Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 8814
Submitted: March 4, 2022 at 5:50:50 PM
First Name: Issamedin
Last Name: Dahlan
Student Number: 20312112
Email: issamedin.dahlan@queensu.ca
Degree Program: BSH
Plan: General Arts and Science
Level of Study: 1
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Request a review of instructors' decisions on grading of final examination and/or term work
Code: PSYC 100
Term: Fall
Year: 2022
Petition Category: Request a review of instructors' decisions on grading of final examination and/or term work
Instructor's Name: Jeffrey Wammes
Component: Fall Exam
Petition Letter
Petition Letter: Dear Associate Dean (Academic),
I am appealing my marks for questions 2 and 3 of the PSYC 100 Fall exam.
Question 2 asked to list four critiques of a given study, and I accurately listed four different critiques of the study.
For this reason I am asking for my mark to be updated from 6.25/10 to 10/10.
Question 3 asked to list a research hypothesis and design two studies to test the research hypothesis. I listed a research hypothesis and proposed two studies and explained what outcomes of those studies would support my hypothesis. I mentioned the two different conditions that the research participants were in, which would address the independent and dependent variables in the research.
For this reason I am asking for my mark to be updated from 4/10 to 10/10.
The course coordinator, Dr. Meghan Norris, did not release the exam back to us to know what we got right or wrong on the exam, and did not tell us what the grading rubric was neither before nor after the exam. It is grossly unfair to lose marks when I answer questions accurately, because the TA graders were using a secret rubric that graded on questions that were not mentioned in the above two questions at all. I cannot read the mind of the course coordinator. I should be expected to answer only what the question is asking me to answer. For these reasons the course coordinator and the TAs will not objective graders of my answers. I am requesting that my answers be graded based solely on their own merit and on what the questions in the exam only asked for.
I acknowledge that I made a couple of spelling mistakes in the third part of question 3, due to typing quickly under time pressure (the exam was very long). Students were specifically told that they would not be deducted marks for organization or spelling mistakes as long as their answers were comprehensible.
In the first part of the exam, which consisted of 120 multiple choice questions, and thus comprehensively covered the course material, I got 8.55/10. This discrepancy between my mark for the multiple choice questions and the two long answer questions supports my appeal that the reason I lost so many marks in the two long answer questions were not due to wrong answers or lack of knowledge, but due to unfair grading.
Thank you so much for your help.
Kind Regards,
Issamedin Dahlan
I am appealing my marks for questions 2 and 3 of the PSYC 100 Fall exam.
Question 2 asked to list four critiques of a given study, and I accurately listed four different critiques of the study.
For this reason I am asking for my mark to be updated from 6.25/10 to 10/10.
Question 3 asked to list a research hypothesis and design two studies to test the research hypothesis. I listed a research hypothesis and proposed two studies and explained what outcomes of those studies would support my hypothesis. I mentioned the two different conditions that the research participants were in, which would address the independent and dependent variables in the research.
For this reason I am asking for my mark to be updated from 4/10 to 10/10.
The course coordinator, Dr. Meghan Norris, did not release the exam back to us to know what we got right or wrong on the exam, and did not tell us what the grading rubric was neither before nor after the exam. It is grossly unfair to lose marks when I answer questions accurately, because the TA graders were using a secret rubric that graded on questions that were not mentioned in the above two questions at all. I cannot read the mind of the course coordinator. I should be expected to answer only what the question is asking me to answer. For these reasons the course coordinator and the TAs will not objective graders of my answers. I am requesting that my answers be graded based solely on their own merit and on what the questions in the exam only asked for.
I acknowledge that I made a couple of spelling mistakes in the third part of question 3, due to typing quickly under time pressure (the exam was very long). Students were specifically told that they would not be deducted marks for organization or spelling mistakes as long as their answers were comprehensible.
In the first part of the exam, which consisted of 120 multiple choice questions, and thus comprehensively covered the course material, I got 8.55/10. This discrepancy between my mark for the multiple choice questions and the two long answer questions supports my appeal that the reason I lost so many marks in the two long answer questions were not due to wrong answers or lack of knowledge, but due to unfair grading.
Thank you so much for your help.
Kind Regards,
Issamedin Dahlan
Documentation
Amendment to Appeal 8814
Relevant Petition: 8814
New Information: Hello Academic Appeal Team,
The course coordinator advised us to schedule office hours with the grading TAs to review the exam. I had 4 such meetings with the grading TAs, hoping to get as much feedback as I could on my exam. The meetings were only 10 minutes each. None of the TAs had access to the exams or were able to discuss my answers. They were only able to provide very general and non-specific feedback. I have provided attachments confirming my four meetings with the TAs.
The course coordinator advised us to schedule office hours with the grading TAs to review the exam. I had 4 such meetings with the grading TAs, hoping to get as much feedback as I could on my exam. The meetings were only 10 minutes each. None of the TAs had access to the exams or were able to discuss my answers. They were only able to provide very general and non-specific feedback. I have provided attachments confirming my four meetings with the TAs.
Student Number: 20312112
Documentation
Professional Letter Detail: NO DOC
Document: PSYC100Meeting1.png
Document: PSYC100Meeting2.png
Document: PSYC100Meeting3.png
Document: PSYC100Meeting4.png
