chapter two: teacher responsibilities - vanier … · chapter two: teacher responsibilities page...

CHAPTER TWO: TEACHER RESPONSIBILITIES

Page 2.1


This section of the report provides a description of the findings related to teacher compliance with their responsibilities as set out in the IPESA. The findings are extracted from the responses to surveys of 723 students, 87 teachers and 22 Department coordinators, a review of various documents including 99 course outlines from the Winter 2008 semester and the Rendement Scolaire from the Winter 2007 semester. More detailed results for this section are provided in matrix format in Appendix B2.

2.1 TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY 1: TO DEVELOP THE COURSE OUTLINES FOR THE COURSES THEY GIVE. THE COURSE OUTLINES MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MINISTERIAL AND DEPARTMENT/PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS AND OBJECTIVES.

At Vanier College, to ensure appropriate exercise of this responsibility, course outline requirements were developed on the basis of Ministerial guidelines. These requirements are described in the IPESA and also in the Vanier College Policy on Course Outlines (http://www.vaniercollege.qc.ca/acadean/policy/7210s10.pdf).

Teachers develop course outlines for the courses they give. In an attempt to ensure that course outlines comply with College requirements, most departments usually offer teachers new to the College some form of guidance with this process including: providing the course outline, a template and/or mentoring from a more experienced teacher. Some departments provide templates for all teachers. When several teachers are teaching different sections of the same course, in an attempt to ensure equity, a common course outline is sometimes used.

For the regular day programs, course outlines should be reviewed at the departmental level and any inadequacies discussed with the teacher. The course outlines should then be sent to the appropriate faculty dean. Course outlines are usually spot checked in the faculty deans’ offices before being sent to the Academic Dean. Due to the large number of course outlines, a complete review of each outline at the faculty dean level is usually not feasible.

For Continuing Education courses, teachers typically submit their course outlines to the appropriate Continuing Education (CE) coordinator. The CE coordinators review all of the course outlines and discuss any inadequacies with the teacher. The course outlines are then sent to Academic Dean.

A copy of each course outline is stored in both the faculty or Continuing Education offices and a second copy in the Academic Deans’ office. In the past, it was required that one copy be stored in the Library. This practice has been discontinued, with the Registrar assuming this function. Recently the College has begun to move towards storing course outlines in electronic format to save space, as well as the environment.

Teachers should give each student a copy of the course outline during the first week of classes. There is no formal mechanism to ensure that teachers do this other than student complaints.

http://www.vaniercollege.qc.ca/acadean/policy/7210s10.pdf�


.2

FINDINGS

Indicator 1: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of teachers in a representative sample reporting that they follow Ministry and College Regulations as well as policies developed by the department and Program Committee when designing their course outlines.

The majority of the teacher respondents reported that they were aware of the Ministry and College regulations pertaining to course outlines (98%) and agreed that they always follow the Ministry and College regulations as well as policies developed by their department and Program Committee when designing their course outlines (92%).

Indicator 2: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of course outlines within a representative sample are complete in terms of the requirements as listed in the IPESA and the College Policy on Course Outlines.

For this indicator, the first step was to establish that the Vanier College Policy on Course Outlines (VCPCO) met Ministry requirements. Therefore, The VCPCO was compared to the Ministry requirements for course outlines1

1) Mid-term statement of progress (IPESA)

to determine if the College policy addressed all of the Ministry requirements. The results (summarized in Appendix C3) show that the College policy addresses all of the Ministry requirements and in addition includes requirements over and above those of the Ministry.

When the appropriate section of the IPESA (2.1.3 Information on Specific courses) was compared to the VCPCO a few inconsistencies were noted. For example, course outline requirement number B.10 in the Course Outline Policy (additional purchases or expenses required of the student, with an estimated cost) is not listed in the IPESA; and the inclusion of a statement regarding the college’s policy on cheating and plagiarism is listed as required in the IPESA but as “recommended” in the course outline Policy.

Having determined that the VCPCO meets Ministry requirements, the second step was to determine if teachers were complying with the VCPCO. A review of 99 course outlines selected randomly from each program from each of the 3 faculties and the two divisions of Continuing Education from the H’08 semester revealed that of the 19 required elements, 16 were present in the majority of course outlines. Three required elements were present in less than half of the course outlines, they were:

2) Estimated cost of textbooks and manuals (IPESA,VCPCO) 3) Detailed estimates of additional purchases or expenses (IPESA,VCPCO)

None of these latter three requirements were Ministry requirements but were College requirements over and above Ministry ones. One requirement i.e. “Mid-term statement of progress was listed in the IPESA but not in the VCPCO, which could explain why many course outlines did not include it.

Estimated costs of textbooks are no longer needed on the course outlines as these are readily available on line on the bookstores web page. Most course outlines sampled had no additional purchases or expenses but of those that did, the items were listed but for most, not the cost. Perhaps this requirement needs to specifically state that estimated costs should be included.

1 Règlement sur le régime des études collégiales, Article 20 (Quebec Government, 2008)


Page 2.3

Due to the large number of various department/ program requirements an analysis of these requirements was not completed.

Indicator 3: Over the last five years, the majority of course outlines were submitted to departments on time (one week before the beginning of classes). In order to validate that all course outlines meet the College requirements, they are checked at the departmental level and higher. Ideally, this should be done before they are distributed to the students i.e. before the beginning of the semester. To determine if this has been happening, teachers were asked when they submit their course outlines to their department coordinator.

All of the teacher respondents reported that they submitted their course outlines to their department coordinator either in the week before the beginning of the semester (62%) or at the latest, during the first week of classes (38%). The majority of the department coordinator respondents (16/22) reported that all teachers submit course outlines to them each semester. The remaining six (out of 22) Department coordinators report that the majority of teachers with the exception of one or two submit their course outlines to them. The timeframe was not specified.

Feedback from a couple of coordinators indicated that to have course outlines submitted one week ahead of time, reviewed, returned and photocopied on time for the beginning of term would be very difficult in their areas. They have used course templates to reduce the number of errors/omissions. They also reported that serious errors happen rarely and (in one case) when they do, the teacher involved is asked to make the necessary changes and submit the revised version to their students early in the term.

Indicator 4: The majority of students sampled reporting that course outlines were given to them on time (during the first week of classes). According to Student Right #2., as listed on page 23 of the IPESA document, each student should receive a course outline for each course during the first week of classes. However, the policy does not identify this as a responsibility. Obviously this is the teacher’s responsibility and this gap should be addressed in future versions of the policy. Nevertheless, in this study, we decided to examine if teachers were fulfilling this responsibility by asking students if they received their course outlines during the first week of classes each semester. The majority of student respondents reported that they received all or most of their course outlines during the first week of classes (99%) and that the course requirements, as described in the course outlines, were clear in all or most of their courses (96%).

CONCLUSION On the basis of the findings of this study, the Steering Committee concluded that teachers at Vanier College, for the most part, are complying with the process of course outline development as required in the IPESA and the VCPCO and hence by the Ministry. The current practices to ensure that this responsibility is met should be continued. However, three of the College requirements were frequently missing in the sample of course outlines reviewed for this study, suggesting that either these elements are no longer required or the teachers are not aware of them.

Recommendation: A Policy Review Committee should review the course outline requirements as listed in the IPESA and Course Outline Policy to ensure their consistency and to ensure that they are still appropriate. Recommendation: All members of the College community affected by the IPESA and the Course Outline Policy should be made aware of the revisions as well as the rationale for each change. Recommendation: The Policy Review Committee should consider an additional teacher responsibility for the IPESA: • To provide their department with a copy of their course outlines before or during the first week of the

semester as feasible. • To provide each of the students in the courses they teach with a course outline within the first week of

the semester.


Page 2.4

2.2 TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY 2: TO CHECK ON THE LEARNING PROCESS OF THE STUDENTS BY GIVING THE LATTER REGULAR FEEDBACK.

The Steering Committee was not clear on the meaning of this responsibility. We took it to mean that the teacher should assess the student’s learning and provide feedback about his/her learning to the student on an ongoing basis throughout the semester.

The process prescribed to ensure compliance with this responsibility involved a review (mainly at the departmental level) of the evaluation schemes as indicated on each course outline each semester to ensure that the schemes are there and that they are appropriate. Any that are missing or inadequate would be discussed with the teacher. There is no formal mechanism to ensure that teachers follow through with these schemes other than the student complaint process.

FINDINGS

Indicator 1: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of students in a representative sample reporting that they have received regular feedback on their progress in each course by means of assignments, quizzes, tests, exams etc. and the proportion of marks for each evaluation task is clearly indicated in the course outline.

Of the 723 students who responded to the survey, 24% reported that all teachers gave them feedback on their standing in their courses by midterm. Forty-three percent reported that most teachers did and 29% that some teachers (29%) did. Of the students who reported receiving feedback by midterm, 73% reported that the feedback was useful.

The majority of students who answered the survey (94%) reported that evaluation methods and the proportion of marks for each assessment task were explained in the course outlines for all courses or most courses. Further evidence corroborates this finding in that all 99 course outlines reviewed in a representative sample from the Winter 2008 semester provided a breakdown of the marks and the specific weighting of each assessment. Finally, 92% of students who answered the survey reported that the evaluations methods as described on the course outlines were followed in all courses or most courses.

Indicator 2: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of teacher respondents reporting that they inform students of their marks for each assignment, test, and exam etc. as each task is completed.

All teacher respondents (87) reported that they inform students of their marks for each task as it is completed. The most commonly reported forms of feedback were: return or review work with feedback and/or mark (80% of teacher respondents); post feedback and/or marks on Omnivox (43%) and post feedback and/or marks on LEA (37%). Both Omnivox and LEA were included in the survey, even though LEA is one component of the Omnivox course management module. It is important to note that some respondents may have indicated both Omnivox and LEA in their response.


Page 2.5

Indicator 3: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of teachers in the regular day programs giving students an indication of their standing in each course by the mid-point of the semester by means of a mid-term assessment report.

Midterm assessments at Vanier are a formal mechanism whereby teachers submit student grades to date. The marks should be submitted by week 7 of the 15 week semester so that by week 8 students have an indication of their standing. Teachers are also asked to indicate whether each student is passing, failing or at risk of failing at this point in the semester. This information is submitted online so that both students and the Registrar’s Office have access to it. Student Services then attempts to contact all students who are flagged as failing or at risk of failing three or more courses to inform them of the academic services resources available to them.

Available records for the Fall semesters from 2003 to 2007 plus the Winter 2008 semester were examined to determine the proportion of teachers in the regular day programs who completed mid-term assessment reports for their students and submitted them to the Registrar. The results are shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Midterm Assessment Teacher Submission Rates

Source: In-house Registrar records extracted 2008-04

Excluding A’04, over the remaining five semesters examined, on average, 81% of eligible teacher submitted midterm assessments. The A’04 results were not reflective of typical practices as a work-to-rule was in progress and some activities, such as the submission of midterm assessments to the Registrar were boycotted. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many teachers are not aware of the fact that Student Services follows up with the students identified as failing or at risk of failing. Since they post all of their grades online on an ongoing basis, some did not feel a need to perform this additional task.

A03 A04 A05 A06 A07 H08

Teacher Rate of Submission for Mid-term Assessments

(%)88% 8% 83% 79% 79% 78%

Total Number of Eligible Teachers 383 403 387 388 393 382

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Page 2.6

Indicator 4: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by teachers reporting an appropriate proportion of the evaluation that is already known by midterm.

The majority of teachers who answered the survey, 60/86 or 70%, reported that approximately 26-50% of the student’s evaluation was given to them by midterm.

CONCLUSION

The Steering Committee concluded that teachers at Vanier College, for the most part, are complying appropriately with their responsibility to assess the student’s learning and provide feedback about his/her learning to the student on an ongoing basis throughout the semester. However, there are a few areas that require improvement, leading to the following recommendations:

Recommendation: A Policy Review Committee should consider the addition to the IPESA of the teacher responsibility to report the Midterm Assessment for each of their students in a timely fashion.


Page 2.7

2.3 TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY 3: TO BE AVAILABLE TO STUDENTS OUTSIDE OF CLASS AND TO POST THEIR OFFICE HOURS CLEARLY.

Mechanisms to ensure that teachers are available to students outside of class are informal and include the student complaint system, as well as the occasions when administrators, for example, faculty deans need to reach a specific teacher for a specific reason. Posting of office hours is ensured in that this information is required on the course outlines, which are reviewed on a regular basis.

FINDINGS

Indicator 1: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of student respondents reporting that, in general, teachers made them aware of their availability for answering their questions, whether inside or outside the classroom/lab/stage setting in an appropriate manner.

The majority of students who answered the survey (90%) reported that all or most of their teachers posted their office hours appropriately, for example, on the course outline, their office door, online etc.

Indicator 2: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of student respondents reporting that, in general, teachers made themselves available to answer their questions, whether inside or outside the classroom/lab/stage setting.

Most student respondents also reported that all or most of their teachers were in their office during their office hours (71%) and that all or most made themselves available to students to answer question whether by email, phone, after class etc. (86%).

Eighteen percent of respondents reported experiencing difficulty contacting a teacher outside of the formal teaching environment (class/lab/stage) to discuss course work. Of those who reported some difficulty, Table 2.1 presents the situations described.

Table 2.1: Student Descriptions of Situations Where they had Difficulty Contacting a Teacher Outside of Formal Teaching Environment to Discuss Course Work.

Category Number of Responses in

Each Category

Percent of Total Number of

Respondents (n=723)

No reply from teacher to student email or phone messages 51 7% Teacher not in office during office hours 27 4% Office hours inadequate in length or frequency 15 2% Teacher’s responses are too late 11 2% Office hours not made known to students 8 1% Teacher not available 3 <1% Miscellaneous 5 1%

Source: Student Survey, conducted 2008-


Page 2.8

Indicator 3: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of teachers who answered the survey reporting that they make themselves available to students beyond the classroom and that teacher availability is consistently addressed in a representative sample of course outlines.

All of the teacher respondents reported using at least one means to make themselves accessible to students outside of the class/lab/stage. The most commonly reported methods were: checking email regularly (95%); posting and keeping office hours (91%); being available immediately before or after class (86%); and being available in the College either by appointment or on a drop-in basis (86%). Analysis of a representative sample of 5% of the course outlines from each program offered in the Fall 2007 semester (n=99) revealed that 79% indicated the time and location of teacher availability to students outside of class/lab/stage.

It is interesting to note that despite all of these efforts on the part of the teachers, 18% of the student respondents still reported difficulty reaching teachers. Either the teachers who responded to the survey are not representative of the rest of the teachers in the College in this respect or, perhaps, student and teacher expectations are not the same. Anecdotal evidence from teachers suggests that student requests for assistance by email are often becoming too frequent for teachers to handle and that some students are expecting responses at inappropriate times, for example, during weekends and evenings.

CONCLUSION

The evidence suggests that the majority of teachers are making their students aware of their availability for assistance outside of the classroom as they should and that most are following through appropriately. However, the fact that 18% of student respondents in this study reported difficulty reaching teachers needs to be addressed.

Recommendation: An Ad Hoc committee, including teachers and students in its membership, should be set up to examine the issue of teacher availability to students outside of class and develop guidelines and policies, particularly with regards to the timing and frequency of assistance that students can reasonably expect and measures that teachers can take to ensure reasonable access including: using the College systems to send/receive email, monitoring message systems such as email, voicemail, Omnivox/MIO and mailboxes on a regular basis .


Page 2.9

2.4 TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY 4: TO TEACH DURING THE DESIGNATED CLASS ROOM PERIOD: TO ARRIVE ON TIME, TO CONDUCT CLASS FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD, AND TO ALLOW AN APPROPRIATE BREAK AT THE END OF THE PERIOD SO THAT EVERYONE CAN GET FROM CLASS TO CLASS ON TIME.

There is no formal mechanism to ensure that teachers meet this responsibility. The only means available is via student complaints to the faculty dean. In previous years, students could also make their complaints to the Student Ombudsman but this position was discontinued in the Fall of 2006.

FINDINGS

Indicator 1: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of student respondents reporting that, in general, their teachers arrive on time, conduct classes for the entire period and allow an appropriate break at the end of the period so that everyone can get from class to class on time.

The majority of student respondents (84%) indicated that all or most of their teachers arrive on time for their classes, conduct their classes for at least 50 minutes of each hour or scheduled class time (92%) and provide sufficient time between classes to enable students to get from classroom to classroom on time (76%).

Anecdotal evidence from teachers suggests that some teachers do teach longer that the required 50 minutes per hour. This can make it difficult for students to get to their next class, particularly if it requires travel to a different building or changing for a gym class. Perhaps teachers need reminding of this on an annual basis.

CONCLUSION

Again, for the most part, teachers are meeting this responsibility appropriately. The Steering Committee has one recommendation in this area:

Recommendation: The Academic Dean’s office should remind teachers on a regular basis of the importance of allowing an appropriate break between classes so that everyone can get from class to class on time.


Page 2.10

2.5 TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY 5: TO ASSESS STUDENTS BY USING APPROPRIATE FORMATIVE/SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENTS.

Compliance with this responsibility is monitored mostly at the departmental level when summative evaluation schemes, as presented in the course outlines, are reviewed. As with previous responsibilities, any inadequacies are usually discussed with the teacher. There are currently no mechanisms in place to ensure appropriate formative assessment practices, other than student complaints.

FINDINGS

Indicator 1: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by an analysis of a representative sample of course outlines revealing appropriate types of summative and formative assessments.

A review of a representative sample of course outlines (n=99) revealed a plethora of appropriate means of summative assessment including exams, tests, essays, assignments etc. None of the course outlines reviewed mentioned formative assessments explicitly.

Indicator 2: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of teachers who answered the survey reporting that they use appropriate forms of formative assessment.

Although, as mentioned previously, none of the course outlines reviewed mentioned formative assessment, the majority of teachers who answered the survey (95%) reported providing some form of feedback with each summative assessment task. The most frequently used form of feedback being written feedback on quizzes, essays, journals and other types of assignments (34/93 or 37%). Verbal or oral feedback came a close second (30/93 or 32%). The latter feedback often took the form of reviewing exams, assignments etc. in class and sometimes took the form of one-to-one interviews. Several teachers reported giving feedback on assignments, exams etc. but did not specify how this was done (15/93 or 16%). Eight teachers (8.6% of responses) reported making marks available on an ongoing basis and five or 5% reported giving feedback and then permitting rewrites.

CONCLUSION

It is the opinion of the Steering Committee that the currents systems in place to ensure students are assessed using appropriate formative/summative assessments are adequate.


Page 2.11

2.6 TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY 6: TO COLLABORATE WITH OTHER TEACHERS WHEN THEY ARE TEACHING THE SAME COURSE IN DIFFERENT SECTIONS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY AND RELIABILITY.

At Vanier College, teachers are made aware of the importance of equity of workload and assessments. Indicators are available to departments via course outlines as well as the course pass rates by section, which are distributed each semester.

FINDINGS

Indicator 1: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of teachers sampled reporting that when different sections of the same course were taught by different teachers they collaborated with the other teachers to maintain consistency and reliability in terms of the work required, test difficulty and marking criteria.

Of the teachers who responded to the survey, 69 reported that the situation of teaching different sections of the same course with other teachers applied to them. Of these 69 teachers, 60% reported collaborating with the other teachers teaching the same course to maintain similarities in student workload and type of work required and 48% reported collaborating to maintain similarities in test difficulty and marking criteria.

Indicator 2: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by an acceptable level of similarity between the course pass rates of different sections of the same course taught by different teachers in the same semester.

A random sample of 5% of all courses offered in H’07 where different sections of the same course were taught by different teachers was reviewed to determine variations in course pass rates for different sections of the same course. Courses in the Continuing Education Day division were not included in this part of the study because they did not have more than one section of the same course taught by a different teacher in the H’07 semester, a situation typical in the day division of Continuing Education.

The standard deviations (SD) in average course pass rates for different sections of the same course taught by different teachers were calculated for each of the courses in the random sample. SD is a measure of variation about the mean with, in this case, the greater the SD indicating greater variation between the course pass rates of different sections of the same course. These standard deviations were then averaged for each faculty and the evening division of Continuing Education. The results are shown in Table 2.2 below.


Page 2.12

Table 2.2: Average Variation (Standard Deviation) in Course Pass Rates between Different Sections of the Same Course Taught by Different Teachers by Faculty/CE Division (Random Sample of Courses from H’07)

FACULTY NUMBER OF SECTIONS

STANDARD DEVIATION (SD):

AVERAGE

STANDARD DEVIATION (SD):

RANGE Continuing Education Evening Division

6 10.2 5.04 – 18.85

Faculty of Applied Technology

17 8.80 0 – 30.45

Faculty of Science and General Studies

234 8.63 1.94 – 20.23

Faculty of Social Science Commerce Arts and Letters

143 9.89 0 - 21.54

In-house Rendement Scolaire data for H’07

It should be noted, however, that this measure of course pass rate variation is somewhat flawed in that there is no means in the calculations to compensate for the variation in the number of sections per course. So that for courses where there were a relatively large number of sections (for example in the English and French disciplines), SDs were quite often higher. Therefore, ranges were included in the results to give a somewhat more realistic view. However, it should be noted that in some cases, even when the number of sections was relatively high, the SD was low and sometimes even close to 0. Obviously, teachers were collaborating very closely in those courses.

CONCLUSION

Although some teachers are performing this responsibility remarkably well, this is not the case for all. Obviously there is room for improvement with this responsibility, particularly in the area of test difficulty and marking criteria. It is well recognized that collaboration with other teachers in designing a course and ensuring similarity of assessment criteria can be a very time consuming task especially when teachers vary quite markedly in their views. It is also recognized that a certain level of teacher autonomy must be respected. However, the importance of providing students with an equitable learning experience, no matter which section of a course they are in, is an important one. Ongoing work at the department level, with support from Administration is required to ensure progress in this area. Perhaps teachers who are doing this well can be encouraged to share their best practices with others.

Recommendation: The College Professional Development Committee should invite teachers with expertise in ensuring equity between different sections of the same course taught by different teacher to offer workshops for other teachers in order to share their “best practices” in this area.


Page 2.13

2.7 TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY 7: TO PROVIDE STUDENTS WITH WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS FOR MAJOR ASSIGNMENTS.

There are no formal processes to ensure that teachers assume this responsibility other than the appropriate mentoring of teachers new to the College and the student complaint process.

FINDINGS

Indicator 1: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of students from a representative sample reporting that written instructions for all major assignments were provided and were clear.

Eighty-eight percent of student respondents indicated that written instructions for all major assignments were clear in all courses (33%) or most courses (55%).

Indicator 2: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of teachers from a representative sample reporting that they consistently provide their students with clear, written instructions for all major assignments.

All of the teacher respondents reported that they provided their students with clear instructions for all major assignments with 93% reporting that they always do this and 7% reporting that they did this most of the time.

CONCLUSION

Although the numbers are similar, slightly more of the teacher respondents reported that they give clear written instructions for all major assignments as compared to their students. It is possible that, even though instructions appear to be clear to teachers, this may not be the case for all of their students. Given the wide range in our students’ mastery of the English language, it may be wise for teachers to continuously seek feedback from their students with regards to the clarity of their written instructions.


Page 2.14

2.8 TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY 8: TO DEFINE AND COMMUNICATE TO STUDENTS THE MARKING CRITERIA OF EACH TASK IN ORDER TO ENSURE RELIABILITY, VALIDITY AND JUSTICE.

There is no formal mechanism to ensure that teachers comply with this responsibility other than the student complaint process.

FINDINGS

Indicator 1: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of students from a representative sample reporting that the marking criteria (for instance, number of marks awarded for method, accuracy etc.) for assignments, quizzes, tests and exams were clear.

Eighty-three percent of the student respondents reported that it was clear how their assignments, quizzes, tests etc were graded in all courses (35%) or most courses (48%).

Indicator 2: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of teachers from a representative sample reporting that they provide a clear description of the marking criteria (for instance, number of marks awarded for method, accuracy etc.) for assignments, quizzes, tests and exams.

Ninety-eight percent of teachers reported that they provide their students with a clear description of the marking criteria for each assignment, quiz, test etc. always (74%) or most of the time (24%).

CONCLUSION

As with written instructions on assignments, clarity of the marking criteria seems to be slightly clearer to the teachers than the students in this study. This suggests again, that perhaps teachers need to seek feedback from their students regarding their understanding of the marking criteria.


Page 2.15

2.9 TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY 9: TO MARK THEIR ASSESSMENT TASKS IN A FAIR AND JUST WAY TO ENSURE THAT THE STUDENTS WHO PASS A COURSE HAVE REALLY ACHIEVED THE STANDARDS DEFINED BY THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT, FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES OF THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION.

To ensure that this responsibility is met, anecdotal evidence suggests that most departments work with teachers new to the College or a course to ensure that they are familiar with the course competencies as described by the Ministry. Furthermore, when students do not feel that their teacher met this responsibility they can request a Mark Update and Grades Review if necessary.

FINDINGS

Indicator 1: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of students from a representative sample reporting that evaluation methods (assignments, quizzes, tests and exams etc.) were appropriate for determining if the students had achieved the course competencies (skills and knowledge) defined by the appropriate department, following the guidelines of the Minister of Education.

When student respondents were questioned about evaluation methods being related to course competencies, 83% reported that they were in all courses or most courses.

Indicator 2: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of teachers from a representative sample reporting that evaluation methods used (assignments, quizzes, tests and exams etc.) were appropriate for determining if the students had achieved the course competencies (skills and knowledge) defined by the appropriate department, following the guidelines of the Minister of Education.

When the teachers were presented with the same question as the students, all of the respondents reported that they were related always (78%) or most of the time (22%).

CONCLUSION

Again, there is a slight discrepancy between the student respondents views of the appropriateness of their evaluation methods compared to the views of the teacher respondents, with the teachers having a slightly more positive opinion. Overall though, and based on the evidence, it appears that teachers are meeting this responsibility adequately and that appropriate checks, in the form of Mark Update requests and Grades Reviews, are in place.


Page 2.16

2.10 TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY 10: TO SUBMIT FINAL GRADES ON OR BEFORE THE PRESCRIBED SUBMISSION DEADLINE.

The processes used to ensure appropriate exercise of this responsibility include reminding teachers each semester of the upcoming grades submission deadline along with the importance of submitting grades on time; stringent follow-up by the Registrar’s Office on the deadline day in an attempt to ensure that any teachers who have not yet submitted grades do so before the end of the day; notification of faculty deans of teachers who still fail to submit their grades on time, usually accompanied by follow-up from the faculty dean with the teacher directly.

FINDINGS

Indicator 1: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by Registrar records indicating that over the last five years, the majority of final grades were submitted on or before the prescribed submission deadline.

For this specific part of the study, Registrar records for seven semesters (A’04-A07) were examined to determine the percent of sections where the final grades were submitted on or before the deadline. The results are shown in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3: Percent of Sections where Final Grade Submitted on or Before Deadline.

Semester Number Sections Submitted on or Before Deadline

Total Number Sections

Percent of Sections Submitted on or Before Deadline

A04 1199 1214 99% H05 1188 1213 98% A05 1271 1297 98% H06 1180 1200 98% A06 1284 1310 98% H07 1148 1188 97% A07 1315 1342 98%

Source: In-house Registrar data extracted 2008-03

CONCLUSION

It is the opinion of the Steering Committee that the rate of grades submissions on or before the deadline is adequate. Although the Steering Committee felt that a 100% submission rate should be attainable, it was their opinion that the mechanisms in place to ensure that teachers meet this responsibility were appropriate.


Page 2.17

2.11 TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY 11: TO RESPOND TO MARK UPDATE REQUESTS IN A TIMELY MANNER AND TO COOPERATE WITH THE GRADES REVIEW COMMITTEE.

The processes used to ensure appropriate exercise of this responsibility are as follows. Students can make a Marks Update request by submitting the appropriate and completed form to the Registrar’s Office within 15 working days of the receipt of their transcript. A copy of the form is then sent to the teacher via internal mail and the teacher has 10 working days to respond to the request. If a student does not receive a reply within 10 working days, a notice is sent to the appropriate faculty dean or CE coordinator for follow up with the teacher.

FINDINGS

Indicator 1: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by Registrar records indicating that over the last five years, teachers responded to the majority of mark update requests within the required 10 working days.

Registrar records from the Fall 2003 to Winter 2007 semesters were examined to determine the proportion of Mark Update requests responded to by teachers on or before the deadline. Each semester all of the Mark Update requests were answered. Figure 2.2 shows the percent that were answered within the deadline of 10 working days from receipt of the request.

Figure 2.2: Percent of Requests Responded to on or Before the Deadline.

Source: In-house Registrar data extracted 2008-03

On average, 72% of the requests were responded to within the required 10 working day deadline. It should be noted, however, that transcripts are available online immediately after the grades submission deadline and a hard copy is also mailed to students at the end of the semester. Therefore, if the student waits for a hard copy of the transcript before making the Mark Update request to the Registrar, the request may arrive in the teacher’s internal mailbox after their period of availability for the semester is over, i.e. during the summer or Christmas vacation period.

Only nine of the teachers who answered the survey reported having any difficulty responding to Mark Update requests within the required 10 working days. Of the nine who reported difficulties, five

A03 H03 A04 H04 A05 H05 A06 H06 A07 H07

Response Rate Within 10 Working Days 74% 61% 79% 58% 74% 61% 64% 65% 61% 57%

No. Marks Update Requests 134 136 125 161 99 115 94 100 114 129

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Page 2.18

indicated that they were due to not being on availability to the College when the Update Request arrived.

Indicator 2: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of teacher respondents reporting that they keep all assessment tasks that count as part of the final grade on file for grades review purposes.

For Grades review purposes, among others, 95% of the teacher respondents reported keeping all final exams or assignments which count as part of the final grade on file for at least two semesters.

Indicator 3: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by all faculty deans reporting that they receive few if any complaints about teachers failing to cooperate with the Grades Review Process during the time that they have been in the role of faculty dean.

At the time of writing this report, two faculty deans had been in their positions for 4 years and one for 2 years. Only one faculty dean reported one problem with a teacher in 4 years.

CONCLUSION

Although the majority of teachers are responding to Mark Update Requests within the required10 working day deadline, perhaps a clearer definition of the term “working day” is required in the IPESA to clarify that these do not include days when teachers are not on availability. This could be worded in the same manner as in the Mark Update Policy.

Recommendation: The Policy Review Committee should consider revising the IPESA to include a definition of the term “working days” that is congruent with the terminology used in the Marks Update Policy.


Page 2.19

2.12 TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY 12: WHEN THE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT IS PART OF THE TEACHER'S COURSE, TO COOPERATE IN PREPARING THE WORKING OR TESTING ACTIVITIES THAT WILL BE USED FOR THE ASSESSMENT.

There is no formal mechanism to ensure that teachers are meeting this responsibility.

FINDINGS

Indicator 1: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of teachers from a representative sample reporting that they participated in preparing the working or testing activities used for the comprehensive assessment when the comprehensive assessment (Epreuve Synthese) was part of their course.

Eight-one percent of the 41 teachers who responded to this item on the survey indicated that when they taught courses in which the comprehensive assessment was part of the course, they participated in preparing the working or testing activities used for the CA always (71%) or most of the time (10%).

CONCLUSION

Evidence from this study suggests that the majority of teachers are meeting this responsibility adequately and no changes are required.


Page 2.20

2.13 TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY 13: WHEN THE COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT IS PART OF THE TEACHER'S COURSE, TO MARK COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBJECTIVES AND STANDARDS OF THE PROGRAM.

As with other assessment activities, compliance with this responsibility is monitored mostly at the departmental level when objectives and evaluation schemes, as presented in the course outlines, are reviewed. Any inadequacies are usually discussed with the teacher.

FINDINGS

Indicator 1: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of teachers from a representative sample reporting that when the comprehensive assessment (Epreuve Synthese) was part of their course they marked the comprehensive assessment activities in accordance with the objectives and standards of the program.

Again, 41 teachers responded to this question on the teacher survey and 93% of them reported that they marked the CA based on the objectives and standards of the program always (83%) or most of the time (10%).

CONCLUSION

Again, evidence from this study suggests that the majority of teachers are meeting this responsibility adequately and no changes are required.


Page 2.21

2.14 TEACHER RESPONSIBILITY 14: TO KEEP UP WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS INVOLVED IN TEACHING AND IN HIS/HER TEACHING DISCIPLINE.

The processes used to ensure appropriate exercise of this responsibility are as follows. The College attempts to provide all teachers with access to the most up-to-date information in their field via its library, with the provision of many current journals in hard copy and more recently online. The College offers numerous workshops and pedagogical days on a variety of topics aimed at improving teaching skills. Teachers are encouraged to enrol in the Master Teacher Program offered through the University of Sherbrooke via advertising and the offer to rearrange teaching schedules as much as possible to accommodate teachers’ course work. The College and teachers union also offer professional development funds to assist with the costs of conferences. Finally, the College makes it possible for teachers to take sabbatical leaves. These sabbaticals can be used to increase knowledge and skills related to teaching.

FINDINGS

Indicator 1: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of teachers from a representative sample reporting that they keep up-to-date with the most recent developments in the field of teaching and learning and the most recent developments in the discipline in which they are teaching.

Teachers who answered the survey reported a variety of methods used to keep up-to-date with recent developments in the field of teaching and learning. The most commonly reported methods were: independent study e.g. reading journals etc. (89%); pedagogical days at the College (82%); and conferences or workshops outside of the College (63%). Similar methods were used for keeping current in the discipline in which they are teaching: independent study for example, reading journals etc. (94%) and conferences or workshops outside of the College (69%).

Indicator 2: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by the majority of students who answered the survey indicating that their teachers are knowledgeable about recent developments in the domain in which they teach.

The preparation mentioned in the previous section was noticed by the students in that 90% of the student respondents reported that all or most of their teachers were knowledgeable about recent developments in the domain in which they teach.

Indicator 3: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by an acceptable number of pedagogical days offered by the College over the last five years and an acceptable faculty participation rate each year.

Over the last five years, the College has offered one pedagogical day per year with numerous workshops covering a variety of topics relevant to recent developments in the field of teaching and learning. Participation rates are difficult to assess because not everyone registers for the workshops. However, it should be noted, as mentioned previously, when questioned about methods used to remain current in the field of teaching and learning, 82% of the teachers who answered the survey reported using the College pedagogical days for this purpose.


Page 2.22

Indicator 4: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by an acceptable number of group activities and workshops for the purpose of the professional development of teachers and an acceptable faculty participation rate each year.

Each year the College supports professional development activities for teachers and initiated by teachers in the form of group support grants and funding for specific workshops. These are characteristically used by academic departments and special interest groups to focus on pedagogical development issues of particular interest to the group.

In 2006-2007 11 Group Support activities were held and six workshops. In 2007-2008 the numbers offered were eight and seven respectively. These activities are always well attended.

In addition, at least 12 and up to 19 courses have been offered as part of the Master Teacher Program each semester. This program is offered to CEGEP teachers via the University of Sherbrooke.

Indicator 5: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by an acceptable number of professional development grants for teachers to attend conferences over the last five years.

Unfortunately, data to address this responsibility were not available. Although on average, 209 teachers received professional development funds each year between 05/06 and 07/08, some of the requests were to fund activities other than attending conferences.

Indicator 6: Responsibility fulfilled as evidenced by an acceptable number of teachers enrolled in courses in the Master Teacher Program over the last five years.

The numbers of teachers from Vanier College enrolled in the Master Teacher Program offered by the University of Sherbrooke are shown in the table below. Two of them graduated at the end of the 2007-2008 academic year as part of the first program cohort. Three more are in the process of writing their final essay.

Table 2.4: Number of Teachers from Vanier College Enrolled in the Master Teacher Program each Year from 2003-2004 to 2007-2008.

Year Number of Teachers from Vanier Enrolled

2003-2004 24

2004-2005 48

2005-2006 47

2007-2008 50

Source: Records from Academic Dean’s Office


Page 2.23

Conclusion

The findings of this portion of the study suggest that most teachers are attempting to keep up with the knowledge and skills involved in teaching and in his/her teaching discipline to some degree. The Steering Committee felt that the processes in place to encourage this activity are adequate but would like to see more course offerings for teachers who do not necessarily want to obtain a Master’s degree in teaching but who would like to take some courses on specific pedagogical topics.

Recommendation: The College should explore with the University of Sherbrooke the possibility of offering some of the courses that form part of the Master Teacher Program to teachers who are not enrolled in the program, for example, the course on classroom management or developing courses specifically for teachers who do not wish to enrol in the full program.


Page 2.24

2.15 CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter presents the evidence to support teacher compliance with their responsibilities as described in the Vanier College IPESA. The policy ascribes fourteen responsibilities to teachers.

1. To develop the course outlines for the courses they give. The course outlines must be consistent with the ministerial and department/program requirements and objectives.

2. To check on the learning process of the students by giving the latter regular feedback. 3. To be available to students outside of class and to post their office hours clearly. 4. Teach during the designated class room period: arrive on time, conduct class for the entire

period, and allow an appropriate break at the end of the period so that everyone can get from class to class on time.

5. To assess students by using appropriate formative/summative assessments 6. To collaborate with other teachers when they are teaching the same course in different sections

in order to maintain consistency and reliability. 7. To provide students with written instructions for major assignments 8. To define and communicate to students the marking criteria of each task in order to ensure

reliability, validity and justice. 9. To mark their assessment tasks in a fair and just way to ensure that the students who pass a

course have really achieved the standards defined by the appropriate department, following the guidelines of the Minister of Education.

10. To submit final grades on or before the prescribed submission deadline. 11. To respond to Mark Update requests in a timely manner and cooperate with the Grades Review

Committee. 12. When the comprehensive assessment is part of the teacher's course, cooperate in preparing

the working or testing activities that will be used for the assessment. 13. When the comprehensive assessment is part of the teacher's course, mark comprehensive

assessment activities in accordance with the objectives and standards of the program. 14. To keep up with the knowledge and skills involved in teaching and in his/her teaching discipline.

The findings suggest that the majority of teachers were exercising their responsibilities in accordance with policy requirements.

Evidence collected in this study suggests that teachers at Vanier College, for the most part, are complying appropriately with their responsibilities. However, a few responsibilities were noted that require some modification. These are presented here.

The findings of this study show that, by far, the majority of teachers are developing course outlines and distributing them to their students and Department coordinators appropriately. However, an examination of a random sample of course outlines revealed that some College required elements were often not mentioned. It is possible that some of these requirements are no longer essential, for example, “Estimated cost of textbooks and manuals”, these are posted on the bookstore page of the College website. Therefore, what is required now is a review and possible update of the course outline requirements as listed in the IPESA and the course outline Policy. The system of checking to ensure course outlines contain the required elements appears adequate.

Responsibility 1: To develop the course outlines for the courses they give. The course outlines must be consistent with the ministerial and department/program requirements and objectives.


Page 2.25

Responsibility 2: To check on the learning process of the students by giving the latter regular feedback.

Again, the findings of this study show that, by far, the majority of teachers are fulfilling this responsibility by providing their students with regular feedback on their standing in their courses throughout the semester. The only area that the Steering Committee felt required some attention was in the reporting of Midterm Assessments. As this is such a vital service to students found to be “at risk” it seems crucial that all teachers provide this information rather than approximately 80% as indicated in this study.

Anecdotal information suggests that some teachers are not aware of the purpose of this practice, and because they are posting marks regularly do not feel the need to post the Midterm Assessment status. There seems to be a need to clarify the purpose of this activity with the teachers.

Responsibility 4: To teach during the designated class room period: arrive on time, conduct class for the entire period, and allow an appropriate break at the end of the period so that everyone can get from class to class on time.

Responsibility 3: To be available to students outside of class and to post their office hours clearly.

The results of this study suggest that the majority of teachers are appropriately available to their students outside of the scheduled teaching period and that they use a variety of mechanisms to make their availability known. However, a significant number of students in this study, 130 out of the 723 students who responded to the survey, or 18%, reported experiencing difficulty contacting a teacher outside of the scheduled teaching period. This suggests that either some students’ expectations are too high, some teachers are not as accessible as they should be or a combination of the two.

With the introduction of email, students can ask questions of their teacher 24/7 but the teacher’s working schedule and periods of availability still need to be respected. On the other hand, students should be able to receive a response in a reasonable period of time. It would seem then that some guidelines and policies are required to address the issue of what can reasonably be expected of teachers by their students and when.

For the most part, teachers are meeting this responsibility appropriately. Anecdotal evidence from teachers suggests that some teachers do teach longer that the recommended 50 minutes per hour. This can make it difficult for students to get to their next class, particularly if it requires travel to a different building or changing for a gym class. Perhaps teachers need reminding of this occasionally.

Responsibility 5: To assess students by using appropriate formative/summative assessments

It is the opinion of the Steering Committee that the currents systems in place to ensure students are assessed using appropriate formative/summative assessments are adequate.

Responsibility 6: To collaborate with other teachers when they are teaching the same course in different sections in order to maintain consistency and reliability.

It should be remembered here, that for many segments of the college, the situation of more than one teacher teaching different sections of the same course does not exist. In areas where it does,


Page 2.26

the results of this study demonstrated that although some teachers are obviously collaborating and performing this responsibility remarkably well, this is not the case for all. There was a wide variation in the results. Obviously there is room for improvement with this responsibility, particularly in the area of test difficulty and marking criteria.

It is well recognized that collaboration with other teachers in designing a course and ensuring similarity of assessment criteria can be a very time consuming task especially when teachers vary quite markedly in their views. It is also recognized that a certain level of teacher autonomy must be respected. However, the importance of providing students with an equitable learning experience, no matter which section of a course they are in, is an important one. Ongoing work especially at the department level, with support from Administration is required to ensure progress in this area. Perhaps teachers who are doing this well can be encouraged to share their best practices with others.

Responsibility 7: To provide students with written instructions for major assignments.

Although the numbers are similar, slightly more of the teacher respondents reported that they give clear written instructions for all major assignments as compared to their students. It is possible that, even though instructions appear to be clear to teachers, this may not be the case for all of their students. Given the wide range in our students’ mastery of the English language, it may be wise for teachers to continuously seek feedback from their students with regards to the clarity of their written instructions.

Responsibility 8: To define and communicate to students the marking criteria of each task in order to ensure reliability, validity and justice.

As with written instructions on assignments, clarity of the marking criteria seems to be slightly clearer to the teachers than the students in this study. This suggests again, that perhaps teachers need to seek feedback from their students regarding their understanding of the marking criteria.

Responsibility 9: To mark their assessment tasks in a fair and just way to ensure that the students who pass a course have really achieved the standards defined by the appropriate department, following the guidelines of the Minister of Education.

Again, there is a slight discrepancy between the student respondents views of the appropriateness of their evaluation methods compared to the views of the teacher respondents, with the teachers having a slightly more positive opinion. Overall though, and based on the evidence, it appears that teachers are meeting this responsibility adequately and that appropriate checks, in the form of Mark Update requests and Grades Reviews, are in place.

Responsibility 10: To submit final grades on or before the prescribed submission deadline.

It is the opinion of the Steering Committee that the rate of grades submissions on or before the deadline is adequate. Although the Steering Committee felt that a 100% submission rate should be attainable, it was their opinion that the mechanisms in place to ensure that teachers meet this responsibility were appropriate.


Page 2.27

Responsibility 11: To respond to Mark Update requests in a timely manner and cooperate with the Grades Review Committee.

Although the majority of teachers are responding to mark update requests within the required10 working day deadline, perhaps a clearer definition of the term “working day” is required in the IPESA to clarify that these do not include days when teachers are not on availability. This could be worded in the same manner as in the Mark Update Policy.

Responsibility 12: When the comprehensive assessment is part of the teacher's course, cooperate in preparing the working or testing activities that will be used for the assessment.

Evidence from this study suggests that the majority of teachers are meeting this responsibility adequately and no changes are required.

Responsibility 13: When the comprehensive assessment is part of the teacher's course, mark comprehensive assessment activities in accordance with the objectives and standards of the program.

Again, evidence from this study suggests that the majority of teachers are meeting this responsibility adequately and no changes are required.

Responsibility 14: To keep up with the knowledge and skills involved in teaching and in his/her teaching discipline.

The findings of this portion of the study suggest that most teachers are attempting to keep up with the knowledge and skills involved in teaching and in his/her teaching discipline to some degree. The Steering Committee felt that the processes in place to encourage this activity are adequate but would like to see more course offerings for teachers who do not necessarily want to obtain a Master’s degree in teaching but who would like to take some courses on specific pedagogical topics.


Page 2.28

2.16 CHAPTER RECOMMENDATIONS

The Steering Committee made the following recommendations as a result of the information presented in this chapter of the report:

1. A Policy Review Committee should be struck to review the IPESA and policies subsumed under it to improved clarity of the IPESA as well as its consistency with the policies subsumed under it. Particular attention should be given to the sections of the IPESA addressing course outline requirements and their consistency with the course outline Policy. Once revised, all members of the community impacted by the policies should be made aware of the revisions and the rationale for the change.

2. An IPESA Review Committee should:

• Consider the addition of three teacher responsibilities to the IPESA i.e. • To provide their department with a copy of their course outlines before or during the

first week of the semester as feasible • To provide each student in their courses with a course outline within the first week of

the semester • To report the midterm assessment for each of their students in a timely fashion

• Consider revising the IPESA to include a definition of the term “working days” that is congruent with the terminology used in the Marks Update Policy.

3. An ad hoc committee, including teachers and students in its membership, should be set up to examine the issue of teacher availability to students outside of class and develop guidelines and policies, particularly with regards to the timing and frequency of assistance that students can reasonably expect and measures that teachers can take to ensure reasonable access including: using the college systems to send/receive email, monitoring message systems such as email, voicemail, Omnivox/MIO and mailboxes on a regular basis .

4. The Academic Dean’s office should remind teachers on a regular basis of the importance of allowing an appropriate break between classes so that everyone can get from class to class on time.

5. The College Professional Development Committee should invite teachers with expertise in ensuring equity between different sections of the same course taught by different teacher to offer workshops for other teachers in order to share their “best practices” in this area.

6. The College should explore with the University of Sherbrooke the possibility of offering some of the courses that form part of the Master Teacher Program to teachers who are not enrolled in the program, for example, the course on classroom management or developing courses specifically for teachers who do not wish to enrol in the full program.

chapter two: teacher responsibilities - vanier … · chapter two: teacher responsibilities page...

Documents