Canadian Association of University Teachers

 
Home > Services > Collective Bargaining & Organizing > CAUT Model Clauses > Model Clause on the Evaluation of Teaching Performance

Services

Model Clause on the Evaluation of Teaching Performance

1
Evaluation of Teaching Performance

1.1
Whenever this agreement calls for an evaluation of the teaching performance of a member of the bargaining unit in relation to contract renewal, tenure, promotion, or discipline for deficient performance of workload duties, the evaluation, recommendations and decisions shall be carried out in accordance with this article.

1.2
Teaching includes but is not limited to the following activities performed by members:

(a)    giving courses; conducting seminars; guiding tutorials, laboratories and studio work; supervising fieldwork, coaching and individual study projects;

(b)    preparing, grading and correcting assignments, tests and examinations;

(c)    guiding the work of teaching assistants, graders, markers and laboratory instructors;

(d)    guiding and evaluating students’ individual work, such as theses and papers;

(e)    consultations with students outside of class or laboratory time;

(f)    participating in the development of teaching methods, programs or course content;

(g)    preparing course outlines, instructional material, laboratory exercises and course notes; and

(h)    writing textbooks: textbooks may also be considered when evaluating a member’s scholarship.

(i)    all other activities in which the member engages to prepare for teaching, including activities to ensure that the member’s teaching is in keeping with the current state of the subject taught.

2
Procedures

2.1
An evaluation of a member’s teaching performance shall only take place when required by the collective agreement. An evaluation of teaching performance shall consider a minimum of three years, unless it is for renewal of a contract with duration of less than three years.

2.2
Anonymous commentary, regardless of how it is collected, shall not be seen or used by individuals other than the member.

2.3
Any evaluation of a member’s teaching performance shall consider all aspects of the member’s teaching activities as well as the departmental and/or faculty context.  Assessments of teaching performance must take due note that:

(a)     a member’s strong performance in some aspects of teaching may compensate for a weaker performance in other aspects of teaching;

(b)    a member’s teaching shall be considered that much better if performance is good in several kinds of teaching activities;

(c)    differences between departments and disciplines must be considered when assessing teaching performance.

(d)    student evaluations may reflect historical patterns of discrimination.

2.4
Any evaluation of a member’s teaching performance shall review all relevant information including but not limited to:1

(a)    the teaching dossier submitted by the member;2

(b)    the size, type and nature and level of courses taught;

(c)    the nature of the subject matter;

(d)    the experience of the instructor with the course, and the number of new course preparations assigned to the instructor;

(e)    the role of the instructor and the method of delivery;

(f)    the pedagogical materials prepared by the member;

(g)    the member’s contributions in the areas of pedagogical development and innovation, and the complexity and risk such innovation entails;

(h)    the results of anonymous numerical student questionnaires, that were carried out in accordance with the collective agreement.3

2.5
Any member whose teaching performance is being evaluated has the right to submit any information the member believes to be relevant to the evaluation.

2.6
No evaluation of teaching performance may rely exclusively or primarily upon student questionnaires.

2.7
Any person or committee evaluating a member’s teaching performance shall make due allowance for any special circumstances which may affect the member’s teaching performance.

2.8
Any person or committee evaluating a member’s teaching performance shall meet with the member to establish relevant facts about the member’s teaching.

2.9
Any person or committee preparing an evaluation of a member’s teaching performance shall include in that evaluation, in writing:

(a)     a statement of the scope of the evaluation;

(b)     a summary of the information that was used, and the sources of the information, including any factors of bias or discrimination that may have affected the evaluation;

(c)    an analysis of the information that was used; and

(d)    a statement of the results of the evaluation.

2.10
The evaluation of a member’s teaching performance shall determine, in writing, with reasons, that performance is either “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory”.4

2.11
The member shall have the right to meet with the person or committee that did the evaluation, and to respond in writing to the evaluation. The member’s response shall be attached to the written evaluation.


Approved by the CAUT Council, November 2000; revised, September 2007.

Endnotes
1. Negotiate procedures for gathering information which are consistent with the rest of your collective agreement.

2. For additional information see CAUT Teaching Dossier, (December 2006).

3. In negotiating such a questionnaire care must be taken to assess the validity of the questions and the reliability of the results. Negotiated language should cover the procedures for administering the questionnaire, the collection and reporting of results, and interpretation of the results.

4. Ensure that the number of categories and the terms used to describe these categories conform to the criteria for tenure, promotion, or other relevant clauses of your collective agreement.