GFC APPROVED: 

Procedures Pertaining to Appointment, Promotion and Dismissal of Academic Staff sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 

3.2.3 Although the evaluation of teaching may not be based solely on evaluations by students, such evaluations are one factor on which the evaluation of teaching shall be based. Student evaluations shall be required for all academic appointees (Teaching and Research) on a regular basis. 

3.2.4 Part of such evaluation of teaching may be based upon the general reputation enjoyed by the teacher among informed peers and students. Such reputation shall be evidenced only by signed documentation or formal evaluation processes initiated in the context of Section 3.5.3 and Section 3.5.4.

Task Force on Teaching Effectiveness, Evaluations and Procedures established, to be constituted by the Vice-President (Academic) and Provost and the President of the Students' Union. Task Force to provide recommendations on the following: 

1. Review the actual and perceived balance of teaching and research in merit and promotion considerations. 
2. Investigate a possible merger of the instructor/professor ranks. 
3. Investigate the actual and desired likelihood that faculty members can be promoted to Associate and Full Professor, based primarily on teaching and/or teaching development. 
4. Review the logistical issues involved with student evaluation forms. 
5. Review the department procedures on how teaching is (and could be)evaluated for merit, promotion, dismissal and tenure. 
6. Review aspects about teaching identified by the Smith Commission. 
7. Examine any other matters as may be relevant and instructive. 

 Spring 1993

Council informed of decision to institute this Task Force Task Force was established with a revised mandate to develop institutional guidelines to assist in the implementation of Section 3.2.3 of the Procedures Pertaining to Appointment, Promotion and Dismissal of Academic Staff (see above). The Task Force was also asked to comment on the effectiveness of teaching and the systems for improvement of teaching at the University of Calgary

Report of Task Force presented to the GFC Executive. Some members felt that the document in its present form should not be sent to Council because it contained no recommendations, only a set of principles. It was agreed that Ms. Calkin, Vice President (Academic) and Provost, would meet with representatives of the Task Force, Ms. Storch, representing Deans' Council, and the Secretary to GFC to produce a proposal format with specific recommendations for Council's consideration at the June 16, 1994 meeting.

INTERPRETATION 
OF KEY TERMS

Student teaching evaluation means summative evaluations performed by students and included in decisions regarding merit, promotion, tenure, and dismissal  

Required means that evaluation of teaching performance incomplete without inclusion of formal student teaching evaluation (Academic) and Provost 

Formative evaluation refers to information used by individual faculty members for their own purposes of adjusting teaching in order to improve student learning. 

Summative evaluation refers to information used by Heads, Deans, and University committees for the purposed of merit, promotion, dismissal, and tenure of an individual faculty member. 

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

1. A primary function of the University is to facilitate learning by students, Success in accomplishing this function depends on the teaching effectiveness of academic staff. 
2. Regular and systematic evaluation of teaching performance of academic staff contributes to the maintenance and development of effective teaching. Such evaluation should serve both formation and summative purposes and should at least distinguish between unsatisfactory, satisfactory, and exemplary performance. 
3. As active participants in education, students are an essential source of insight into the effectiveness of educators. The major component in evaluations of teaching should be based on information provided by students.

OPERATING PRINCIPLES

1. Each Dean shall develop a written plan for evaluating teaching in her or his Faculty and shall communicate this plan to academic appointees in advance of the January 1, 1995 effective date. Each plan shall be submitted by December 1, 1994 for approval by the Office of the Vice-President (Academic) and shall include the following: 

a) Clearly defined guidelines and standards for the regular summative evaluation of teaching performance. The majority of the summative evaluation shall be based on the content of student teaching evaluations. 

b) Locally developed and selected forms to be used for student teaching evaluations. Forms all include a qualitative component (e.g. a section for student comments). 

c) Systematic procedures for administering student teaching evaluations. Such procedures shall adequately prepare students for the evaluation process and shall promote an atmosphere of trust (i.e. confidentiality and accountability) between faculty and students. 

d) Principles and procedures governing the use of teaching evaluations in annual merit and promotion review. Qualitative content of student evaluations shall be considered. All student teaching evaluations shall be made available to Faculty Promotions Committee. 

e) Guidelines for rewarding exemplary teaching performance. 

f) Guidelines for rectifying unsatisfactory teaching performance. Such guidelines shall oblige the Head to act promptly and appropriately, and shall oblige the University to provide remedial services. 

2. Each plan shall be reviewed at least once every three years by the Teaching Development Office Advisory Committee, under the direction of the Vice President (Academic), to consider new and improved methods for evaluating teaching. 

3. The Task Force recognizes decanal authority to require teaching evaluations for all GATs and all tutorial instructors and recommends that this authority be exercised commencing Fall Session 1994, under the same guidelines as provided for academic appointees. 

GFC Executive directed the Appointment, Promotion and Dismissal Committee to: 

a) review the issue of student ratings of instruction, the possibility of a universal instrument, and the possibility of releasing the results of such ratings; 

(b) propose alternatives for future General Faculties Council consideration. and requested the Appointment, Promotion and Dismissal Committee to report to the General Faculties Council at its November 14, 1996 meeting the expected time frame for presenting a formal report on the matter.

GFC Executive requested APD Committee to report to it at its 1997-01 -07 meeting.

Mr. Dugan, Chair of APD, noted that the APD Committee was unable reach a consensus on the issues, nor to formulate clear recommendations on the possibility of a universal instrument for student ratings of instruction or on the possibility of release of results of such ratings. The APD Committee instead recommended that the issue be debated at General Faculties Council. 

The Executive reached consensus that it wished to recommend that GFC debate two questions: a universal instrument and public release of rating results. 

The Executive agreed that GFC ought to discuss the principle of a universal set of questions for student ratings of instruction, rather than the exact questions to be used. 

The following motion was approved: 

That the Executive Committee recommend that General Faculties Council approve: 

a)  a universal instrument for student ratings of instruction; and 
b)  release of results from such student ratings, as outlined in Section 1.3 of Attachment 1** of the agenda document. 
 
The Executive asked the Vice-President (Academic) and the Secretary to GFC to prepare a proposal document. 

The Chair of GFC called a special meeting of the Executive to clarify its motion from 

the 437'h meeting. This clarification considered the use of the universal set of questions. 

The Executive Committee approved the following motion: 

That the Executive Committee recommend that General Faculties Council approve: 

a) the use of a universal core set of questions for student ratings of instruction (see Element 1 developed by the Teaching Evaluations and Effectiveness Task Force, in the Background section of the proposal document); 
and 

(b) release of results from such student ratings, as outlined in Section 1.3 of Attachment 1** of the agenda documentation.

General Faculties Council on the recommendation of its Executive Committee approved the use of a universal core set of questions for student ratings of instruction. 

Council agreed by consensus, subsequent to this motion, to forward the matter of developing this core set of questions to APC. 

General Faculties Council then voted to postpone consideration of the release of results from student ratings of instruction to University of Calgary students until no sooner than one meeting following receipt of recommendations from the Academic Program Committee on this universal core set of questions. 

It was agreed that APC should also be asked to provide recommendations on implementation procedures, estimated administration costs, and possible publication methods. 

The Executive Committee passed the following motion: 

That the Executive Committee, on the recommendation of the Academic Program Committee, recommend that General Faculties Council approve the universal core set of questions for student ratings of instruction as set forth in Attachment 1** of the agenda documentation

GFC discussed the twelve proposed questions, amended them, and then passed the following motion: 

That General Faculties Council, on the recommendation of its Executive Committee and the Academic Program Committee, approve the universal core set of questions for student ratings of instruction, for purposes of pilot testing.

** The above chronology quotes from minutes which refer to agenda documents circulated to members at the various meetings. Attachment 1 therefore does not refer to the attachments to this agenda piece

The matter before the Executive Committee was to determine the appropriate format for a proposal document for General Faculties Council. A draft document, which might serve as the basis for discussion was circulated with, the agenda documentation. 

The Acting Chair informed the Executive that she had arranged for a message from Mr. Hunter regarding an e-mail journal article on student ratings of instruction to be forwarded to members of GFC. In doing so, she was not taking a position on the contents of the article 

The Executive approved the following motion: 

That the Executive Committee place on the agenda of the March 21, 1997 Meeting of General Faculties Council the matter of the release of results from student ratings of instruction to University of Calgary students. 

GFC, after much debate and due consideration, approved the following motion: 

That General Faculties Council approve the principle of releasing results compiled from an approved Student Ratings of Instruction instrument to University of Calgary students, subject to satisfactory pilot testing of the instrument and subject to a GFC approved implementation plan which addresses satisfactorily the alternatives regarding matters such as the release of information to students, including resource needs and costs, and impact on f aculty and students.