Policy 162(b) Grade Reassessment and Grade Recalculation in the Doctor of Medicine (MD) Program

1. Purpose of Policy 

2. Application and Scope 

This policy applies to all students who are enrolled in a course in the MD Program at Toronto Metropolitan University (the “University”).

3. Definitions 

3.1. Assistant Dean, Curricular Innovation

The clinical faculty member responsible for overseeing the curriculum in the MD program.

3.2. Associate Director, Curriculum

The clinical faculty member responsible for overseeing a particular course in the MD Program.  

3.3. Clinical Faculty

Refers to all members appointed to the School of Medicine in accordance with the Board's Clinical Faculty Policy.

3.4. Director, Curriculum

A senior clinical faculty leader in the MD Program with direct responsibility and oversight for all learning within a Phase. The Director, Curriculum for Phase 2 is also the Associate Director, Curriculum, for the Clerkship course.

3.5. Facilitator

A clinical faculty member who teaches and assesses small groups of students in a course in the MD Program.

3.6. Graded Course Component

In the MD Program a graded course component specifically refers to components of the programmatic assessment system that impact achievement within a course or course progression. This may include a project or assessment (e.g., mastery assessment, workplace-based assessment, Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), or end-of-rotation assessment). 

3.7. Grade Reassessment

A review and reevaluation of a graded course component when a student contests the grade based on the merit of their work.

3.8. Grade Recalculation

A review of the calculation of a final grade or a grade on a course component to eliminate arithmetic errors (e.g. improper addition) and/or omissions.

3.9. Phase

A designated time frame within the four-year MD program. Phase 1, the Foundations Phase, starts in September of Year 1 and lasts for 17 months. Phase 2, the Clinical and Community Immersion Phase, begins in the 18th month of the program and runs through to the 34th month, spanning another 17 months. Phase 3, the Professionalization Phase, commences in the 35th month of the program and continues until the end of April of Year 4, lasting 8 months.

3.10. Preceptor

A clinical faculty member who provides supervision and assessment for a required clinical learning experience, facilitating the application of theory to practice for MD Program students.

3.11. Programmatic Assessment

Programmatic Assessment is founded on a premise that a multitude of low-stakes samples of a learner’s progress on competency achievement is superior to a small number of high stakes tests – using various types of assessments to monitor competencies for a graduating TMU medical student. Assessments have two goals:

• Assessment for learning – focusing on using assessment as an opportunity for feedback and for students’ ongoing improvement (i.e., for growth); and
• Assessment of learning – focusing on students’ achievement of their learning outcomes and meeting their targets for each course and Program Learning Outcomes at the end of Year 1 and each of the 3 Phases of the program.

4. Principles 

4.1. The values stipulated in the University’s Senate Policy Framework are applicable and fundamental to this policy.

4.2. The School of Medicine is committed to promoting academic success and to ensuring that students’ grades accurately reflect their attainment of the intended learning outcomes of a course.

4.3. All members of the School of Medicine community (clinical faculty, students, and staff) are expected to act in good faith. “Good faith” is a general presumption that all parties involved are acting with honest and sincere intentions.

4.4. The School of Medicine expects facilitators/preceptors in the MD Program to:

4.4.1. ensure timely and constructive feedback in response to student work, in accordance with Policy 166: Course Management;

4.4.2. recognize the need to reconsider assessment of student work in some circumstances; and

4.4.3. process requests for grade reassessment and grade recalculation fairly, objectively, respectfully, transparently, and expeditiously.

4.5. The School of Medicine expects students to:

4.5.3. review written feedback on graded course components and seek additional feedback, where necessary, to understand evaluation procedures and decisions on course components; and

4.5.2. be respectful of facilitators’/preceptors’ subject matter expertise.

5.  General Regulations

5.1  Students’ requests for a grade reassessment must be based on sufficient academic grounds and be supported by evidence and documentation (e.g.from the course outline, course notes, textbooks, assignment grade rubric). Merely asserting that the work deserves a higher grade, that the student disagrees with the grade or that the assignment was the result of a great deal of effort, is insufficient support for a grade reassessment. At each stage of reassessment, the student must explicitly respond to the comments made in the previous assessment or reassessment in support of their argument that the grade does not reflect the academic merit of their work.

5.2. A reassessment or recalculation may result in the grade being raised, lowered, or maintained. 

5.3. Students have the right to see their graded course work. Students will be given supervised access to any graded work that has not been returned and be permitted to use that work for a reasonable length of time to prepare the required explanation for the grade reassessment or grade recalculation request.

5.4. All parties will abide by the timelines outlined in the Procedures: Grade Reassessment and Grade Recalculation. However, when warranted by special circumstances, decision-makers may waive or extend a deadline.

5.5. Students must be provided with the written rationale and explanation for grade reassessment and/or grade recalculation decisions made by facilitators/preceptors/Associate Directors, Curriculum/Directors, Curriculum, and independent assessors.   

5.6. If reassessment or recalculation of the course component was not done in compliance with this policy and its procedures, an appeal may be submitted on the grounds of procedural error. Please refer to Policy 168: Grade and Standing Appeals.

5.7. If reassessment or recalculation of the course component was done, and there are no grounds for procedural error, students cannot subsequently appeal the grade on the course component on Course Management grounds.    

5.8. The use of this policy to gain academic advantage or benefit, such as by resubmitting altered test or examination work after it has already been evaluated, constitutes academic misconduct and will be subject to the processes, penalties, and consequences, as outlined in Policy 60: Academic Integrity.

Related Policies

Policy 60: Academic Integrity

Policy 166: Course Management 

Policy 168: Grade and Standing Appeals

Policy 170(d): Grading, Progression and Academic Standing in the Doctor of Medicine (MD) Program

Procedures 

1.  Purpose of Procedures

The Grade Reassessment and Grade Recalculation in the Doctor of Medicine (MD) Program Procedures (the “Procedures”) outline the procedures to be followed when students request a grade reassessment or grade recalculation. The procedures are intended to be adaptable to the different phases of the curriculum, given that students will be moving back and forth between classroom and clinical environments.

2.  Grade Reassessment Procedures

Students who believe that a grade in a course component, either in whole or part, does not reflect the academic merit of their work should generally first review, by email, their concerns with the Associate Director, Curriculum of the course to resolve the issue. However, the Associate Director, Curriculum may specify that students review their concerns with the facilitator/preceptor, prior to requesting a reassessment by the Associate Director, Curriculum. In such cases, Associate Directors, Curriculum must inform students of this process in writing.

Reassessment, therefore, may be a multi-stage process commencing with an informal review by the facilitator/preceptor, proceeding to a request for reassessment to the Associate Director, Curriculum, and, thereafter, to the Director, Curriculum of the Phase offering the course, if the expectations specified in these Procedures are satisfied.

Where the facilitator/preceptor reviews the graded work and their reassessment results in a different grade, they must advise the Associate Director, Curriculum and provide the rationale for their decision.

2.1.  Reassessment of Graded Course Component

2.1.1. Student Responsibility 

2.1.1.1.   Students who believe that a grade in a course component, either in whole or part, does not reflect the academic merit of their work, and have reviewed their concerns with the facilitator/preceptor or designate, if that process is specified in writing by the Associate Director, Curriculum, should contact their/Associate Director, Curriculum within ten (10) business days of the date when the graded work in question is returned to the class, or when the grade on the work is posted. Grades not questioned within this period may not be reassessed. In the case of Phase 2, the Director, Curriculum (Phase 2) is also the Associate Director, Curriculum for the Clerkship Course.

2.1.1.2.  For work graded during the final week of classes, there might not be an opportunity to review the work with the Associate Director, Curriculum prior to the assignment of a final grade in the course. In that case, students should contact, by email, the Associate Director, Curriculum about the work as soon as possible, and usually within ten (10) business days from the date that grades and standing are available to students on MyServiceHub.

2.1.1.3.  Students can discuss their concerns with the Associate Director, Curriculum either verbally or by email. Students are encouraged to follow up on verbal discussions with emails to record that a discussion took place at a specified time and/or to summarize the outcome of the discussion. Failure to properly document such discussions may jeopardize any future appeal.

2.1.1.4.  Students may be required to submit a written rationale to the Associate Director, Curriculum, explaining why they believe the work merits a higher grade. The rationale must be based on academic grounds and be supported by evidence and documentation (e.g. from the course outline, course notes, textbooks, assignment grade rubric). Where the facilitator/preceptor has reassessed the work, any comments made by them should be explicitly addressed by the student. Requests that are not based on the merit of the work will not be considered.

2.1.1.5.  Students must recognize that there are graded course components, such as oral presentations or some workplace-based assessments, which do not lend themselves to reassessment. However, where a record (e.g. audio or video recording) of the course component is available, reassessment may be possible. Where reassessment is not possible students may raise their concerns with the Associate Director, Curriculum.

2.1.1.6.  If the Associate Director, Curriculum denies, or does not respond to the request for a grade reassessment within ten (10) working days, or if the student disagrees with the result, the student may submit a formal request for grade reassessment to the Director, Curriculum, of the Phase, within ten (10) working days.

2.1.1.7.  Students who have exhausted all avenues of the grade reassessment process and believe that a procedural error has occurred in which there has been a violation of this policy or its procedures, may submit a formal grade and/or standing appeal under Policy 168: Grade and Standing Appeals. All formal grade and standing appeals must be submitted by the deadlines to appeal or within 10 business days of receiving the grade reassessment decision if the appeal deadline has passed.

2.1.2.  Associate Director, Curriculum Responsibility

2.1.2.1.   Associate Directors, Curriculum must ensure graded work is returned to students in a timely manner.

2.1.2.2.  Associate Directors, Curriculum must respond to students’ requests for grade reassessment in a timely manner, that may not be longer than ten (10) business days of students’ requests, assuming that students have met the ten (10) business day deadline for submitting requests.

2.1.2.3.  Associate Directors, Curriculum should inform students that the reassessment of a graded course component may result in a grade that is higher, lower or remain the same as the original grade.

2.1.2.4.  If Associate Directors, Curriculum do not grant the request for reassessment, they must provide students with a written rationale for the denial.

2.1.2.5.  If Associate Directors, Curriculum reassess the course component, they must provide students with a written rationale for their decision, explaining why the grade was maintained, raised or lowered.

2.1.2.6.  If the grade reassessment results in a change to a final grade, Associate Directors, Curriculum are responsible for submitting the grade revision.

2.1.3.  Director, Curriculum Responsibility

2.1.3.1.   The Director, Curriculum must assist in resolving disputes over grade reassessments when students ask for assistance (e.g., in some circumstances arranging a grade reassessment by an independent assessor).

2.1.3.2.  If the Director, Curriculum is the Associate Director, Curriculum for a course in which reassessment is being requested, and the matter cannot be resolved, the Director, Curriculum must request that the Assistant Dean, Curricular Innovation appoint an appropriate replacement to act as Director, Curriculum in the process.

2.2.  Formal Grade Reassessment by an Independent Assessor

2.2.1.  Student Responsibility

2.2.1.1. Students may submit a formal written request for a grade reassessment to the Director, Curriculum in the MD Program, in any of the following circumstances:

2.2.1.1.1. they do not feel they can discuss the matter with the Associate Director, Curriculum;

2.2.1.1.2. the Associate Director, Curriculum has not responded to the student or reassessed the work within ten (10) business days of the student’s request;

2.2.1.1.3. they have not been able to resolve the matter with the Associate Director, Curriculum.

2.2.1.2. Students’ formal grade reassessment requests must be based on academic grounds and be supported by evidence and documentation.

2.2.1.3. Students must recognize that there are graded course components, such as oral presentations or some work-based assessments, which do not lend themselves to independent reassessment. However, where a record (e.g. audio or video recording) of the course component is available, reassessment may be possible. Where reassessment is not possible, students may raise their concerns with the Director, Curriculum.

2.2.1.4. Students must explain in writing, and provide evidence and documentation, regarding the reason(s) they believe the original grade does not reflect the merit of their work, explicitly address any comments made in previous reassessments, and whether:

2.2.1.4.1. the Associate Director, Curriculum’s revised grade is inappropriate; and/or

2.2.1.4.2. the Associate Director, Curriculum’s refusal to reassess the work is not correct.

2.2.1.5. If the course component in question has been returned to students, those requesting a reassessment of that component must submit it with the formal application, and must make and keep a copy of the course component for their records.

2.2.1.6. Students must provide the Director, Curriculum with the course outline and the requirements of the graded course component in question.

2.2.2.  Associate Director, Curriculum Responsibility

2.2.2.1. The Associate Director, Curriculum must provide the Director, Curriculum, with the grading scheme utilized in evaluating the work.

2.2.2.2. For work not in the student’s possession, such as a project or OSCE , the Associate Director, Curriculum will submit this to the Director, Curriculum. Associate Directors, Curriculum must make and keep a copy of this work for their records.

2.2.3.  Director, Curriculum Responsibility

2.2.3.1. Within ten (10) business days after receiving all relevant documents, the Director, Curriculum must inform the student in writing whether the requested grade reassessment will proceed.

2.2.3.2. If a request for grade reassessment is not provided, the student must receive written feedback that provides a rationale for denying the request. This decision cannot be appealed further.

2.2.3.3. if students raise concerns about a course component that does not lend itself to independent reassessment, the Director, Curriculum is expected to respond in writing to the concerns.

2.2.3.4. If students request a partial reassessment, the Director, Curriculum will determine if such a partial reassessment is appropriate.

2.2.3.4.1. if the Director, Curriculum decides that more than the requested part of the work will be reassessed, the student must be notified by email prior to the reassessment, with an explanation of why the structure of the work warrants such a decision.

2.2.3.4.2. In this case, the student has five (5) business days to decide whether to withdraw the request for reassessment.

2.2.3.5. The Director, Curriculum must ensure that grade reassessments are done by qualified individuals. The Director, Curriculum may select a new assessor who is internal or external to the University. Normally, the Director, Curriculum should not be the assessor. The Director, Curriculum will take steps to ensure the impartiality of the assessor.

2.2.3.5.1. The Director, Curriculum will provide the assessor with the grading scheme and clean copy of the work, identical to the originally submitted work, with all grading notations and all student identifiers deleted.

2.2.3.5.2. Normally, neither the Associate Director, Curriculum nor the student will be informed of the identity of the assessor.

2.2.3.5.3. Neither the Director, Curriculum nor a selected assessor will consult with the original assessor.

2.2.3.6. The Director, Curriculum will communicate the decision of the new assessor, to the student and the Associate Director, Curriculum, by email, normally within ten (10) business days of informing the student that the grade reassessment request was granted. If more time is needed to assess the work, the/Director, Curriculum will inform the student by email.

2.2.3.7. The Director, Curriculum must communicate the rationale for the decision, explaining why the grade was maintained, raised or lowered.

2.2.3.8. The reassessed work will be sent to the student. However, if the work was not in the hands of the student, e.g. project, the reassessed work will be sent to the Associate Director, Curriculum, and the Director, Curriculum will advise the student accordingly. The student may have supervised access to the reassessed work by contacting the Associate Director, Curriculum.The reassessed grade becomes the official grade for that work. If the final grade is revised, the Associate Director, Curriculum is responsible for submitting the grade revision. Normally, the Director, Curriculum will advise the Associate Director, Curriculum of the results of the reassessment and request that the Associate Director, Curriculum amend the student’s final grade accordingly. If the Associate Director, Curriculum declines to do so, or fails to do so within five (5) business days, the Dean or Dean’s designate is authorized to submit a grade change form and must inform the Associate Director, Curriculum that a grade change has been authorized. The regraded mark becomes the final mark for the coursework and is not appealable.

3.  Grade Recalculation Procedures 

Students who believe that there has been an error (e.g., due to an omission, improper addition) in calculating the grade on an individual course component should generally first review their concerns with the Associate Director, Curriculum to resolve the issue. However, the Associate Director, Curriculum may specify that students review their concerns with the facilitator/preceptor or designate prior to requesting a grade recalculation by the Associate Director, Curriculum. In such cases, Associate Directors, Curriculum must inform students of this process in writing.

Grade recalculation, therefore, may be a multi-stage process commencing with an informal review by the facilitator/preceptor, proceeding to a request for grade recalculation to the Associate Director, Curriculum and, thereafter, to the Director, Curriculum if the expectations specified in these Procedures are satisfied.

Where facilitators/preceptors review the calculation of the grade and this results in a different grade, they must advise the Associate Director, Curriculum and provide the rationale for their decision.

3.1.  Student Responsibility 

3.1.1. Students who believe that there has been an error (e.g., due to an omission, improper addition) in calculating the grade on an individual course component and have reviewed their concerns with the facilitator/preceptor or designate, where this process is specified in writing by the Associate Director, Curriculum, should contact their Associate Director, Curriculum  as soon as possible and usually within ten (10) business days of the date when the graded work in question is returned to the class, or when the grade on the work is posted, to resolve the issue. In the case of Phase 2, the Director, Curriculum (Phase 2) is also the Associate Director, Curriculum for the Clerkship Course.

3.1.2. For work graded during the final week of classes, there might not be an opportunity to review the work with the Associate Director, Curriculum prior to the assignment of a final grade in the course. In that case, the student should contact the Associate Director, Curriculum about the work as soon as possible, usually within ten (10) business days from the date that grades and standing are available to students on MyServiceHub.

3.1.3. Students can raise their concerns with the Associate Director, Curriculum either verbally or by email. Students are encouraged to follow up on verbal discussions with emails to record that a discussion took place at a specified time and/or to summarize the outcome of the discussion.

3.1.4. Students who request a grade recalculation must submit the relevant, original course work that has been returned to them and indicate precisely where they think the error has occurred. If the Associate Director, Curriculum has the graded work, the student will be given supervised access to the work to prepare the required explanation for the grade recalculation.

3.1.5. Students may submit a written request for a grade recalculation to the Director, Curriculum in the MD Program, in any of the following circumstances:

3.1.5.1. they do not feel they can discuss the matter with the Associate Director, Curriculum

3.1.5.2. the Associate Director, Curriculum has not responded to the student within ten (10) business days of the student’s request for a grade recalculation;

3.1.5.3. the Associate Director, Curriculum has not recalculated the work within ten (10) business days of the student’s request for a grade recalculation;

3.1.5.4. they have not resolved the matter with the Associate Director, Curriculum.

3.1.6. Students who have exhausted all avenues of the grade reassessment process and believe that a procedural error has occurred in which there has been a violation of this policy or its procedures, may submit a formal final grade and or standing appeal under Policy 168: Grade and Standing Appeals. All formal grade and standing appeals must be submitted by the appeal deadlines or within 10 business days of receiving the grade reassessment decision if the appeal deadline has passed.

3.2.  Associate Director, Curriculum Responsibility

3.2.1. Associate Directors, Curriculum should inform students that the grade recalculation of a graded course component may result in a grade that is higher, lower or the same as the original grade.

3.2.2. A grade recalculation will not result in the work being reread/reassessed. However, if a section of the work was not graded that section will be read and assessed, and the grade for that section will be included in the grade total.

3.2.3. Associate Directors, Curriculum must respond, verbally or by email, within ten (10) business days to students’ requests for a grade recalculation. Associate Directors, Curriculum must inform the student in writing whether a grade change has occurred and the reason(s) for their decision.

3.2.4. If a grade change has occurred, the Associate Director, Curriculum is responsible for submitting the grade revision. 

3.3.  Director, Curriculum Responsibility

3.3.1. The Director, Curriculum must assist in resolving disputes over grade recalculation when students ask for assistance.

3.3.2. If the Director, Curriculum is the Associate Director, Curriculum for a course in which recalculation is being requested, and the matter cannot be resolved, the Director, Curriculum must request that the Dean of the School of Medicine appoint an appropriate replacement to act as Director, Curriculum in the process.

3.3.3. The Director, Curriculum must respond to students’ requests for grade recalculation within ten (10) business days after receiving all relevant documents.

3.3.4. The Director, Curriculum must inform the student in writing as to whether there is a change in grade and the reason(s) for the decision.

3.3.5. Where there is a change in the grade, the Associate Director, Curriculum is responsible for submitting the grade revision. Normally, the Director, Curriculum will advise the Associate Director, Curriculum of the results of the grade recalculation and request that the Associate Director, Curriculum amend the student’s final grade accordingly. If the Associate Director, Curriculum declines to do so, or fails to do so within five (5) working days, the Dean or Dean’s designate is authorized to submit a grade change form and must inform the Associate Director, Curriculum that a grade change has been authorized.