Performance guidelines for the Department of Applied Mathematics will be the ones described in the Math Faculty guidelines with no additions or changes.
Cheriton School of Computer Science
Performance guidelines for the Cheriton School of Computer Science will be the ones described in the Math Faculty guidelines with no changes.
Combinatorics and Optimization
This Addendum is specific to the Department of Combinatorics & Optimization Performance Review and supplements the Faculty of Mathematics Performance Review Guidelines.
As specified in Article 13.5.1(c) of the faculty Memorandum of Agreement (MoA), “Faculty Performance Evaluation Guidelines and Departmental Addenda shall be consistent with this Agreement, and with University policies, procedures and guidelines (including the evaluation criteria set out in Policy 77). Departmental Addenda shall also be consistent with Faculty Performance Evaluation Guidelines. In case of a conflict, precedence shall be given first to this Agreement; then to University policies, procedures and guidelines; and then to the Faculty Performance Evaluation Guidelines.”
The Department of Combinatorics & Optimization chooses not to add additional guidelines to the Faculty of Mathematics Performance Review Guidelines.
Dean of Mathematics
This addendum supplements the Faculty of Mathematics Performance Review Guidelines for faculty members within the Centre for Education in Mathematics and Computing (CEMC), the Mathematics Undergraduate Group, and Math Business and Accounting. As specified in Article 13.5.1(c) of the faculty Memorandum of Agreement (MoA), this addendum must be consistent with the MoA and University Policy 77. If there is a conflict between the Faculty of Mathematics Performance Review Guidelines and this addendum, then the faculty guidelines take precedence. Similarly, as required by the MoA, if there is a conflict between this addendum and the MoA and/or Policy 77, then the latter policies take precedence.
Faculty members will normally be asked to include a mini-dossier (possibly as short as 1 to 4 pages) with their Activity Report to provide more information and context on their teaching. Items which may be present in this dossier include, but are not limited to:
- Self-evaluation and self-reflection.
- Experimental teaching methods employed.
- Commentary about student course perception survey results.
- Unsolicited feedback from students.
- Peer evaluation of in-person or online teaching by a faculty or staff member.
- Activities related to education research and scholarship.
- Curriculum design or course content development (possibly as part of course coordination duties).
- Creation or editing of shared teaching resources.
- Professional development (e.g., participating in teaching workshops, auditing courses, attending conferences, etc.).
- Student supervision.
- Indication of unusual or difficult circumstances surrounding teaching.
The context of a faculty member’s teaching over a given period should also be factored into the determi- nation of teaching merit scores. Contextual factors may include, but are not limited to:
- Teaching a one-section course requiring a higher than normal degree of preparation (e.g., teaching after extensive curriculum changes, first-time teaching the course).
- Acting as coordinator for a multi-section course.
- Being the only instructor for a course.
- Teaching a course with a large student to instructor ratio.
- The audience of a course.
- Time spent on tutorials, office hours, grading, responding to inquiries, student accommodations, etc.
- Range of courses taught.
- Teaching support (e.g., graduate students, markers, instructional assistants).
Student perceptions of a course are relevant in providing information about the student experience. They are useful for the formative development of an instructor, and, if used for summative purposes, must be used with care and context. Student course perception survey scores can be used to document patterns in an instructor’s feedback over time. If scores are being used summatively, they must be considered in context (e.g., accounting for mode of delivery, audience, time of day, etc.), be balanced against other evidence (as listed above), and with the understanding that they are not by themselves a reliable evaluation of teaching effectiveness. When student survey scores are significantly different than the norm for an individual faculty member, the performance review committee may request that the Unit Head consult with the faculty member prior to finalizing the summative assessment for teaching.
A peer review of teaching may be solicited by an individual faculty member or by the Unit Head in consultation with the faculty member. In the former case, faculty members may submit (or have submitted on their behalf) their peer reviews. In the latter case, the peer reviewer should be mutually agreed upon and the resulting review may be used when available, at the discretion of the performance review committee.
A faculty member’s teaching merit score should normally not suffer because of reductions in teaching assignments for the purposes of taking on non-teaching tasks or for other reasons as agreed upon with their unit head.
Normally, the majority of a service merit score will be based on service internal to the university (i.e., at the department, faculty, or university level). External service will also be considered but is not a requirement to achieve an outstanding service merit score.
The following items may be considered when assigning service merit scores. This list is non-exhaustive. Each bullet could encompass a very broad set of activities and some faculty members with significant service loads may have all of their activity focused in only one of these bullets.
- Outreach activities.
- Supervision of students, co-op students, or staff for non-research purposes.
- Student advising.
- Administrative aspects of multi-section course coordination.
- Training, advising, or sharing resources with other University of Waterloo faculty members, partic- ularly within the Faculty of Mathematics.
- Organizing seminars, workshops, conferences, etc.
- Membership on department, faculty, and/or university committees.
- Development, peer review, and maintenance of digital course assets (e.g. applets, digital lessons, questions, etc.)
- Consulting with or providing online course support to instructors.
When determining merit scores for service, both the quality and quantity of service will be taken into account. Initiative taken on new service tasks that fit within the unit’s priorities may be rewarded, provided that they do not detract from existing duties.
When determining research merit scores, the review committee should take into account the availability of resources, supports, and guidance for faculty members covered by this addendum for research activities.
If the review committee does not include at least one research active faculty member, a faculty member whose research is being assessed may request that a research active faculty member external to the committee be consulted. The faculty member being assessed must provide a list of at least three research active faculty members (including at least two from the University of Waterloo) from which the committee will choose the external consultant. The faculty member being assessed may choose to provide justification to the committee for their proposed external consultants.
Research active faculty members may choose to submit with their activity report a self-assessment of their own research performance.
Evaluation Ratings Scale
If performance in a particular area is rated below “Satisfactory”, the faculty member should have the opportunity to explore the nature of the problem in consultation with their Unit Head. A path towards improvement should be discussed and, if appropriate and reasonable, resources should be dedicated to assist the faculty member with the process. This can be one of the most valuable functions of the annual review procedure.
The performance evaluation guidelines are described by The Faculty of Mathematics addendum to the MoA and FAUW MoA. No additional guidelines will be given at the level of the Pure Math department.
Statistics and Actuarial Science
This addendum supplements the Faculty of Mathematics Performance Review Guidelines and as specified in Article 13.5.1(c) of the faculty Memorandum of Agreement (MoA), “Faculty Performance Evaluation Guidelines and Departmental Addenda shall be consistent with this Agreement, and with University policies, procedures and guidelines (including the evaluation criteria set out in Policy 77). Departmental Addenda shall also be consistent with Faculty Performance Evaluation Guidelines.”
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 or continuing appointments (Article 13.5.2(a) of MOA).
1. Assessment of Teaching Component
- The normal teaching load in the Statistics and Actuarial Science (SAS) Department for research active tenure-track or tenured faculty members is three courses per year and for lecturers is six courses per year.
- The assessment of teaching will consider student evaluations and available peer assessments. Other considerations, if satisfying a department need, include course coordination activities, development of course materials/notes or digital assets, being willing to take on hard-to-cover courses, major course revisions and promoting good teaching practice within the department/faculty.
- For tenure-track, tenured faculty members and research active lecturers research supervision of graduate/undergraduate students is expected and is assessed as part of teaching.
- For tenured faculty members who choose to teach more than the normal teaching load of three courses per year, the expectations for graduate and undergraduate student supervision will be reduced. Such an arrangement should be made in advance and in writing to the Department Chair.
2. Assessment of Research Component
- Supervision of postdoctoral fellows and non-student research personnel will be assessed as research.
- Research papers that have been submitted for publication but not yet accepted can be mentioned in a faculty member’s summary of activity but will normally only play at most a minor role in the assessment.
3. Assessment of Service Component
- Departmental citizenship includes, but is not limited to, mentoring new faculty members, being available in the Department and being available to students.
- Specific information on the responsibilities of committee memberships and time commitment should be described in each case.
- External service to the profession is encouraged and some external service, e.g. refereeing papers, involvement on conference program committees, organizing conference sessions, etc., is expected of all tenure-track and tenured faculty members.
- Normally, the majority of your service score will be based on service internal to the university. Exceptions are at the discretion of the performance evaluation committee but must be based on external service quantity (time) not quality. Important, very time consuming, external service, such as being the president of a well-established professional society, or being the editor of an influential academic journal will be rewarded.