergraduate student at Queen¿¿s (or in my prior academic career), which demonstrates that I have been very successful on previous assessments in upholding a high standard of integrity, and that I pride myself of producing honest, individualized academic work. Thus, this is an ¿¿isolated aberration¿ (1.3.3 (iv) https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/academic_regulations_19_final.pdf). Further, this Finding of a breach of academic integrity presents no evidence of a ¿¿deliberate attempt to gain advantage, injury to another student or to the institution, or any degree of conduct that intimidates others¿ (1.3.3 (v), (vi) and (vii) https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/academic_regulations_19_final.pdf).

Accordingly, if the original Finding of plagiarism stands, I feel that the sanction of a 0 grade on this assessment does not accurately reflect the ¿¿extent and seriousness of the departure¿ (1.3.3 (i) https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/academic_regulations_19_final.pdf) and ask for consideration of a lesser sanction as available in Section 1.3.1. To confirm, while I believe that this sanction is not appropriate in the circumstances, my primary position remains that I believe that the December 17th, 2019 Finding of a breach of academic integrity is incorrect and should be overturned, based on the exceptional circumstances described above.

Importantly, procedural fairness was not upheld throughout this process. As stated in the Faculty of Arts and Science Academic Regulations Section 1.4.1.4.3 ¿¿Student¿¿s Right to Review Documentation¿, it is a right of the student to ¿¿see any relevant material considered by the instructor in addition to the documents sent with the Notice of Investigation¿, ¿¿at least 10 calendar days prior to the meeting¿, which was held on December 17th, 2019. (1.4.1.4.3 https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/academic_regulations_19_final.pdf). Further, in the Faculty of Arts and Science Appeal of Academic Decisions Document Section 1.2.2 ¿¿Procedural Fairness¿, Subsection (i), procedural fairness ¿¿holds that students must have access to any evidence and information relevant to the academic matter in question¿. (1.2.2 (i) https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/appeal_regulations_19_final_v2.pdf) Lastly, in Section 1.4.1.3 ¿¿Notification of Investigation¿ in the Faculty of Arts and Science Academic Regulations, the instructor ¿¿should include all documents relevant to the investigation (those gathered under Academic Regulation 1.4.1.2) These documents include (1.4.1.2 https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/sites/default/files/academic_regulations_19_final.pdf)¿ :

(i) The work submitted by the student for academic credit
(ii) The source(s) from which the work submitted by the student is apparently derived

It was stated in the Notice of Investigation that I received that ¿¿Given the work in question was a term test, the documentation pertaining to this investigation will be presented in-person¿. The documents were not included with a Notice of Investigation before my meeting, and were also not enclosed with the Finding following the meeting.

c. Future Plan

I restate that my position in this investigation is that the finding of a Level One Breach of Academic Integrity is incorrect and should be overturned, and that the subsequent sanction should be removed.

Given the challenges that have arisen with this course, and the questions on the academic integrity of myself and my twin sister, Natalie, one of the plans we have both discussed, moving forward, is that we not enroll in future courses together. If this is not possible due to program requirements, I will aim to not study or prepare together. While this is unfortunate, as Natalie and I share many of the same academic interests and career goals, we are not prepared to have our academic integrity called into question again.

In the Notice of Investigation received on December 9th, 2017, the professor stated ¿¿Given the work in question was a term test, the documentation pertaining to this investigation will be presented in-person¿, thus I did not receive any relevant documentation pertaining to this investigation. Thus, it is clear that procedural fairness was not upheld, as I was not made aware of the relevant documentation that was in question.

In closing, I restate that my position in this investigation is that the finding of a Level One Breach of Academic Integrity is false and incorrect, and that the subsequent sanction should be removed. Thank you in advance for considering the contents of this letter. I have attached additional supporting documentation pertaining to this investigation. Please find enclosed the following, in accordance with the Faculty of Arts and Science Appeal of Academic Decisions, Section 2: Appeals Related to Academic Integrity, Subsection 2.2.1 ¿¿Submission of the Appeal¿:

i. An Appeal Fee of 50.00
ii. The Associate Dean of Studies Appeal Form
iii. The Notice of Investigation for a Possible Departure from Academic Integrity
iv. The Finding of a Departure from Academic Integrity
v. The documents that I provided pertaining to the investigation
vi. The Course Syllabus for HLTH 332
vii. A copy of my recognition on the Dean¿¿s Honour List
viii. A PDF Document of this Appel Letter

Please note that the documents used by the instructor in the initial decision are not included as a part of my submission. In accordance with Section 2.2.1 ¿¿Submission of the Appeal¿, which states the documents must be provided in order for this submission to be complete. The documents were not included with a Notice of Investigation before my meeting, and were also not enclosed with the Finding following the meeting.

If there are any further questions you may have for me, I can be contacted at 16jd50@queensu.ca.


Thank you in advance,

Julia DiMaio
Student Number: 20049370
16jd50@queensu.ca