Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 9333
Submitted: June 21, 2022 at 6:03:30 PM
First Name: SHIE
Last Name: CHEN
Student Number: 20118306
Email: 17sc120@queensu.ca
Degree Program: BCMPH
Plan: BCMPH
Level of Study: 4
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Code: CISC 326
Term: Winter
Year: 2022
Petition Category: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Instructor's Name: Bram Adams
Component: Assignment 1 and 2
Petition Letter
Petition Letter: During the assignment 1, due to the time conflict between group meetings and my course, I miss the group meetings.?
When I come back, I saw I had already assigned the summary parts. I finish it in time and volunteered to handle the presentation because there is no one wanted to do this part, and I have free time on the last day before the deadline.
After that, I got your email about my negative feedback on the peer review. After our first meeting, we all agree that the negative peer review is due to all my working reports and discussion about the group work are in the private channel with our group leader.
The reason I did this was that I could use my mother language to talk with him and it has better communication efficiency, especially the summary part and presentation must be done in 7 hours due to the last part(except summery part) was finished at 17:00 pm on the last day.
After the mark of assignment 1 was released, professor Bram Adams held a meeting with me to discuss my?negative peer review marks. In this meeting, he didn't directly provide me with the reasons that some of my group members give me negative peer review marks and just let me guess why I got the negative peer review. I made the assumption that maybe the reason is I seldom speak in the public channel so they thought I did nothing and the professor agrees me to improve my work based on my assumption.?
This meeting is the first meeting with professor Bram Adams.
?
During the assignment 2, I fix all the problems that we talk in the first discussion. I reported all my work and follow up on all the discussions in the group channel and handled the same parts which I was responsible for in assignment 1 because I think I was familiar with it.
This time, the situation I faced on the last day before the deadline is worse, the time for the summery part and presentation is shorter than the first time. The submission time of the presentation can prove what I said.
On the other hand, I think I would have positive feedback on the assignment 2 at that time because I improve all the problems we talked about in the first meeting. (But the true situation is the opposite)?
After all the marks were released, professor Bram Adams held another meeting with me to discuss my negative peer review marks on assignments 1 and 2 due to my peer review didn't get better in assignment 2, In this meeting, I assumed the negative peer review marks are related to I handle the summary parts in assignment 1 and 2 so some of my group members thought I did the easy work in the group work. But professor Bram Adams didn't confirm my assumptions.
Because I have?no right to read their comments, I still do not know why I get negative peer review marks.
This meeting is the second meeting with?professor Bram Adams.
?
----------------------------------?
After I review all my work carefully, I think it's unfair to take my grade because of the negative peer review on the assignment 1 and 2.
I also review what we discuss in our second meeting and find some logical conflict points.
As I demonstrated above, I did nothing wrong during the assignment 1 ----- I finished the work which I was assigned and volunteered for the presentation part. I don't know what happened in the first group meeting, but If they were not pleased I take responsibility for the summery part, why did they assign me this part in the beginning?
In the second group meeting, I clearly demonstrated what parts I want to handle, and no one argue with me about this. ----- If they are not pleased with what I handle, why they don't direct contact with me rather than give me negative peer reviews and write comments that I have no right to read?
I talk this with my group leader and he also has no ideas about these weird things.
The only reason that these?logical conflict points appear is that we make the wrong guess in our two meetings.
What's more, it is?unreasonable that I need to make assumptions or guess about what I doing wrong. Because I can't really improve my work without direct and clear feedback ----- I even have no right to read their comments
Furthermore, judging my performance only through peer review is unreliable. Maybe the guy who gives me the negative peer review is only because he or she doesn't like me or we have a quarrel during the working??
When I come back, I saw I had already assigned the summary parts. I finish it in time and volunteered to handle the presentation because there is no one wanted to do this part, and I have free time on the last day before the deadline.
After that, I got your email about my negative feedback on the peer review. After our first meeting, we all agree that the negative peer review is due to all my working reports and discussion about the group work are in the private channel with our group leader.
The reason I did this was that I could use my mother language to talk with him and it has better communication efficiency, especially the summary part and presentation must be done in 7 hours due to the last part(except summery part) was finished at 17:00 pm on the last day.
After the mark of assignment 1 was released, professor Bram Adams held a meeting with me to discuss my?negative peer review marks. In this meeting, he didn't directly provide me with the reasons that some of my group members give me negative peer review marks and just let me guess why I got the negative peer review. I made the assumption that maybe the reason is I seldom speak in the public channel so they thought I did nothing and the professor agrees me to improve my work based on my assumption.?
This meeting is the first meeting with professor Bram Adams.
?
During the assignment 2, I fix all the problems that we talk in the first discussion. I reported all my work and follow up on all the discussions in the group channel and handled the same parts which I was responsible for in assignment 1 because I think I was familiar with it.
This time, the situation I faced on the last day before the deadline is worse, the time for the summery part and presentation is shorter than the first time. The submission time of the presentation can prove what I said.
On the other hand, I think I would have positive feedback on the assignment 2 at that time because I improve all the problems we talked about in the first meeting. (But the true situation is the opposite)?
After all the marks were released, professor Bram Adams held another meeting with me to discuss my negative peer review marks on assignments 1 and 2 due to my peer review didn't get better in assignment 2, In this meeting, I assumed the negative peer review marks are related to I handle the summary parts in assignment 1 and 2 so some of my group members thought I did the easy work in the group work. But professor Bram Adams didn't confirm my assumptions.
Because I have?no right to read their comments, I still do not know why I get negative peer review marks.
This meeting is the second meeting with?professor Bram Adams.
?
----------------------------------?
After I review all my work carefully, I think it's unfair to take my grade because of the negative peer review on the assignment 1 and 2.
I also review what we discuss in our second meeting and find some logical conflict points.
As I demonstrated above, I did nothing wrong during the assignment 1 ----- I finished the work which I was assigned and volunteered for the presentation part. I don't know what happened in the first group meeting, but If they were not pleased I take responsibility for the summery part, why did they assign me this part in the beginning?
In the second group meeting, I clearly demonstrated what parts I want to handle, and no one argue with me about this. ----- If they are not pleased with what I handle, why they don't direct contact with me rather than give me negative peer reviews and write comments that I have no right to read?
I talk this with my group leader and he also has no ideas about these weird things.
The only reason that these?logical conflict points appear is that we make the wrong guess in our two meetings.
What's more, it is?unreasonable that I need to make assumptions or guess about what I doing wrong. Because I can't really improve my work without direct and clear feedback ----- I even have no right to read their comments
Furthermore, judging my performance only through peer review is unreliable. Maybe the guy who gives me the negative peer review is only because he or she doesn't like me or we have a quarrel during the working??
Documentation
Professional Letter Detail: n/a