Petition Letter
Point of clarification: I received the grading for my COMM 251 midterm in week 8 and initially began the appeals process through the Certificate in Business personnel until I was directed to appeal through the appropriate arts and science channels.
-------
The midterm for my COMM 251 course included a long answer section. The section had poor wording which led to myself and another student in the class misinterpreting the question and answering an insufficient number of questions for full marks.
The long answer section was structured as follows: 1. a), b), c),; 2. a), b), c),; and 3. a), b), c). The midterm stated that the student was to answer ONE question and all of its sub-headings. Given that the questions were numbered 1, 2, and 3, I had interpreted the question to mean that I was to answer either question 1, 2, or 3, and all of its subheadings (a, b, and c). However, the question was actually looking for the student to answer all of the questions (1. abc, 2. abc, and 3. abc).
I only answered 1. a, b, c and, though recieved full marks for the question, I missed out on the possible points from answering 2. abc and 3. abc due to the unclear nature of the wording. The long answer portion of the midterm was worth a significant portion of the overall mark (about 40), and missing two thirds of these questions drastically affected my grade. Had the question asked for me to answer all of the questions rather than one question, I would have been able to interpret the question as it was intended. During one of our conversations after receiving my midterm back, Ms. Xiaoxi Chang explained that she had worded the question as such because the final exam had several options to choose from and she wanted to prepare us for the final. However, the midterm did not have any options and, as such, I think that it was a poor choice to use wording that was not relevant to our examination and, in fact, could potentially have detrimental effects on the students' interpretation of the question.
I was unable to ask the professor for clarification on this question during the midterm since she had left prior to my arrival at the question. I asked the proctor for clarification, but she had said that she did not know the answer.
After speaking with some other students about the midterm, I learned that several other students had also found issues with the wording of the long answer section. One student, Jordan Greene, asked the professor for clarification during the midterm; however, the prof did not clarify for the rest of the class. Furthermore, during one of our conversations, Ms. Xiaoxi Chang revealed that one week prior to the midterm, several students had posed questions at the end of class about how to properly interpret the long answer section. Despite these instances of questions being raised about the clarity of the long answer section, Ms. Xiaoxi Chang did feel that it was necessary to reword the question for better clarity or to make an announcement to the class during the midterm to address the issue.
Finally, another student, Malcolm Hand, misinterpreted the wording of the long answer section in the same manner that I did. He is appealing the grading of the long answer question through the Engineering department.
Given my significantly higher grades in other assignments in the COMM 251 course and my higher grading on the other parts of the midterm, I feel that the marking of the long answer section of the midterm is not an accurate representation of my understanding of the material or my ability as a student. As such, I request that the mark be reviewed and changed in a manner that the Associate Dean feels is a more fair and appropriate reflection of my understanding of the course.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jake Roseman.
-------
The midterm for my COMM 251 course included a long answer section. The section had poor wording which led to myself and another student in the class misinterpreting the question and answering an insufficient number of questions for full marks.
The long answer section was structured as follows: 1. a), b), c),; 2. a), b), c),; and 3. a), b), c). The midterm stated that the student was to answer ONE question and all of its sub-headings. Given that the questions were numbered 1, 2, and 3, I had interpreted the question to mean that I was to answer either question 1, 2, or 3, and all of its subheadings (a, b, and c). However, the question was actually looking for the student to answer all of the questions (1. abc, 2. abc, and 3. abc).
I only answered 1. a, b, c and, though recieved full marks for the question, I missed out on the possible points from answering 2. abc and 3. abc due to the unclear nature of the wording. The long answer portion of the midterm was worth a significant portion of the overall mark (about 40), and missing two thirds of these questions drastically affected my grade. Had the question asked for me to answer all of the questions rather than one question, I would have been able to interpret the question as it was intended. During one of our conversations after receiving my midterm back, Ms. Xiaoxi Chang explained that she had worded the question as such because the final exam had several options to choose from and she wanted to prepare us for the final. However, the midterm did not have any options and, as such, I think that it was a poor choice to use wording that was not relevant to our examination and, in fact, could potentially have detrimental effects on the students' interpretation of the question.
I was unable to ask the professor for clarification on this question during the midterm since she had left prior to my arrival at the question. I asked the proctor for clarification, but she had said that she did not know the answer.
After speaking with some other students about the midterm, I learned that several other students had also found issues with the wording of the long answer section. One student, Jordan Greene, asked the professor for clarification during the midterm; however, the prof did not clarify for the rest of the class. Furthermore, during one of our conversations, Ms. Xiaoxi Chang revealed that one week prior to the midterm, several students had posed questions at the end of class about how to properly interpret the long answer section. Despite these instances of questions being raised about the clarity of the long answer section, Ms. Xiaoxi Chang did feel that it was necessary to reword the question for better clarity or to make an announcement to the class during the midterm to address the issue.
Finally, another student, Malcolm Hand, misinterpreted the wording of the long answer section in the same manner that I did. He is appealing the grading of the long answer question through the Engineering department.
Given my significantly higher grades in other assignments in the COMM 251 course and my higher grading on the other parts of the midterm, I feel that the marking of the long answer section of the midterm is not an accurate representation of my understanding of the material or my ability as a student. As such, I request that the mark be reviewed and changed in a manner that the Associate Dean feels is a more fair and appropriate reflection of my understanding of the course.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jake Roseman.