Faculty of Mathematics performance guidelines 2025-2026

Guidelines for Faculty Performance Evaluation and Selective Salary Increases for 2025-26 Evaluation Period

1.0 Purpose

The primary purpose of performance reviews for faculty members is to identify particular accomplishments as well as areas of difficulty, and to promote discussion between individual faculty members and the Chair or Director concerning ways to structure and enhance future contributions. A review is also necessary for all regular faculty members on full-time, part-time (> 50%), reduced load, and joint appointments in order that well-informed decisions can be made regarding selective salary increments (Ref: Memorandum of Agreement Article 13). In some cases this will also include definite term research professors, if specified in their contract. Probationary appointments and definite term appointments will be evaluated annually; members holding permanent or tenured appointments will be evaluated every two years in odd-numbered years. In even-numbered years, members holding permanent or tenured appointments who have not previously been evaluated at the University of 蓝莓视频 may choose to be evaluated in their first year or take the average for their rank. This choice may be made independently for each of scholarship, teaching and service.

It is the responsibility of the Chairs/Director to assess the performance of each regular faculty member annually or biennially, 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 performance reviews form part of the evidence in tenure, permanence and promotion considerations, together with reports from external referees and more extensive career reviews carried out by the Department/School Tenure, Permanence and Promotion Committee (D/STPPC).

Article 13 of the Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) states the principles for the determination of salaries and evaluation of faculty members. Specifically, section 13.5.1 ( c ) of the MoA requires that each Faculty has Performance Evaluation Guidelines (this document) setting out the evaluation criteria specific to that Faculty. These Faculty-specific guidelines are intended to supplement the principles documented in the Memorandum of Agreement. If there is a conflict between these Guidelines and the MoA and/or Policy 77, the provision in the MoA and/or Policy 77 shall take precedence. These guidelines are to be made available to all Members prior to the commencement of the calendar year(s) being evaluated.聽

2.0 Areas of review

A regular tenure stream faculty appointment involves three main responsibilities: to communicate the knowledge and nature of one鈥檚 discipline through teaching, to advance the state of one鈥檚 discipline through scholarship, and to contribute to the administrative functions that support these goals through effective service. The performance review will focus on recent activity in all three areas: teaching, scholarship, and service.

A regular teaching stream appointment will involve teaching and service as described above. In unusual cases, it may also include scholarship, depending upon the contract. 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).

For the purpose of performance evaluation, university teaching may include assigned development and delivery of material to pre- and post-university students, e.g., K-12 and lifelong learning. Research into the pedagogy of teaching and education may be considered teaching for the purposes of evaluation. Contribution to a wide range of teaching activity is considered valuable. Supervision of graduate and undergraduate students, as well as postdoctoral fellows, is evaluated in Teaching category for the Faculty of Mathematics.

Scholarship is broadly defined to include research articles in refereed journals, research monographs, textbooks, expository articles at all levels, conference papers, reports, reviews, patents, addresses to professional/learned societies, etc. Peer-reviewed research with respect to pedagogy and peer-reviewed research with respect to innovative teaching may be considered scholarship for the purposes of evaluation. The originality, quality, impact, and quantity of scholarly work are all considered in reviewing performance. The level of contract or grant support is not in itself to be used as a measure scholarly achievement, although the peer evaluation system in grant selection committees is respected. Serving as referee for journals and granting councils is considered scholarship.

Service includes contributions through administrative appointments and committee membership at all levels with the University, direction of laboratories, organizational involvement in Groups, Centre and Institutes, outreach, and student advising. It also includes service to the discipline through granting council committees, editorial boards, conference organization, and working committees of professional societies.

Although the official review period is one or two calendar years, it is desirable that the evaluation take place in the context of a somewhat longer viewpoint (2 years for teaching and service, and 4 years for research). Consecutive performance evaluations should not change dramatically owing to sabbatical leaves, number of teaching terms, or publication delays. Chairs/Directors must also pay particular attention to the provision of Section 13.5.4 of the MoA regarding evaluations for Members on leave.聽

3.0 Review procedure

Committee

Each Department or School with 15 or more members shall conduct their evaluations with a Departmental/School Performance Review Committee (D/SPRC), advisory to the Chair/Director. By December 1, the Members of the Department or School shall elect an advisory committee of no more than five Members to assist the Chair/Director with their responsibilities.

Faculty members appointed in the Dean鈥檚 Office will be evaluated by an equivalent Performance Review Committee, advisory to the Dean. It is important that the Directors of each of the CEMC and the Mathematics Undergraduate Group contribute to the Performance Review process. It is also important that the Performance Review Committee includes faculty representation from each of two constituencies. Given these considerations, the D魛劄an will nominate, in consultation with these two constituencies through their Directors, a Performance Review Committee that includes representatives from these constituencies by December 1 in each calendar year for ratification by the faculty members in the Dean鈥檚 office.聽

Activity report

By early January, each faculty member under evaluation in that period will submit to the Chair/Director a completed Activity Report for the evaluation period, along with any other relevant documentation. Faculty members with probationary or definite term contracts shall provide documentation each year. Tenured and permanent faculty shall provide documentation every other year on odd-numbered years. For many, the completed Activity Report will be sufficient, but some may wish to include (or be asked by the Chair/Director to include) other material such as copies of publications, teaching materials, and letters of recommendation. Failure to submit a report will result in an overall rating of at most 0.5 as outlined in the MoA.

The Activity Report shall include the weights that the faculty member believes should be used for their Performance Review. This is to ensure that there is no discrepancy with the official record of the weights.聽

Review procedures at department/school level

Based on the Activity Report and any other relevant documentation, the Chair/Director, together with the Review Committee, will review each faculty members鈥 contributions in teaching, scholarship, and service. They will prepare a written review for each faculty member, addressing each of the three areas.

Role of the Dean

The Chair/Director will inform the Dean of the proposed ratings and weightings for each of the three categories. The Dean will carefully review and, if necessary, modify the proposed ratings to ensure that fair and consistent standards and criteria are being employed cross the Faculty. The Dean may establish an advisory committee to assist with this review.

The Dean will evaluate the performance of the Chairs/Directors, Associate Deans, and Assistant Deans, and shall forward the proposed performance ratings in the three categories and overall to the VPA&P for approval. The VPA&P will inform the Dean and the Chairs/Directors or Associate/Assistant Deans in writing with reasons of any changes in the recommended ratings. The Dean may choose to consult with the Review Committee of the individual鈥檚 home unit for input upon their scholarship, teaching and service.聽

Communication of ratings

By the end of March, each faculty member under evaluation that year will receive a copy of their written performance and overall rating from the Chair/Director or Dean. If a faculty member鈥檚 performance is considered to be less than satisfactory, the written review should carefully explain the reasons for the assessment, and give reasonable and explicit expectations and the details of any plans to enhance contributions. Each faculty member will be provided with the opportunity to discuss their performance review with their Chair/Director.聽

Dispute resolution

A faculty member who disagrees with their performance evaluation should proceed first to the Chair/Director, and then, if no resolution has been reached, to the Dean of the Faculty for final disposition prior to the 15th of April. A Chair/Director, Associate Dean, and Assistant Deans who disagrees with their performance evaluations should proceed first to the Dean, and then, if not resolved, to the VPA&P for disposition.

4.0 Ratings and weights

A faculty member's performance in each of teaching, scholarship, and service will be rated on a standard scale ranging from 0 to 2:

2.00 Outstanding

1.75 Excellent

1.50 Very good

1.25 Good

1.00 Satisfactory

0.75 Needs Some Improvement

0.50 Needs Improvement

0.25 Needs Major Improvement

0.0 Unsatisfactory.

Chairs and Performance Evaluation Committees should use the entire range of scores, as needed. The overall rating shall be computed as the weighted average of the individual ratings in teaching (t), scholarship (r) and service (s) for the period under review.

R = at + br + cs

Where a,b,c are non-negative weights adding to 1. For members on a biennial performance review cycle, the rating for non-review years shall be equal to the rating for the previous review year. Section 13.5.4(b) of the MoA explains how to handle the evaluation of newly appointed faculty members and faculty members who have been on leave during the evaluation period.聽

Weights

The weight for each area shall be specified in the member鈥檚 letter of appointment. In the absence of specified weights for tenure stream positions the default weights shall be 40 percent for teaching, 40 percent for scholarship, and 20 percent for service; for teaching stream positions, the default weights shall be 80 percent for teaching and 20 percent for service.

Weightings and duties may be adjusted in a formal written agreement between the faculty member and the Chair/Director with the approval of the Dean. The weights shall be at least 20% in every category, except in the case of teaching stream appointments. Weight redistribution does not modify the performance quality standards expected in any of the three areas, though expectations for quantity will change. Some examples of non-standard weights used in the Faculty in Mathematics are:聽

  • 60%R, 20%S, 20%T for individuals with special appointments or national awards that entail increased research expectations and reduced teaching loads (e.g., salary award holders such as Steacie and Killam Fellows, NSERC Industrial Research Chairs, CRCs etc.);
  • 20%R, 60%S, 20%T for individuals with major administrative duties and reduced teaching loads (e.g., Chairs/Director and Associate Deans).
  • 20%R, 20%S, 60%T for individuals who have negotiated increased teaching loads and reduced expectations in scholarship.
  • In the case of appointments starting or ending partway through the evaluation period, the practice in the Math faculty is to use a weighted average to determine the weightings for the evaluation period. For example, if an individual had weights 40%R, 20%S, 40%T for the first six months of the two-year cycle, and had weights 20%R, 60%s, 20%T for the last 18 months of the two-year cycle, then you would use the weights 25%R, 50%S, 25%T. Here 25%R = 6/24 x 40%R + 18/24 X 20%R, etc.
  • With mutual agreement of the faculty member and their unit head, and with approval of the Dean, weights may change for faculty members who are not evaluated, if there is a significant change in their circumstances.聽

5.0 Salary increases

A pool of funds for selective salary increases is provided to the Faculty in accordance with Memorandum of Agreement Article 13.3.2. A faculty member鈥檚 selective salary increase depends both on their annual performance rating (actual R) and on the position of their salary relative to the threshold T1 and T2 for their rank. The selective increases are described in detail in MoA Section 13.1.

Additionally, the MoA allows for adjustments for salary anomalies and for Outstanding Performance Awards, both of these are described in section 13.3.3(d,e) of the MoA.聽

6.0 Approvals and documentation

This document will be circulated annually to members of the Faculty of Mathematics. The guidelines will be used to evaluate performance over the course of the next calendar year(s). It shall be reviewed and updated no less than once every five years with any changes approved by a majority vote of the Faculty Council by October 15th in the year before the evaluation calendar year to which the changes would apply.

Documents related to the performance Evaluation process, including this guideline document, are available at Annual Performance (sharepoint.com)聽

Department Addenda 2025 鈥 2026

Applied Mathematics

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

At its 13 November meeting, School Council approved the following addendum to the faculty performance guidelines and SPRC membership: The faculty performance guidelines for the Cheriton School of Computer Science will follow the Faculty of Mathematics Guidelines for Faculty Performance Evaluation and Selective Salary Increases for 2025-2026 Evaluation Period with no changes.

Combinatorics and Optimization

At the October 23, 2024 meeting there was a vote to submit no addendum.

Dean of Mathematics

See the text below for "Performance Review Addendum CEMC/MUG"

Pure Mathematics

The motion to pass the Annual Performance Guidelines with no addendum for Pure Mathematics, was passed by a majority vote.

Statistics and Actuarial Science

At our November meeting there was a vote to omit the SAS addendum from the Faculty of Math 2025-26 Performance Evaluation Guidelines.

Performance Review Addendum CEMC/MUG (Revised December 2024)

Introduction

This addendum supplements the Faculty of Mathematics Performance Review Guidelines for faculty members within the Centre for Education in Mathematics and Computing (CEMC) and the Mathematics Undergraduate Group (MUG). 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.

1. Teaching

At the University of 蓝莓视频, teaching effectiveness is laid out in the University鈥檚 Teaching Effectiveness Framework and the assessment of teaching should use this as a guideline.

Faculty members will be asked to provide information and context on their teaching through their activity report. Items which may be present in the report include, but are not limited to:

  • Self-evaluation and self-reflection.
  • Experimental teaching methods employed.
  • Commentary about student course perception survey results.
  • Awards earned for teaching activities.
  • Unsolicited feedback from students.
  • Peer evaluation of in-person or online teaching by a faculty or staff member including peer evaluations required for promotion or mandated by policy.
  • Activities related to education research and scholarship of teaching and learning.
  • For Teaching Stream Faculty only, disciplinary research.
  • 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, attending conferences, etc.).
  • Student supervision for research purposes.
  • Indication of unusual or difficult circumstances surrounding teaching.

The Addendum to the University鈥檚 Teaching Effectiveness Framework provides additional details about additional activities that are considered teaching at 蓝莓视频.

The context of a faculty member鈥檚 teaching over a given period should also be factored into the determination of teaching merit scores. Contextual factors may include, but are not limited to:

  • Teaching a course requiring a higher than normal degree of preparation (e.g., teaching after extensive curriculum changes, first-time teaching the course).
  • Academic aspects of multi-section course coordination.
  • 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鈥檚 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, requested by the Unit Head in consultation with the faculty member, or required by the Faculty as part of regular peer reviews of teaching for all faculty members. In the first case, faculty members may submit (or have submitted on their behalf) their peer reviews. In the second and third cases, 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鈥檚 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 (e.g., course redevelopment) as agreed upon with their Unit Head.

2. Service

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.

It is the joint responsibility of faculty members and their unit heads to ensure a reasonable and sufficient service load.

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 a small subset 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 蓝莓视频 faculty members, particularly within the Faculty of Mathematics.
  • Organizing seminars, workshops, conferences, etc.
  • Membership on unit, faculty, and/or university committees.
  • Activities related to the promotion of equity, diversity, inclusion, and anti-racism.
  • Awards earned for service activities.
  • Service-related professional development.
  • Development, peer review, and maintenance of course assets (e.g., course notes, digital assets, etc.).
  • Consulting with or providing online course support to instructors.
  • Mentoring new and/or visiting 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鈥檚 priorities may be rewarded, provided that they do not detract from existing duties. Individual faculty members are strongly encouraged to discuss 鈥渟elf-directed鈥 service tasks with their unit head to agree upon relevance of the task for purposes of performance evaluation before investing significant amounts of time in them.

When the categorization of a specific activity as Teaching or Service is ambiguous, faculty members should discuss as early as possible with their unit head to come to an agreement on how to consider this activity in their specific situation, knowing that the categorization might differ between individual faculty members depending on their Teaching and Service weights.

3. Scholarship

This section is only relevant to faculty members with non-zero scholarship weighting.

When determining scholarship merit scores, the review committee should take into account the availability of resources, supports, and guidance for faculty members covered by this addendum for scholarship activities.

If the review committee does not include at least one faculty member with a non-zero scholarship weighting, a faculty member whose scholarship 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 蓝莓视频) 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.

Faculty members with non-zero scholarship weights may choose to submit with their activity report a self-assessment of their own research performance.

4. Evaluation Rating Scale

If performance in a particular area is rated below 鈥淪atisfactory鈥, 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.