Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

Petition Letter: My mega lab was graded unfairly.

For the media posting row on the rubric, I receive 0 points, meaning I did not submit or address this component. This is false. I submitted the link to my article at the top of my document and clicked on it before submitting to ensure it worked correctly, and it brought me directly to the media source I used. However, my TA stated that they were unable to open my link. It is unfair to deduct marks for an issue that is not my fault. If the link worked perfectly fine when I tested it, how could I have possibly known it would not work for my TA? Upon receiving my feedback, I sent my mega lab to a few other individuals to see if they could open the link, and they could. Therefore, this problem is not mine and you unjustly took marks off for the issue, an issue that is merely your own.

My mark for the evaluation of a critical source component was also unjustly given. In my feedback, my TA stated: ??You touched on the CRAAP and VRGE models, but your mark would have benefitted if you went into more depth and covered more points from the CRAAP and VRGE models?. In my mega lab, I considered each aspect of both models, as I discussed validity, reliability, and generalizability for the VRGE model (ethics was not applicable for this article, as no experience was being conducted). As for the CRAAP model, I discussed currency, authority, accuracy, purpose, and relevance (there was no separate heading for this, it was embedded within my paragraphs that related the article contents to PSYC100 content). Hence, I discussed ALL factors of each model, so you cannot say that I should have gone more ??in depth? and ??covered more points?. To add on, if I had gone into more detail on all the parts of the models, my mega lab would have exceeded the page limit and then you would have taken marks off for that. So, me including information about each part of both models (except ethics, which was not applicable, and you specifically stated in the video that if something is not relevant to your article, do not address it), followed the rubric and abided by all requirements of this assignment. I watched the assignment instructions video and all related videos with tips, and the way I structured my responses was the same, the only difference being using a different article. Are you saying that the information in the video your department posted is incorrect? Seems to me like an error in reliability, something frowned upon according to PSYC 100 content.

Also, when you mentioned, ??you did a careful job summarising the media article and connecting your analysis to the course?, but you supposedly couldn??t open my article, how could you be qualified to give this feedback? This alludes to my previous point that you are not qualified to say my analysis was not in-depth enough, as you don??t know what my article read apparently.

In conclusion, my feedback was unfairly given and I would appreciate it if the head TA took the time to regrade my report, as he is clearly more qualified to give accurate feedback. I would additionally like to set up a meeting with the TA who marked my report if they do not take my concerns into consideration. I am incredibly disappointed with how the department of psychology marks written assignments with such inconsistency, subjectivity and in such an arbitrary, system I method of evaluation. If you refuse to comply with my request, I will be reaching out to the academic affairs commission of the university to discuss this matter. I will appeal to the associate dean, then to the board of studies, and finally, the student appeal board. According to the Queen??s Academic Appeal policy, ??academic standards must be upheld and all students must be treated fairly and equitably?. Therefore, it is your responsibility to not take your personal views into consideration and objectively evaluate my assignment according to the rubric, which you did not do right.