Remark on final module - University

[ohmydays37]

DS just had his final mark on L6 module and the feedback completely dismisses any work he has done. Not one thing noted to be good.

He worked as a group and the other two people have been scored considerably more. One of them missed things out. To say he is devastated for all the hard work and months of slog is an understatement.

Any advice on if it can be remarked as his papers to have been marked by someone new to the university and the other two marked by the course lecturer.

This will also affect his overall degree classification as it's weighted 1/3 for L5 & 2/3 for L6.

It will vary university to university, so he needs to look up the regs for his institution. At my place, there is no right to appeal academic judgement, only an administrative check to ensure the marks have been added correctly and assigned to the right student.

At this stage, work has been marked, internally reviewed and signed off by the external examiner, so a change is unlikely.

However, if he is convinced the marking is inconsistent (it can happen), he should sent a polite email to either his advisor or the academic who oversees his programme, explaining the issue and asking if they could look into it. Academics with such roles are exhausted at this time of year, and their inboxes overflowing, so a short polite email will be much more favourably received than a long emotional or angry one.

I agree with @CelesteCunningham OP.

If DS has a good relationship with his academic advisor (aka personal tutor) I would start there.

Did the group members do the work together and write up their results individually?

Aside from the fact that academic judgment is not grounds for an appeal, it would not be tactful for DS to question the lecturer’s marking of one of the other papers, even to his AA. Best if he focusses on his own paper.

Sometimes new academics do grade harshly

I didn't want to drop nor give too much information.

This is an art based degree and DS worked with both people to help produce their final pieces. Whilst both the other have got considerably higher marks DS has been penalised for not creating alternatives (drawings).

However, both the others were very clear on what they wanted and didn't want DS to change direction.

He's worked so hard on this and just about passed and I think what's hurt is the feedback in all negative and nothing about the work he has actually done for both people.

Thanks, OP

Did each help the others with their final pieces? Was each supposed to credit all help? Did DS receive proper credit in the write ups of the other two, and is the work described therein supposed to be part of his mark?

Sorry for the barrage of questions, just trying to understand. In my discipline students are most definitely required to credit help received. Whether one’s contributions to others’ projects count towards one’s mark should be specified in the rubric.

Failing to allocate such marks to DS is arguably an oversight (if the marks are indeed to be allocated), especially as he was marked by someone else. That’s more of a mix-up than anything else, hopefully easy to rectify.

I am afraid I can’t comment on the penalty for failing to create alternatives. It should all be in the marking rubric.

It's hard to piece together what happened, and you're right not to share his info, my own discipline couldn't be less creative so it's a very different world.

Was it group work or did they work together on individual projects?

If he left out things that were required in the project description such as alternative drawings, then it's not possible to be marked for them. It's not so much that he's penalised, it's just that he can't gain marks for that work. So, say, the drawings are worth 20%, if he doesn't do them then he's only going to be marked out of 80, and so even if the rest of the work is at first class standard he'll only be getting a 2.2.

Like I say, hard to know what happened. An informal chat with someone on the course is probably the best place to start, but he'll need to read up on the processes and what's actually possible.

They had to work with two separate people so DS was asked to work with these individuals. DS could only be marked on what he produced for them and had no say on layout etc

I know I'm drip feeding loads but I can't fully say the course.

Worst thing is he has a disability (DSA in place) and was very ill over Christmas and got progressively worse during the first module and after getting one week extenuating extension he asked for a few more days and was told it wasn't in HIS best interest and they deducted 10 points for being 2 days late. They asked for more evidence which we got from his nurse specialist and lab report and they just ignored it.

He left one thing out which was something minor yet his mate missed out his whole 3 year reel and still got 16 marks more.

Gutted for him 🙁

Worst thing is he has a disability (DSA in place) and was very ill over Christmas and got progressively worse during the first module and after getting one week extenuating extension he asked for a few more days and was told it wasn't in HIS best interest and they deducted 10 points for being 2 days late. They asked for more evidence which we got from his nurse specialist and lab report and they just ignored it.

Ok this is likely his best chance of an appeal - ask them to remove the late penalty given his evidence and disability.

@CelesteCunningham has a good idea.

I also agree you should not risk identifying DS, OP, but as things stand it is hard to understand what happened. Is it possible that the new academic who marked DS overlooked some of his contributions? If so that is certainly worth raising, politely, in his informal conversation.

It is well within the remit of his personal tutor or academic adviser to give an informal view on how best to proceed. Particularly if there is any chance that work has been overlooked. @CelesteCunningham suggested the best approach.

OTOH if DS doesn’t really know this person or if they don’t respond within a few days, he should contact a Student Support Officer in the Teaching and Learning Office.

Gently, again, best to focus on his own case. The issues as far as I can see are (a) whether he has grounds for appeal per the first term episode and (b) whether any marks were overlooked on the recent project. He needs to stay well away from appearing to question academic judgment.

(A poor rubric may or may not be grounds for appeal - just a thought.)

Being marked by a new academic who may have interpreted the rubric a bit more strictly is just one of life’s pieces of bad luck. The marks have presumably been externally moderated and found acceptable, but external moderation would not necessarily pick up a gap in communication if indeed that is the problem.

I am a bit concerned I don’t understand the project well enough even to be saying this, so proceed with caution. Best wishes to DS.

I work in a uni as a disability adviser, this is unacceptable and could be disability discrimination, unless he hasn't done the work, I am unsure what has actually occurred.

Often universities have stringent rules regarding no appeals as the marking goes through a process, for my degree it was marked and then possibly sent through two others, one internal and if chosen one external. So this might not be possible as for standard procedure.

However, if he can prove he has supplied disability evidence and they have done nothing that needs questioning either way.

@No3387 he completed the work and was deducted 10 marks due to late submission. He applied for EC and was approved with an extra week. During request of EC and submission date (about 3 weeks) his health deteriorated and ended up really ill. Hospital prescribed meds and he asked for an extra week. They asked for evidence which the nurse wrote a detailed letter along with lab results to support this and they declined the extra week due to not being in his best interest and he need to just finish. He did finish 2 days late so lost the 10 marks.

Any advice as this was the module due after Christmas.

Whilst both the other have got considerably higher marks DS has been penalised for not creating alternatives (drawings).

However, both the others were very clear on what they wanted and didn't want DS to change direction.

As other academics have said, there is usually no appeal on academic grounds. But speaking to a personal tutor to understand the feedback might help.

He should NOT mention other students' work or marks. We cannot talk about other students's work to their peers, obviously.

The other thing that might be most useful is for him to approach the course lecturer/ convenor of the module. It sounds as if it's been team-taught & team marked.

He shouldn't approach this as getting a re-mark. He should look at the assessment criteria for that particular assignment and speak to the course lecturer/ convenor to get help in understanding why his work did not align to the assessment criteria for that assignment in this case.

At the very least, it could help your DS understand why he was given the mark he was given. But it might prompt the module convenor to look again at his assignment.

Surely the only answer anyone can give is that he needs to ask his tutors/department?

I think his best approach is to appeal on the grounds of material error i.e. They didn't take the fluctuating nature of his disability into account and shouldn't have deducted 10 marks. I don't think he stand much chance with any other grounds.

I think also (reading your further posts) that your DS will need to separate out the late submission penalty, and the mark given.

On the face of it, reading your account, he should not have been penalised. I can understand the view that it's in his interests to submit, as near as possible to the deadline - it is in his interests - students who defer & defer generally don't do as well ultimately. However, in your DS' case there was documented illness and a DSA.

It sounds as though the marker marked according to the assessment criteria - your DS should ask for a tutorial with the course lecturer to understand what happened, and also maybe to explain why he submitted what he submittted.

Sadly, it may also be that your DS' work was just not as good as his peers'.

Thanks everyone. He's reached out to his course leader (as per Uni handbook). So we will have to wait and see what is said.

Good luck to him!

As someone who had an issue with a module mark, and did manage to get the disputed element re-marked... you need to find any bits of the process or the marking rubric that haven't been strictly followed (and yes, I'd be focusing in on the late submission deduction mainly) - you really won't get anywhere if you're just challenging on unfairness.

Mine was basically a placement supervisor who didn't like me (I'm autistic so can be a bit interpersonal marmite at times but it doesn't affect my clinical performance) so hammered my mark down. I specifically challenged one disputed module mark (and it had pulled me down a degree class as well or I'd have left it). Looking back at my successful challenge - because of the Covid period I'd had a bit of a fucked up cobbled together placement with 1 day in one setting all over the place - and the placement educator had marked me down because the nature of the placement had not given sufficient chance for me to demonstrate x and y (and put bluntly that's a uni problem - not a me problem); and I also challenged various elements of the report which were directly discriminatory based upon my ASD diagnosis. I had various elements of my diagnostic report I added into the statement, and also an email audit trail that I had raised concerns about disability discrimination at multiple times during the placement - appeal was upheld, the placement was re-marked by one of the academic staff based upon my final submitted case studies after the placement and I think that the mark for that element was upped by something like 15% and it had the domino effect of moving my overall degree mark and classification up into the First bracket. They took their blooming sweet time to do it - so I graduated with it still unresolved and was NOT a happy bunny, I had to escalate it to a formal complaint as they'd not stuck to their process timelines to get it moving in the end. Degree certificate and transcript updated - the whole thing.

Since then I've been working successfully in the career this course was training for for a couple of years, been promoted once and my ASD has never been an issue with colleagues who are fully briefed to tell me if I'm being annoying - so it was just me being really unlucky with a placement. The uni have since stopped the practice of clinicians allocating placement marks altogether as well - and ironically I now supervise students from the uni on THEIR placements in my work!

I also talked it through with my personal tutor in the first instance and she clarified the lines of dispute I could take regarding it all - which then evolved into the two-fold argument I described above - that the way I was put into a composite placement which one person felt didn't mean I could demonstrate skills was not my fault and didn't give me parity with peers who had a straightforward placement over multiple days a week in one setting; and the disability discrimination angle of her marking me down because she found me a bit autistically annoying.

I think I may remember your situation, @DoNotScrapeMyDataBishes , though not your user name. If I do, this is a great update!

DS spoke with Personal Tutor and they are not budging re mark.

DS confirmed he is on the cusp of two grades and then they discussed the previous module and being marked down 10 points due to late submission due to DS health issues declining in between EC and deadline.
PT said he needs to appeal this via admin.

Any advice on this?

He should speak to the student union at his university - they'll have the best advice as they'll know the procedures at that institution.

If he has a borderline degree classification, it's probably been looked at in detail multiple times. But definitely worth a try re the penalty.

He should gather all information that was provided just so he has it to hand.

The PT is best placed to know. A further deterioration in health as you’ve described would be strong grounds for appeal at my university (evidence would be required however).

Agree with @CelesteCunningham that contacting the SU for advice is a good idea.

But this is pretty standard, and I suspect what most academics have advised upthread.

Academic judgement can very rarely be challenged (generally only on grounds of a procedural breach). However, an appeal - for mitigation not a remark as to the quality of the work - could be on grounds of his ill-health.

If he presents the appropriate documentation, and Examination Board can decide that his work was affected by his ill-health and recommend an adjustment to his overall grade. At my place there are grades of effect, corresponding with how many percentage points by which we can moderate the overall module mark - eg "severely affected" or "mildly affected" and so on.

Whereas at mine, the mark can't be adjusted for illness etc at all - we have a strict fit to sit rule, and by showing up for an exam or submitting an assignment students are declaring themselves fit to sit and the mark stands with no adjustments. Students with illnesses etc can only apply for deferrals and extensions.

This is why it's so important your DS gets advice from within his institution OP, the rules vary hugely.