DATE:
November 10, 2022
PARTIES:
O.R. ("the Student"). v. the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering
HEARING DATE:
August 12, 2022 via Zoom
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Sara Faherty, Chair
Professor Mark Lautens, Faculty Governor
Susan Froom, Student Governor
SECRETARY:
Krista Kennedy, Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE STUDENT APPELLANT:
The Student
FOR THE FACULTY OF APPLIED SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING:
Professor Thomas Coyle, Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering, Vice Dean, Undergraduate
The Student appeals the decision of the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering’s Academic Appeals Board denying the Student’s request to adjust his final grade in the course according to the appropriate calculations. The Student also adds that the appeal involves addressing several frustrations occurring during the time after the incorrect shut down of his exam and conversations attempting to remedy the incorrect shut down.
The standard writing time for the exam was two hours, but the Student had an academic accommodation and was allotted 210 minutes. The Student was writing the online exam and due to a technical error, at the two-hour mark the exam shut down. There is no dispute that a technical error interrupted the Student’s exam or that the Faculty is responsible for providing a remedy. The Student and the instructor emailed back and forth on the day of and after the exam. The Student also maintained contact with his accessibility services counsellor. Due to medical reasons, the Student missed the petition submission deadline. The Student was required to defer the December 2020 final exam for medical reasons and was scheduled to write the exam the following year. In Fall 2021, the Student contacted the instructor with the exam option he preferred. In late December 2021, the instructor informed the Student he did not have the authority to apply the remedy of moving the weight of the October 2020 exam to the final exam to determine the final course mark.
The Committee considered whether the Student was entitled to carry forward the remedy regarding his interrupted Fall 2020 midterm into the Fall 2021 term. The Committee and the Vice Dean support applying the Student’s request that the weight of the interrupted midterm be transferred to the final course mark. The Committee considered the appropriate method for calculating the Student’s term mark, finding that while there are different formulas that could be appropriate other than the Faculty’s standard process, the Student did not establish that in his case the method is inadequate or unfair, or that he is an outlier. The Committee notes that students are not entitled to choose the formula they prefer for the calculation of their marks, instead the Faculty has an interest in consistency and transparency with calculating marks. The Committee notes that there is a legitimate method to handling interrupted assessments and is consistent with how the Faculty deals with other students in similar cases. The Committee finds that the most appropriate remedy in this case is the one the Student agreed to before he wrote his final exam. The Committee also considered whether the errors made by the Faculty and adopted by the instructor burdened the Student and if so, what an appropriate remedy would be.
The Committee agrees that several errors were made by members of the Faculty in handling this case. First, the instructor engaged in lengthy exchanges with the Student instead of referring him to the appropriate department contacts or instructing him to submit a petition. Second, the instructor’s December 14, 2021 email incorrectly interpreted the Faculty’s approval of a deferred exam due to the Student’s December 2020 illness and erroneously believed it precluded the consideration already granted that the October 2021 midterm weight would be shifted to the final exam. Third, the Undergraduate Assessment Committee’s decision denied the Student’s petition for special consideration without understanding the Student’s request. A further inquiry would have been more appropriate. Finally, the April 18, 2022 Academic Appeals Board decision incorrectly denied the Student’s request to adjust his mark, not understanding that he was asking for an additional remedy based on a different set of facts.
The Committee finds that there were extensive errors on the part of the Faculty and miscommunication. The Student also made errors, and the Committee hopes the Faculty will improve its petition process.
The appeal was accepted, and the Student is entitled to two separate academic accommodations. The Student is entitled to shift the weight of his interrupted midterm to the final exam and entitled to defer the exam to the 2021 winter.