Professor Zone

These matters are handled by the Senate Committee on Teaching and Teaching Evaluation, made up of the Vice-Provost, Academic Affairs; one regular faculty member of each faculty; one regular faculty member of Saint Paul University; two part-time faculty members; two undergraduate student senators; two graduate student senators. The Committee meets between six to eight times a year to discuss evaluation issues.

The answers to the 13 questions are tabulated and provided directly to the professor; they are also posted online, where all registered students and faculty members can review them. Login to uoZone or VirtuO, click on "Applications" and on "Evaluation of teaching and courses results (S-Report)".

The evaluation questionnaire also provides space for as many as 10 additional questions, which a professor could add to address special evaluation needs, such as assessing activities taking place in a given course. The answers to these questions are provided only to the professor and are not posted online. The anonymous comments accompanying the questionnaires are also not posted and are seen only by the instructor.

The professor receives a copy of the P-Report and the A-Report (summary of the three main questions), the latter of which is kept on file with the professor’s faculty.

First, student evaluations help give professors an idea of what students think of the course. Student comments can be used as a starting point for professors who want to make adjustments to the course, or add or change certain aspects of the educational materials being used.

Second, the evaluation results are added to professors’ files in their respective faculties, and may be used by the faculties for evaluation purposes. It should be noted, however, that faculties do not rely solely on these evaluations to judge the quality of the professor’s teaching (see articles 24 and 24.3 of the APUO collective agreement).

Lastly, some students may use the public versions of the evaluation results to select their courses.

Full-time faculty members submit their preferences to their respective dean and chair, who then try to balance the teaching loads of every member of the department. Courses are often assigned even if no one asks to teach them, but sometimes, there are simply not enough potential teachers among the regular faculty members. These openings are then advertised as part-time positions, and previous teaching evaluations often serve as one of the applicants’ key qualifications.

Part-time faculty applying for these positions may have an advantage if they have maintained a good average in their A-Report, a set of three questions in the teaching evaluation that are included in the collective agreement that binds faculty members and the University. These questions deal with how well the professor prepares for class, how well they convey the subject matter, and their general ability as a teacher. These questions are scored out of 5.0, and a cumulative average below 2.9 signals to administrators that an individual may require help with teaching skills. It may also lead to a loss of seniority if this part-time professor re-applies for the position.

Research on university education recognizes that there is no exhaustive list of effective teaching strategies or a “perfect teacher,” since individual teachers have their own methods and preferences. Thus, course evaluations by students are used to evaluate how students perceive certain aspects of the course they are likely to have an opinion on, such as how well the professor prepares or organizes the lessons. The 13 questions currently used at the University of Ottawa are listed below:

1. I find the professor well prepared for class.
2. The professor’s teaching is stimulating.
3. The course is well organized.
4. I think the professor conveys the subject matter effectively.
5. The professor was available to address questions outside class hours.
6. The professor’s expectations of students for this course are clear.
7. Assignments and/or exams closely reflect what was covered in the course.
8. The professor’s feedback on assignments and /or exams is… (very useful, useful, not very useful, useless, no feedback).
9. I find that the professor as a teacher is… (excellent, good, acceptable, poor, very poor)
10. I learned a lot in this course.
11. In comparison with my other courses, the workload for this course is . . . (very heavy, heavier than average, average, lighter than average, very light)
12. Overall, I find this course… (excellent, good, acceptable, poor, very poor).
13. I would recommend this course to another student.

Students can also provide comments by answering the following open-ended questions:

• What did you like about the course or the professor’s teaching?
• How can the course or teaching be improved?

Student course evaluations are not aimed at evaluating non-teaching factors (such as the time of the course or how well it fits into their program of study). The evaluations do not question students on substantive aspects of the course, such as the relevance of the subject matter or the choice of the material taught.

There are various means of analyzing the quality of a professor’s teaching. Official standard evaluations can indicate how that teaching is perceived by students and how it could be improved. Customized evaluations represent another means of obtaining feedback on specific aspects of a course. Professors may also choose to evaluate their courses at mid-term by asking students to fill out an unofficial questionnaire, with results that will only be used by the professor. Finally, an in-class evaluation by a peer may be a further means of identifying and remedying teaching difficulties.

Obviously, an ideal participation rate would be 100%! While existing rates may be valid, the University favours participation rates above 65%.

There are a number of avenues for reflection and certain ideas have been put forward in previous research. Thus, the involvement of professors or academic leaders (or a demonstration of their interest) in student course evaluations may have a considerable impact on participation rates. For example, one important strategy is that of explaining the importance of the evaluation to students and proving that importance (i.e. by explaining which improvements have already been made to the course in response to student input). In addition, simply sending an email to students asking them to complete the evaluation can have a substantial impact on participation rates.

Visit the Best Practices page for more strategies.

There is no consensus in the research on the definition of an effective teacher, for at least three reasons: first, each professor has their own strengths and weaknesses; second, each student has teaching and learning preferences; and third, each student reacts differently to each of the professor’s strengths and weaknesses.

That said, here are a few of the effective strategies that students evaluate directly during course evaluations:

• Giving students course-specific materials prepared by the professor (exercises, course outlines, PowerPoint presentations, etc.)
• Managing class time effectively
• Having a dynamic delivery style (non-verbal expression, tone of voice, type of examples used, etc.)
• Preparing an outline of the topics to be covered (regardless of format) for each class so that the students have some points of reference
• Using a variety of teaching strategies
• Being available to students (in person, by telephone, email, course discussion forum, etc.) outside of class time and addressing their questions in a timely manner
• Clearly identifying what the students will be evaluated on, and if possible, providing examples of test questions
• Providing personalized feedback when possible, for example, through comments on student assignments
• Developing and maintaining a group dynamic that is conducive to learning and that encourages respect for students and the professor

Moreover, research shows that the use of a mid-session evaluation (Strategy #1 below) can have a significant impact on the final student course evaluation, especially if the professor demonstrates an interest in the quality of teaching and makes some changes to the course in response to the feedback received from students in the mid-term evaluation.

Lastly, the specialists at the Centre for University Teaching can meet with you in person or communicate with you remotely, in a confidential manner, to discuss strategies tailored to your individual situation.

Visit the Best Practices page for more strategies.

The main purpose of all questions is to obtain feedback from students on a course and a professor’s teaching. This information can help professors gauge their abilities and help other students learn about how a course was taught. A survey of professors found that in general, professors agreed that these evaluations provided adequate feedback and prompted them to improve their teaching skills in some way.

At the same time, three of the questions — tabulated in a report called the A-Report — have a more specific purpose. They ask students to evaluate how well professors prepare for class, how well they convey the subject matter, and their general ability as a teacher. These criteria are formally included in the collective agreement that binds individual faculty members and the University. The results of the A-Report are scored on a five-point scale and can be considered by deans and department chairs when making career and professional advancement decisions.

Depending on the nature and extent of the feedback, a course evaluation could lead to significant changes in features such as the use of technology in a course, the course structure, timing and weight of evaluations such as tests, and other learning activities that take place. As such, evaluations could be the catalyst for redesigning a course. However, it is important to note that such changes could only be implemented the next time the course is given, and not during the term during which the evaluation took place.

Yes. Professors may be nominated for various awards and scholarships if their teaching skills clearly and significantly exceed expectations. Each year, the University gives out Excellence in Education Prizes, the Distinguished University Professor Award and the Excellence in Teaching Award to highlight the work of  exceptional educators and outstanding teaching. Also, professors may be nominated by their faculty to receive a faculty award for professor of the year.

In addition, there are provincial awards presented by organizations such as the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations, as well as national distinctions, such as the prestigious 3M Fellowship for Teaching Excellence. Positive evaluations may also play a role in a professor’s contract renewal for tenure-track positions, or contract renewals for part-time professors.

The answer depends on the status of the professor as either a part-time or regular full-time faculty member. Part-time professors are evaluated primarily on their teaching records, while full-time professors are evaluated on all aspects of their academic performance, including research, academic service and teaching. In the case of part-time professors, therefore, consistently bad teaching evaluations can lead to a loss of seniority points when they re-apply for the teaching job, which often means that these professors’ contracts will not be renewed. For full-time professors, on the other hand, teaching is only one of their three main responsibilities, so a poor evaluation in this area will seldom get them fired.

Nevertheless, unsatisfactory teaching evaluations can determine whether or not a full-time professor will receive advancement opportunities such as tenure. More specifically, the three questions that make up the A-report are summarized for the last 3 years a full-time professor has taught and then compared with results from peers in the same faculty. A consistently poor evaluation record might raise questions about the course structure, delivery or the professor's ability and/or effort in teaching. Corrective measures could be taken, including recommending that the professor take advantage of the resources designed to improve teaching.

If the dean has good reasons to believe that a regular professor’s teaching is unsatisfactory, a formal warning may be issued, along with disciplinary measures for deficient performance of workload duties. For a part-time professor, unsatisfactory teaching performance may result in a refusal of the request for contract renewal. In general a cumulative average below 2.9/5.0 signals to administrators that an individual may require help with teaching skills.

Evaluation comments provided by students may help instructors better understand weaknesses in their teaching styles. Professors may also benefit from visiting the Teaching and Learning Support Service (TLSS), which is dedicated to meeting the educational needs of all members of the University community.

Evaluation of a professor's teaching by a peer is another way to determine the nature and impact of any problems or weaknesses. Other available resources include teaching mentoring, faculty development programs, and group meetings to discuss teaching and learning.