Petition Closed

Dr. Prescod ITM 102 Student Complaint

This petition had 109 supporters

On behalf of Dr. Prescod’s ITM 102 Fall 2017 students signed,

We would like to bring to your attention the issue of Dr. Franklyn Prescod's compliance to the course outline and the Ryerson University Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities. We are petitioning for a fair evaluation of our efforts in this course.

From the course outline:

"Your instructor is available for personal consultation during scheduled consultation hours which are posted on their office door or on the course shell in D2L Brightspace.  However, you are advised to make an appointment by e-mail or by telephone before coming to ensure that the professor is not unavoidably absent."

Dr. Prescod does not have office hours – he tells his students to see him during their lab time. The lab is part of our 3 hours per week contract. Outside of that, Dr. Prescod offers no office hours. He sometimes tells his students to email him when approached with questions in class, however, he leads an extremely poor email correspondence; students in my class have sent him emails before the midterm, and still have not received a response. I personally have sent Dr. Prescod two emails - he read one of them and responded to neither.

The Ryerson University Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities states that students have the right to receive information at the commencement of each course, including:

  • the instructor’s name;
  • office location;
  • hours and Ryerson telephone number;
  • a course description;
  • a list of course assignments, tests and approximate deadlines;
  • a marking or evaluation scheme;
  • a statement of the teaching mode(s);
  • a provision that planned alteration in the list of course assignments, tests, approximate deadlines, and in the marking or evaluation schemes shall be presented in class prior to being implemented;

Dr. Prescod does not offer office hours. He also does not explain how he is marking some of our assignments, or is vague or unclear about his marking. For instance, a major concern in my class have been the case studies. At the beginning of the semester, Dr. Prescod told us that we are to write 8 case studies, but only one will be marked, and we will have the opportunity to choose the one that will be marked as a class. Shortly before we had to submit the last case, Dr. Prescod retracted that statement and said that he will randomly choose one himself. He chose case 7, and several students tried to confront him about submitting the case late. He said that “there’s nothing he can do, and that’s the chance you take when you don’t submit one case”. Dr. Prescod goes back on his statements frequently, and leaves his students’ success up to “chance”. He also doesn't provide any feedback on any assignments, which prevents students from adapting to his expectations and getting better marks in the long run. Dr. Prescod also uses Turnitin scores as a basis for marking, automatically giving students a mark of 0 if their Turnitin score is high, without regard for proper quoting, as this is a summarizing assignment in part. Other professors, for instance, Dr. Hudyma, the course coordinator I have spoken to about this issue, mark an adjacent case if the one he chooses to mark is not submitted by a student. Other instructors also provide feedback on assignments. Students who need special accommodation can’t reach Dr. Prescod over email.

Also from the course outline:

"All sections of a course (Day and CE sections) will follow the same course outline and will use the same course delivery methods, methods of evaluation, and grading schemes. Any deviations will be posted on D2L Brightspace once approved by the course coordinator."

On December 1st, Section 072 students wrote the second lab quiz. Dr. Prescod was having technical difficulties, as he set the multiple choice D2L quiz to run in January instead of December. Not knowing how to change the date, he instead asked his students to submit their spreadsheets for evaluation. He did not explain how the spreadsheets would be marked. Some students got 2 hours to do the quiz, while others got 45 minutes. This also gave Section 072 a disadvantage compared to other sections, since they couldn’t use the benefits of guessing an answer. To that, he responded with “mistakes happen and plan B’s have to be put in place”. This method of evaluation for the second lab quiz has not been approved by a course coordinator, and is thus invalid. Dr. Prescod was not open to discussion on the matter and told his students, “instead of fighting with me, you should do your lab quiz”. Before the Section 072 quiz, Dr. Prescod made an announcement that he would post everyone’s quiz marks on December 1st at 11:30 am. Because he is manually marking spreadsheets by hand, it’s going to take a lot longer. However, Dr. Prescod did not make any announcements to the whole class to explain the situation, or otherwise communicate with his students about the quiz.

As a result of Dr. Franklyn Prescod’s unclear instructions and uncaring attitude, many students have received grades that are much lower than deserved at no fault of their own. When confronted about issues in class, Dr. Prescod tells his students that he “can’t help” them, or that he “doesn’t know”. He acts like his students’ issues don’t concern him, and often ignores them. His conduct violates the ITM 102 course outline, as well as the Ryerson University Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities. As a class, we would like Dr. Franklyn Prescod to reevaluate our case study and quiz two, as we do not feel we all received fair opportunities at achieving the grades we deserve, as well as adequate communication on these issues.

Today: Dr. Prescod’s ITM 102 Fall 2017 Classes is counting on you

Dr. Prescod’s ITM 102 Fall 2017 Classes needs your help with “Dr. Ozgur Turetken: Dr. Prescod ITM 102 Student Complaint”. Join Dr. Prescod’s ITM 102 Fall 2017 Classes and 108 supporters today.