Editing Herzing Issues: Grading and Academic Records (section)

=== HU-124: Faculty deducted points from the reporting student's NU725-7D discussion for not including working links; links were visibly present in the submission; Wilma Hart-Flynn PhD RN feedback says "please make certain all references have a working link" but all four reference URLs were submitted and visible in Canvas ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Faculty Grading Error / Points Deducted for Work Submitted
! Date added
| 2026-05-11
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Wilma Hart-Flynn PhD RN / NU725 Faculty
|}
'''Finding.''' Per the tracker's evidence, the reporting student submitted three original discussion posts in NU725-7D Unit 1 (Legal and Ethical Issues in Technology) on May 5, 2026, between 5:05 and 5:09 AM, each containing properly formatted APA citations with hyperlinked URLs embedded directly in the Canvas submission. Four reference links were submitted and are visible in the Canvas screenshots, mapped by post as follows. Post 1 contained two references: HHS OCR (2023), a cybersecurity newsletter at [https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/guidance/cybersecurity-newsletter-october-2023/index.html], and Wasserman and Wasserman (2022), an article in Frontiers in Digital Health at [https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2022.862221]. Post 2 contained one reference: HHS OCR (2024), a cybersecurity newsletter at [https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/guidance/cybersecurity-newsletter-october-2024/index.html]. Post 3 contained one reference: Al Bahrani and Medhi (2023), an article in Cureus at [https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.40486]. On May 11, 2026 at 10:25 AM, Wilma Hart-Flynn PhD RN left feedback stating the student should make certain all references have a working link. Canvas displayed a "Re-submit Assignment" button, indicating points were deducted or grading withheld pending resubmission based on that feedback, even though all four reference URLs were submitted and are legitimate working links to government publications and peer-reviewed journals.

'''Evidence.''' Canvas screenshots of the reporting student's NU725-7D Unit 1 discussion posts (May 5, 2026, 5:05 to 5:09 AM) show the four reference links across three posts: Post 1, HHS OCR (2023) at [https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/guidance/cybersecurity-newsletter-october-2023/index.html] and Wasserman and Wasserman (2022) at [https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2022.862221]; Post 2, HHS OCR (2024) at [https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/guidance/cybersecurity-newsletter-october-2024/index.html]; Post 3, Al Bahrani and Medhi (2023) at [https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.40486]. Faculty feedback and a Canvas "Re-submit Assignment" button appear on the May 11, 2026 grading record. Source group: Canvas NU725-7D Discussion Posts and Faculty Feedback, the reporting student, May 5 to 11, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Great information on unauthorized access. Please make certain all references have a working link please.</blockquote>
The submitted post, dated nine days earlier on May 5, 2026, contains four working links visible in the Canvas screenshots: the HHS OCR 2023 newsletter, the Wasserman 2022 DOI, the HHS OCR 2024 newsletter, and the Al Bahrani 2023 DOI, each shown as an active hyperlink in the submission.

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4: assessment and grading must be accurate and based on submitted work. Deducting points or withholding grades on the basis that links were not submitted, when those links are visibly present in the Canvas submission, is a factual grading error. 34 CFR 668.14 (administrative capability): grading processes must accurately reflect what was submitted. Due process principles in academic grading hold that a student must not be penalized for failing to do something they demonstrably did. The May 11 feedback is factually incorrect as applied to this submission, since the links were present in the post as submitted on May 5, 2026.

'''Impact.''' Points were deducted from a discussion post that fully complied with the reference link requirement. The resubmission workflow required the reporting student to spend additional time correcting a problem that did not exist in his submission. If a resubmission was required and not made before any applicable deadline, he risked a zero or reduced grade for work correctly submitted. In a program where fractions of a point can trigger a four-month delay ({{HU|HU-095}}), grade deductions for submitted work constitute a material academic harm. The feedback also raises a concern about whether faculty are reviewing student submissions before posting feedback.

'''Notes.''' Additional facts from the weekly report for the week ending May 17, 2026: the reporting student emailed Dr. Hart-Flynn on Monday and again on Wednesday with no response, and she did not respond until after that week's discussion post deadline had passed. When she finally responded, her explanation was that the security on her computer prevented her from opening the link, which confirms the links existed and were submitted, attributes the grading error to her own computer settings rather than any deficiency in the student's submission, and reflects faculty non-responsiveness that prevented the reporting student from correcting any perceived issue within the submission window. Wilma Hart-Flynn PhD RN is a newly identified faculty member for NU725-7D. All four submitted URLs are verifiable published sources. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-016}} (grade appeal unmonitored inbox), {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty non-responsiveness), {{HU|HU-095}} (grade consequences), {{HU|HU-118}} (Student AD zero for unclear instructions).

<span id="HU-126"></span>