DATE:
September 19, 2022
PARTIES:
A.A. ("the Student"). v. the Faculty of Arts and Science
HEARING DATE(S):
November 3, 2021, via Zoom
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Sara Faherty, Chair
Professor K. Sonu Gaind, Faculty Governor
Susan Froom, Student Governor
SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE STUDENT APPELLANT:
The Student
FOR THE FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCE:
Randy Boyagoda, Vice Dean, Faculty of Arts and Science
Lisa Lutwak, Director, Faculty Governance & Curriculum Services, Faculty of Arts and Science
The Student appeals the decision of the Faculty of Arts and Science communicating that the Student was not entitled to further re-grading of a quiz in the Winter 2020 term of BIO251H1, Form, Function and Development of Plants.
The quiz this appeal pertained to was administered March 2020. The Student emailed the instructor the day after and raised his concern that of the 4 true/false questions on the quiz, three were not testable. The Student did not at any point assert that his answers to the questions were correct. Instead, the Student challenged the fairness of the instructor’s decision to include the questions. The Student posited that the materials had not been covered in what students in the course had been asked to study at the time the quiz was given. The instructor provided the Student with his quiz in April 2020 and two days later, informed the Student that if he wanted to request a regrade, he needed to respond by 12:00 pm on April 19. The Student responded with a request for a regrade on April 19, at 10:51 pm. The instructor informed the Student he had missed the window to request a regrade. The Student asserted that the timeframe the instructor provided was not reasonable and inconsistent with both the information about requests in the syllabus or University policies.
The Committee was persuaded that the instructor’s handling of the Student’s request was inconsistent with Faculty of Arts and Science policies as the less-than-two-day-timeframe was not reasonable and the Student was entitled to twelve more days than he received. The problem was resolved the next day when the instructor forwarded the email exchange to the Associate Chair, Undergraduate, of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology department. The Associate Chair responded to the Student informing him that he could request a regrade and also added that the questions of concern in the quiz had been verified by the professor and TAs as consistent with learning expectations and resources provided to students. Through this email the Associate Chair addressed the Student’s substantive concerns regarding the validity of the questions. The Student continued to escalate the matter and repeatedly asserted that no one had addressed his underlying concerns and suggested that he had yet to have an academic with the appropriate background and training review his claims.
At issue in this appeal was the process and outcome of the Student’s request for a regrade of a quiz that was administered in the Winter 2020 term of BIO251H1. The appeal addressed the following questions: 1) Was the material covered in Quiz 3 testable?, 2) Did the Student’s instructor correctly state the policies regarding regrades on her syllabus or in her emails to the Student?, 3) Did the Student receive a fair and substantive review of his concerns?, 4) Did the Faculty follow Faculty policies and apply them fairly in following up with the Student?, 5) Is the Student entitled to further review of his score?, 6) Is the Student entitled to any of the additional remedies he requested?, and 7) Should the instructor’s regrade apply?
The Committee found that the material was testable as the instructor noted the three ways the material had been covered and the TAs verified this assessment. The Committee found that the Student’s instructor did not correctly state the policies of the Faculty—two errors were identified. First, the quiz should have been first regraded by the TA who marked it and not the instructor. Second, the instructor gave the Student an unreasonably short time period to submit his request. The Committee found that the Student eventually received a fair and substantive review, as the course TAs also verified the instructor’s assessment that the material has been presented and was thereby testable. The Committee also found that while the instructor was inconsistent with Faculty policies, the administrators at the Faculty who were notified of the issue by the instructor followed their policies. The Student asked for another review after receiving the first regrade of the quiz, this time reviewed by three qualified reviewers. The Committee found that the assignment, because it was weighted so slightly, did not warrant the Student’s request. The Committee found that while the outcome was not what the Student wanted, it was fair and explained with reasoning. Finally, the Committee considered whether the instructor’s regrade should have been applied. The Committee noted that the Student was very firm in not wanting the revised mark applied because he did not want the instructor to perform the regrade. The Committee agreed with the Student that the original, non-revised, mark should stand.
The Student was frustrated by what he viewed as the instructor’s unreasonable behaviour and violation of University policies. The Committee agreed that the instructor made errors but noted that the errors were quickly addressed and corrected by the Faculty and the Student was not academically harmed by the procedural mistakes. The Committee found that the primary remedy sought by the Student was not proportionate to the incident and not necessary as a qualified regrade took place. The other concerns the Student raised were beyond the Committee’s jurisdiction and better suited to human resources. The Committee found that the Student received a fair regrade and is not entitled to a further review.
Appeal was dismissed.