Faculty Performance

Previous Versions of Addenda

Guidelines for Faculty Performance Reviews (Dec 2024)

(Consistent with Article 13 of Memorandum of Agreement)

Preamble

“Universities exist to develop society's intellectual resources and to preserve its intellectual traditions. Their primary functions are to preserve, evaluate, develop, and transmit knowledge, intellectual skills and culture. The modern university is expected to provide intellectual leadership to society, to contribute in a major way to the coordination of knowledge and the development of artistic, philosophical, scientific, and technological ideas, and to provide a fertile intellectual environment in which new knowledge and ideas can evolve. To achieve these goals, faculty members must be effective and committed teachers and scholars, constantly striving to expand and communicate their knowledge, ideas and understanding for the benefit of society.” (From Introduction to Policy 77 – Tenure and Promotion of Faculty Members | Secretariat | University of Waterloo (uwaterloo.ca)

Aligned with Article 1.4 of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), the Faculty of Engineering is committed to

  1. the attainment of high standards of excellence in teaching, scholarship, research, and creativity;
  2. the development of skills and attitudes essential for scholarly study and scientific investigation, and for the effective sharing of the results of these activities with students and fellow scholars and with the community at large;
  3. the encouragement of the pursuit of truth by individuals and groups through teaching, research, free enquiry, and criticism, in order to extend the frontiers of knowledge and understanding; and
  4. the provision of an environment which will support the intellectual, cultural, and physical development of the University community.

Faculty members are strongly encouraged to review Waterloo’s Policy #77 (Tenure & Promotion of Faculty Members) and Memorandum of Agreement (Section 13.5: Member Evaluation), as well as the University of Waterloo’s Framework for Teaching Effectiveness, along with Schedule C of new Policy 76/77 – Addendum to Teaching Effectiveness Framework.

Duties and Responsibilities of a Faculty Member

To varying degrees, faculty at Waterloo are responsible for the following activities: classroom and studio teaching; student advising; development of new curricula; writing of textbooks; laboratory development; courseware (software) development; keeping up-to-date in related disciplines; exploration of new teaching and research areas; raising funds to help support research needs; frontier research and technology transfer in their engineering discipline; the education and research supervision of graduate students; supervision of postdoctoral fellows and research associates; supervision of research personnel; service to the Department, Faculty and the University; interaction with industry in consultative and collegial relationships; performance of public service via membership in international, national, provincial and local committees dealing with professional issues; review and editing of journal articles; review of research proposals and engineering projects of peers.

Assignment of Duties and Weightings

The Chair or Director of the Department or School is responsible for the equitable assignment of duties.

Tenured Stream

As per Article 13.5.5(a) of the MOA, the "normal" load for full-time tenured stream faculty members in the Faculty is:

  • teaching a full load per year

  • undergraduate and graduate student supervision

  • scholarship and research as measured by the usual processes

  • appropriate internal and external service

The normal weights for assessment shall be 40 percent for teaching, 40 percent for scholarship, and 20 percent for service.

Teaching Stream

As per Article 13.5.5(a) of the MOA, the normal load for full-time teaching stream faculty members in the Faculty is:

  • teaching a full load per year

  • appropriate internal and external service

  • and, with agreement and approval, may include student supervision, scholarship, and research as measured by the usual processes

The normal weights for assessment shall be 80 percent for teaching and 20 percent for service. These default weights do not apply to lecture appointments made prior to May 1, 2028 (see Article 13.5.5 MOA).

Modifications to Weightings and Duties

For both tenure-stream and teaching-stream “weights and duties may be adjusted in a formal agreement between the faculty member and the Chair/Director with the approval of the Dean. The weights shall be at least 20 percent in every category, except in the case of teaching-stream appointments. Weight redistribution does not modify the performance quality expected in any of the areas, though expectation for quantity may change, (Article 13.5.5(b) of the MOA).

Performance Reviews

Performance reviews are necessary in order that well-informed recommendations can be made regarding a faculty member’s career progress. Performance reviews are required for all regular faculty ( probationary and tenured/permanence on full-time, part-time and reduced load appointments).

As per Article 13.5.1 of the MOA, the Faculty establishes, and through Addendums the Departments/Schools, set the required documentation and deadlines for performance assessment. Normally, performance is assessed in three areas: teaching, scholarship and research, and service (see Notes a, b, c below).

A common performance evaluation template maintained by the Dean’s Office will be used by all faculty in the Faculty of Engineering. Normally, each faculty member under evaluation will submit required performance evaluation documentation to the Chair/Director by early January of the year following the performance evaluation period. 

Performance evaluations shall occur on an annual basis for faculty members holding probationary or definite-team appointments, and on a biennial basis on odd numbered years for faculty members holding tenured/permanent or continuing appointments (Article 13.5.2(a) of MOA). Each faculty member will be invited to discuss his/her performance with the Departmental Merit Committee. A faculty member who does not submit the required documentation by the specified deadline set by the Faculty normally will receive an overall rating of at most 0.5, (Article 13.5.2 of MOA).

1. Review procedures

Performance is assessed by the Chair of the Department/ Director of the School and a Departmental Merit Committee, jointly, in accordance with the practice outlined in Section 13.5 of the MOA signed between the Faculty Association and the University. It is the responsibility of each faculty member to provide the Chair/Director with evidence of performance in each area of evaluation by following procedures established within each Department/School. The assessment will normally be done on the basis of this submission. The Dean may modify the ratings for a faculty member or members of a Department, if necessary, to maintain consistency of standards across the Faculty (Sec. 13.5.7 of MOA). The Chair and/or the committee may ask for and obtain additional information. The faculty member will be informed of the nature of this information and the weight given to it.

For faculty in their first year a score should be assigned based on actual performance or, when too little information is available, a score equal to the department average for their rank. Performance in each area is assigned one of the following seven categories listed in Article 13.5.3 of the MOA, clearly bearing in mind the Faculty of Engineering mission statement.

Numerical Rating Meaning
2.0 Outstanding
1.75 Excellent
1.5 Very good

1.25

Good
1.0 Satisfactory
0.75 Needs some improvement
0.5 Needs significant improvement
0.25 Needs major improvement
0.0 Unsatisfactory

An overall weighted performance assessment (from 0.0 to 2.0) is calculated per Note (d), below.

The results of the above deliberation are forwarded to the Dean who, in discussion with the Department Chairs, will make the final recommendations on its assessments. A faculty member on paid or unpaid leave where it is not possible to assess performance in all three categories during the evaluation year(s) shall receive a rating equal to the average ratings of the three previous years in which the faculty member was not on leave (Article 13.5.4(b) of the MOA).

2. Communication with the faculty member

The Chair shall inform the faculty member in writing of her/his final individual and overall ratings and shall provide an opportunity for the faculty member to discuss her/his performance evaluation. The Dean shall evaluate the performance of Department Chairs and Associate Deans, and shall forward proposed performance ratings in the three categories and overall to the VPA&P for approval. The VPA&P shall inform the Dean and the Chair or the Associate Dean in writing with reasons of any changes in the recommended ratings.

A faculty member who disagrees with her/his performance evaluation should proceed first to the Department Chair, and then, if not resolved, to the Dean of the Faculty for disposition. A Department Chair or Associate Dean who disagrees with her/his performance evaluation should proceed first to the Dean and then, if not resolved, to the VPA&P for disposition. Performance evaluations and selective salary increases are not normally grievable except under Article 9.2.2 or 9.2.3 of the MOA.

Notes

In keeping with Article 13.5.1(c) of the MOA, the following notes contain the evaluation criteria set out in Policy 77, Section 2. Performance Standards.
“The University expects all faculty members to maintain high standards in all aspects of their university work. To this end, the University exercises judgments on performance in the basic areas of a faculty member's academic responsibilities. Such judgments must be made with the greatest possible care and fairness as they are reflected in decisions regarding salary, reappointment, tenure/permanence, and promotion.
It is the responsibility of department Chairs to assess the performance of each probationary or definite-term regular faculty member annually and each tenured or permanent faculty member every two years, to provide a written performance review, and to be available to discuss it upon request. Performance reviews are especially important in helping new faculty members gauge their progress towards meeting the standards for reappointment and tenure/permanence. Annual/Biannual performance reviews form part of the evidence in tenure/permanence and promotion considerations, together with reports from referees and more extensive career reviews carried out by the Department Tenure, Permanence and Promotion Committee (DTPPC).”

(a) Teaching

“University teaching is informed and enriched by the research, scholarship and service of its faculty. The University expects its regular faculty members to keep academic programs and courses current with developments in their fields and, where appropriate, to communicate both their discoveries and their commitment to scholarship and research.

The purpose of teaching is to facilitate learning. Thus, effective teaching draws the strands of a field together in a way that provides coherence and meaning, places what is known in context, lays the groundwork for future learning, and opens the way for connections between the known and the unknown. Effective teaching is an important goal of the University and consists of much more than what happens in the classroom. As detailed in the University’s Framework for Teaching Effectiveness, and its Addendum.

University teaching encompasses a wide range of activities. It takes many different forms (e.g., undergraduate and graduate courses, graduate seminars, online education, project and thesis supervision), has many different components (e.g., synchronous lectures and tutorials, asynchronous learning elements, setting and grading of assignments and examinations, interaction with students outside the classroom, curriculum development), and can occur in many different environments (e.g., large lecture theatres, small seminar rooms, off-campus short courses and workshops, clinics, laboratories, one-on-one supervision, virtual platforms).

All faculty members from both streams are expected to contribute to undergraduate teaching. Where feasible, tenure stream faculty are expected to contribute to graduate teaching and to participate in project/thesis supervision. Where feasible and depending on the needs of their unit, Teaching Stream faculty are also eligible to contribute to graduate teaching and to participate in project/thesis supervision.

For purposes of assessing teaching, it is useful to single out particular sorts of contributions to the quality of teaching and learning that extend beyond course instruction and supervision. Some such activities are those that improve an individual instructor’s performance, the quality of the classes they teach or the supervision they provide, while others (referred to as educational leadership activities) have a substantial positive impact on the quality of teaching and learning beyond the individual faculty member’s courses, the programs in which they teach, or the students they supervise.

In all of their teaching activities, faculty members are expected to be fair in the evaluation of student work and constructive in their comments. They are expected to be available to students for interviews and consultations outside the classroom at reasonable times. They must always respect the integrity of their students and carefully avoid any exploitation of them for private advantage. They must maintain strict confidentiality with regard to students' personal lives and political and religious views. They must comment on academic progress and provide judgments on character only to appropriate persons and in appropriate circumstances, and must always be as fair and as objective as possible when making assessments and providing letters of reference.”

NOTE: Teaching performance will be assessed on the evidence from the year(s) under evaluation (Article 13.5.2(b) of MOA). However, faculty members will provide data for the last 3 calendar years to provide context to the assessed evidence.

(b) Scholarship

“The University expects Tenure Stream faculty members to be active participants in the evolution of their disciplines and professions. Where feasible, faculty members are expected to seek external funding to support their scholarly work.

Scholarship may take several equally valuable forms. One is the discovery of new knowledge, which may differ from discipline to discipline, and includes the generation of new concepts, ideas, principles and theories. A second form involves the innovative coordination, synthesis or integration of knowledge. This type of scholarship seeks and promotes understanding in a broader context by organizing knowledge in a new and useful way, by illustrating new relationships between the parts and the whole, by relating the past in a new way to the present and future, or by demonstrating new and significant patterns of meaning. Scholarship may also be observed in new and useful applications. Indeed, significant new applications of knowledge to the problems of society represent important scholarly contributions. Novel applications may take many forms, such as creative writing, design, fine and performing arts, innovative clinical or professional practice, and the discovery, development and transfer of technology for societal benefit. Peer-reviewed research with respect to pedagogy and peer-reviewed research with respect to innovative teaching also constitute scholarly activity.

Although any of these scholarly activities may be carried out on a confidential basis, the expectation of the University is for communicated scholarship. In general, only work that is accessible for peer review or professional adjudication can be considered in assessing scholarship for performance reviews, tenure or promotion. Regardless of the discipline and type of scholarship, the key ingredients are the originality, quality and impact of the scholarly work.

Faculty members are expected to meet the ethical standards for scholarship in their particular fields of endeavour; to observe the University's guidelines and policies with respect to ethical conduct in research; and more generally, to act with integrity, truthfulness and honesty in the conduct and communication of their scholarly work.”

Note: Research performance (scholarship in your discipline) will be assessed on the evidence from a window of two years (Article 13.5.2(b) of MOA). Faculty of Engineering faculty members will provide data for the last 3 calendar years to provide context to the assessed evidence.

(c) Service

“In addition to their primary duties of teaching and scholarship, regular faculty members have a responsibility to participate in the effective functioning of the University through service on committees, student advising, coordination of activities and in administrative positions. It is important that all faculty members be willing to assist with administrative duties when their help is needed. Many faculty members also provide valuable service to groups outside the University, such as disciplinary or professional organizations, conferences, journals and granting councils. Community service related to a faculty member's scholarly activities is normally considered as service to the University.”

Note: Service performance will be assessed on the evidence from the year(s) under evaluation (Article 13.5.2(b) of MOA). However, faculty members will provide data for the last 3 calendar years to provide context to the assessed evidence.

Faculty members are expected to demonstrate “Departmental citizenship” which includes, but is not limited to, mentoring new faculty members, being available in the Department, being willing to take on hard-to-cover courses, and being available to students.

(d) Assessment

A regular faculty appointment involves three main responsibilities: to communicate effectively the knowledge and nature of one's discipline via teaching, to advance the state of one's discipline via scholarship and research, and to contribute to the administrative functions which support these goals through effective service. The overall rating for each faculty member shall be computed as the weighted average of the individual ratings in teaching, scholarship, and service, with the weights as arranged under “assignment of duties.”

For faculty members on a biennial performance review cycle, the rating for non-review years shall be equal to the rating for the previous review year (Article 13.5.5(a) of MOA).

A Satisfactory performance in all three areas is expected of a faculty member.

It is recognized and accepted that an individual's level of performance in an area may vary considerably from year to year. For example, a faculty member who accepts a heavy administrative load may suffer a temporary drop in scholarly output and do less teaching. A faculty member who embarks on a major change in research area may also incur a temporary reduction or lapse in scholarly output and/or may have less than the usual amount of time available for other activities. Circumstances such as these will be recognized and weighed in the overall assessment. Similarly, it is recognized that faculty members judged equally satisfactory overall may have significantly different levels of performance in each category.

EFC approved by motion on October 15, 2024.