Student 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 questions 1, 4 and 9 of the questionnaire, which constitute the A-report, are seen by the dean and the chair of the academic unit. The Personal Report is seen by the professor and serves to improve his teaching.

The Joint Committee of the Senate and of the Board of Governors examines very carefully the Teaching Dossier of a professor (which includes the A reports) to determine the granting of a promotion or tenure. A professor who has poor teaching assessments may be denied a promotion or tenure.

The main purpose of all questions is to obtain feedback from students on a course and a professor’s teaching skills. This information can help professors gauge their abilities and improve their teaching skills. It also helps other students learn about how a course was taught.

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,  not during the term during which  the evaluation takes 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 the 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.

Part-time professors who consistently get poor teaching evaluations can lose seniority points when they re-apply for a teaching job, which often means that these professors’ contracts will not be renewed.

In the case of regular professors, unsatisfactory evaluations may influence advancement opportunities, including eligibility for tenure. The summary of the answers to the three questions constituting the A-Report for the last three years of teaching for a given professor is compared to the results of his colleagues 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. Such findings may lead to denial of tenure and disciplinary action.

If the dean has good reason to believe that the quality of a regular teacher's teaching is unsatisfactory, he or she may implement a direct peer review of teaching (Article 24.2.2 of the Collective Agreement of the APUO) and disciplinary measures can be put in place.

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.

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 a 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.